On another thread it has been stated that Dorian Greenbaum's suggestion that there was a variety of methods of temperament analysis is effectively refuted by Luis Ribeiro's article on temperament in The Tradition.

Greenbaum writes that "there is no one universally agreed-upon technique for determining temperament," with "7 techniques ... in or out of fashion." But Ribeiro notes in his paper, "The method is coherent throughout all authors regarding its theory and significators. There is only one method; the differences appear only in the collection of testimonies ... This is the lead the modern practitioner of the Traditon must follow to obtain reliable results."

I think both both Ribeiro and Greenbaum have a point. These do not have to be seen as diametrically opposed positions.

Firstly, you need to remember Greenbaum is reviewing the topic from the time of Ptolemy right up the 20th century. Ribeiro's sources are mostly restricted to the later medieval period and early modern ie 16th and 17th century. Its a lot easier to represent the topic as coherent when your historical time frame is more limited.

Ribeiro does an excellent job of reviewing various approaches but it is clear there are differences in technique. I suggest before we all dive in to align ourselves with the Ribeiro, Frawley or Greenbaum system we start to reflect more deeply on the practical issues that remain controversial in temperament analysis. As I see it we are still left with many searching questions to resolve for ourselves before we pick up a pen to score a chart. Here are some of the issues I think we need to consider first:

1 Planetary qualities/phases. Do we consider the planets (excluding luminaries) fundamentally through their essential nature tempered by phase or primarily through their phase? Ribeiro makes the fascinating observation that while Lilly mentions the nature of the planets in their phase on page 533 of CA in reality he seems to work with their essential nature in temperament analysis. He suggests in practice, most other authors do the same ie (Junctinus, Coley and Gadbury). A noteable exception is Garcaeus who gives priority to planetary phase. Its interesting modern writers like Frawley and Greenbaum have followed this approach. Should we though? That is assuming we can agree on what the essential nature of the planets are? For example, Venus is quite contentious. Ptolemy tells us its essential nature is warm and moist while the later Arab and medieval astrologers see it as cold and moist.

2 Planets in the Ascendant. Do we use any planets in the first house, planets in traditional orb or Frawley's suggestion of any planet within 5 degrees of the ascendant?

3 Planets aspecting the Ascendant. Do we follow Lilly and consider only partile aspects? Do we include any planets within traditional orb of the ascendant? Do we adopt Frawley's suggestion of a standardised orb of 3-4 degrees for all planets?

4 Do we include fixed stars in a temperament analysis Ptolemy, Montulmo, Junctinus and Garcaeus do use them. On the other hand Lilly and the 17th century astrologers restrict their use to consideration of manners.

5 Should we include the Almuten of the Ascendant? Montulmo and Schoener do this while others do not. Greenbaum adopts this method while Frawley follows the example of Lilly, Patridge, Gadbury etc in excluding this consideration.

6 Do we exclude the Chart Almuten/Lord of the Geniture from temperament analysis? Do we accept Greenbaum's argument that the chart Almuten/LOG is really more about the special destiny/life path of the individual rather than their temperament?

7 How do we calculate the chart Almuten/Lord of the Geniture? Quite different techniques are outlined from the hellenistic ( Ptolemy), early medieval ( Ibn Ezra) or 17th century approach ( Lilly, Patridge, Gadbury etc) eras. Assuming we are going to use this what approach do we adopt to calculate it?

8 Do we include the Lunar Nodes? Ribeiro suggests the North Node operates like Jupiter ( warm +moist=Sanguine). The South Node is dry but arguably hot (Mars) or cold ( saturn). On balance though he goes for cold +dry ( melancholic)

9 Should we include Outer-Planets in temperament analysis? I know this will seem beyond the pale to some traditionalists but is it really? Robert Hand has suggested the nature of Uranus is hot and dry (choleric) while Neptune is wet +cold (phlegmatic). Pluto is less clear. If fixed stars and the nodes are acceptable why not an outer planet if it is very prominent?

Mark, these are really good questions. In my last post about Ribeiro's temperament article I wrote that I will tinker with the method he presents. When doing that I noted too that it was not as coherent that it seemed to in the first place!

One point that I still find really interesting is that one could treat the Sun and the Moon entirely according to the season/phase, ignoring completely their basic natures. But how about other phases? Ribeiro suggests treating Venus and warm and moist, but if we treat Mercury as changeable and the Sun and the Moon according to the season/phase, that will give us two warm and moist planets (Jupiter and Venus) and no cool and moist ones. But if we treat Venus as cool and moist, then the symmetry is perfect: Saturn as cold and dry, Mars and hot and dry, Jupiter as warm and moist, Venus as cool and moist; the Sun and the Moon as variables as well as Mercury. For me, Venus is primarily a Watery planet by nature: sensual, voluptous, emotional, dramatic.

In Ribeiro's article we can see that renaissance astrologers talk about partile aspects but in practice they apply wider orbs. I think most astrologers, if they see Mars squaring the Ascendant or the Moon with an orb of 2 or 3 degrees would not ignore that in interpretation. I have Mars squaring my ascendant with an orb of about 1,5 degree's and I cannot ignore that! Even astrologers with no knowledge of my chart can see that (Robert Corre did). One coherent solution would be to use moieties but giving to the angles the moiety of zero (naturally, because the angles have no light). The orb would then be half of the moiety of the planet in question.

The almuten question is interesting. Ben Dykes notes in the preface for the Bonatti translation that the medievals (and Bonatti) definitely use the equal-point almuten (the method astrojin described in one of his/her posts about Hellenistic astrology, where you give one point for every dignity and one point for every ruler that aspects the point in question - the almuten is the planet that both has dignity in the place and aspects it). But on the other hand, though the weighted-point almuten is described, its practical use is exceedingly rare. From this one could make an assumption that the weighted-point almuten was in fact not a universal practice in medieval astrology.

MarkC wrote: I suggest before we all dive in to align ourselves with the Ribeiro, Frawley or Greenbaum system we start to reflect more deeply on the practical issues that remain controversial in temperament analysis. As I see it we are still left with many searching questions to resolve for ourselves before we pick up a pen to score a chart. t:

Hello Mark,

I know it's the opposite you are asking but I stay with Greenbaum.

I'm following Bezza method (from Ptolemy) and it's very different from Lilly or Frawley, at least for what I understand.

1) Heliacal phase is very important for Ptolemy and really changes the nature of a planet, and moreover Ptolemy is different from Lilly.
Ribeiro for example mentions Mars as hot and dry if oriental, but this is not true for Ptolemy, who mentions the opposition as the warmest phase.
A planet in heliacal rising is moist, not dry for him!
Then obviously we should also consider the nature of the planet we were talking about.

2-3) There is no orb for Ptolemy. Planets in the first house are at the Ascendant and planets in houses aspecting the first house are configurated to the Ascendant.

4) There is no mention to the Lord of Geniture

5) Fixed stars don't make the temperament, make the human complexion.

At least this is as Bezza reads Ptolemy...

moreover Ptolemy is different from Lilly.

Yes, there are differences in how the humours are described in the nativity techniques (which I don?t personally use); but with the practical application of this in horary technique, from what I can see, everyone follows the understanding that Ptolemy describes. Only the Sun's humour is affected by the seasons, (with spring being the 'moist' season of youth). Every other planet's cycle of growth and decay is dictated by its relationship with the Sun - so the 'new Moon' is the 'young Moon' and any planet that is starting a new cycle from the Sun is also in its own young 'moist' stage.

This is extremely important in horary techniques for gaining physical descriptions or identifying the ages of thieves etc., and Lilly's text includes many aphorisms that demonstrate this understanding, as do the other major traditional sources such as Ezra and Bonatti, etc. Whatever our opinion or preference towards different sources, we cannot ignore the scheme that Ptolemy describes. It is fundamental to many of the wider applications of astrological technique.

Deb wrote: This is extremely important in horary techniques for gaining physical descriptions or identifying the ages of thieves etc., and Lilly's text includes many aphorisms that demonstrate this understanding, as do the other major traditional sources such as Ezra and Bonatti, etc. Whatever our opinion or preference towards different sources, we cannot ignore the scheme that Ptolemy describes. It is fundamental to many of the wider applications of astrological technique.

Hello, again.
Well, I did not want dismiss Lilly.
I find that his methods really work more than other famous astrologers.
Maybe I could not say the same for Ptolemy himself.
Just I find strange he changes nature of planets for temperament, surely he quoted it from elsewhere.

One point that I still find really interesting is that one could treat the Sun and the Moon entirely according to the season/phase, ignoring completely their basic natures.

Frawley makes a distinction here (and I didn't check whether this is his or Lilly's) that is used in what he advocates. The Sun and Moon are treated according to season/phase when we look at them as key significators. However, when we "bump into them along the way," they are hot and dry and cold and moist. So Moon in first quarter is sanguine when we assessing the effect of the Moon on the temperament. But if, Moon trines the ASC in the same chart, then the Moon is considered cold and moist.

The reason we do not always treat the Sun and Moon as hot/drt or cold/moist, is that if we did everyone's chart would have a major and choleric and phlegmatic component. That would skew every chart.

Tom

Gjiada wrote:

Just I find strange he changes nature of planets for temperament, surely he quoted it from elsewhere.

Hi Gjiada,
I?m not sure who ?he? refers to here. Ptolemy or Lilly? It is curious, but as you know, neither of these two were ?inventors? of technique. Ptolemy mainly tried to explain the rationale of the tradition he was aware of, and Lilly simply tried to rely upon the most credible sources he had access to. But I personally find Ptolemy?s explanation to be more fitting with ancient astrological philosophy based upon the Aristotelian principles, and from what I can tell it is the philosophy that many of Lilly?s practical techniques rely upon.

I like the fact that Ptolemy does not aim to simplify to get that perfect symmetry that Papretis mentions. He makes it much more apparent that moderate warmth and moderate moisture are the life-enhancing qualities, whilst intemperance or imbalance (not enough or too much heat or moisture) destroys. So it is important that we think about how these qualities relate to planetary effects, and don?t just make ?cook-book? style lists out of them. For example, we shouldn?t think of the benefic planets Venus and Jupiter as essentially ?wet?, but ?moist?; because as moist becomes wet it becomes destructive. As soon as we see the tradition simplified into the four little ditties: ?cold + wet / cold + dry / hot + wet / hot + dry -- then we have moved right away from the philosophy that Ptolemy was aiming to explain. I personally believe that it is the astrological instinct to simplify into neat packages that led to diverging traditions emerging; but that ultimately they will be connected in their roots.

There are so many issues to pick up here. No time for all of them so I will concetrate on the planets and their nature.

I should state I think the most controversial issue is the nature of the planets not the luminaries. We already have a thread devoted to the Moon phases and temperament. Equally, I don't think the position of the Sun is controversial in temperament analysis. However, how to assess the planets definitely is! Lets review the contrasting approaches of Frawley, Greenbaum and Ribeiro to this issue:

John Frawley

Saturn
Cold & Moist
(Oriental)
Dry (Occidental)

Jupiter
Hot & Moist
(Oriental)
Moist
(Occidental)

Mars
Hot & Dry
(Oriental)
Dry
(Occidental)

Venus
Hot & Moist
(Oriental)
Moist
(Occidental)

Mercury
Hot
(Oriental)
Dry
(Occidental)

Dorian Greebaum

Saturn
Cold & Dry
(Always)

Jupiter
Hot & Moist
(Always )

Mars
Hot & Dry
(Always)

Venus
Hot & Wet
(Oriental)
Cold & Wet
(Occidental)

Mercury
Hot & Wet
(Oriental)
Cold & Dry
(Occidental)

Luis Ribeiro

Saturn
Cold & Dry
(Always)

Jupiter
Hot & Moist
(Always)

Mars
Hot & Dry
(Always)

Venus
Hot & Moist
(Always )

Mercury
Common/Neutral
(Always)


I think the most remarkable discovery in Ribeiro's research is that the majority of astrologers he examines did not actually use planetary phase in temperament analysis.

To quote him discussing Lilly:

'He doesn't seem to take into account the orientality of the planets. In the main rules on page 533 he tabulates the differences in the planet's natures according to their position relative to the Sun, but in in his example no reference is made to this. In most of the other authors ( namely Junctinus, Coley and Gadbury) it is the same. For example, Coley considers an accidental saturn in the 1st house as cold and dry and not just dry; and Junctinus considers a 1st house occidental Venus as hot and moist and not just moist.''

As far as I can determine this is the approach Ribeiro adopts. However, he notes some sources took Mercury as a neutral influence which was solely influenced by surrounding planets & signs. He also notes that for temperament analysis most of the sources considered Venus Hot & moist despite its traditional association of being cold & moist.

Still I am rather confused by Ribeiro's position. On page 32 of his article he lists a table giving the qualities of the planets. Apart from the Moon ( changing by phase) there is no reference to oriental or occidental. Despite that he prefaces it by stating:

'Planets receive their temparament according to their position on the celestial sphere, and it is directly related to their proximity to Sun.''

I can only assume Ribeiro is giving priority to the planets position in the traditional celestial spheres rather than their phase relationship to the Sun? In any case Ribeiro's personal approach should become much clearer in his second follow up article.

Frawley's approach is completely based on planets phase relationship to the Sun. He seems to have adopted the position Lilly suggests on page 533 of Christian Astrology. The question arises is Frawley's position still sustainable in the light of Ribeiro's research? Helpfully, Ribeiro's does mention one authority (Johanes Garcaeus) who used this approach. Lilly was clearly ackowledging his overall debt to Garcaeus in listing the planets by planetary phase quality. However, as he and most of his contemporaries didn't actually adopt this approach in practice the question arises whether those wanting to follow the mainsteam traditional technique need to depart from the Frawley's method?

Greenbaum's approach has elements of both Ribeiro' and Frawley's method. She devotes a small section of her book discussing whether we should use the intrinsic quality of planets vs their oriental/occidental phase.

She states:

...''all planets have an intrinsic quality independent of anything else that may be going on in the chart. Almost every astrological writer from Ptolemy to Patridge talks about innate, or intrinsic , qualities of the planets.''

Greenbaum goes on...

''In a way , intrinsic quality for a planet is analogous to temperament for a person: it never really goes away. The Sun's nature is hot and dry. saturn's is very cold and dry, and Mars is hot and very dry. ( the malefics have an excessive quality.) Jupiter's is hot and wet , the fertile qualities befitting the greater benefic'.

The problem Greenbaum suggests is assigning the intrinsic planetary nature of Mercury and Venus. For example all sources agree Venus is moist but is it hot or cold? The hellenistic sources indicate warm while the medieval tradition states cool. Like the other beneific Jupiter though Venus is about moderation and not being excessive. So whether Venus is hot or cold its not excessive. It would be better to use words like cool/warm and moist than hot/cold and wet. It might be argued Venus is inherently phlegmatic due to its exaltation in Pisces and its day rulership of water triplicity (Dorothean system). On the other hand it has its domicile ruler in the sanguine sign of Libra. In both cases its voluptuous nature fits either temperament ( phelgmatic and sanguine).

Mercury also presents a problem due its varying descriptions as hot, cold, wet or dry in the tradition. Moreover, as the most changeable planet it is often influenced by planets around it. It could be argued in its role as domicile and exaltation ruler in Virgo it has an inherently dry and cold nature. However, this ignores its domicile rulership of Gemini and its role as night triplicity ruler of air.

Greenbaum offers us the following solution to this dilemma:

''It seems to me that a way to resolve the dilemma about the intrinsic qualities of Mercury and Venus is to take their orientality /occidentality into account. They are the two planets closest to the Sun after all. If we say that Venus , when oriental is hot and wet, and when occidental , cold and wet, we include the positions of both the Greeks and the medievals. If Mercury oriental hot and wet, and Mercury occidental cold , we acknowledge both its signs of rulership and the fact that Mercury indeed does encompass all the qualities in some fashion or another. we also acknowledge its changeability.''

For the superior planets ( Mars, Saturn & Jupiter) Greenbaum argues we should give primary focus to their essential nature. In short her position is that phase to the Sun is accidental in nature, while planetary nature is essential. She makes an anology to essential and accidental dignity of the planets. Greenbaum accepts phase and additional modification of a planet but she does not consider it changing their essential nature.

I personally, prefer Greenbaum's position as it seems to me the best thought out approach to the planets. Its also the only approach that seeks to find a middle ground between hellenistic and medieval sources. From the charts I have seen I do think Venus and Mercury do operate the way she suggests. Thus an oriental Mercury is more out there and sanguine ,irrespective of its sign. Barack Obama seems a good example of such a prominent, oriental Mercury.

Excellent questions.

For example, Venus is quite contentious. Ptolemy tells us its essential nature is warm and moist while the later Arab and medieval astrologers see it as cold and moist.

Ribeiro notes that Ali ben Ragel states that if Venus is oriental, "heat with humidity will be dominant in its complexion, but if it is occidental, humidity will predominate in its complexion."

Mercury is considered to assume the temperament of the planet to which it is connected and seems to be ignored where it appears by itself (i.e., where it would be considered by its own nature).

Do we use any planets in the first house, planets in traditional orb or Frawley's suggestion of any planet within 5 degrees of the ascendant?

On the basis of the examples provided by Ribeiro, it seems that any planets in the first house would be considered, with the notable exception of Mercury (where it appears by itself).

Sue Ward has written:

The accepted orbs and moieties of each of the planets exclude the trans-Saturnians. They have not been attributed orbs and are usually dealt with (if at all) within the 17' of arc exactitude. This is because the ancient authorities dealt with the planets and stars they could actually see; the fact that they sometimes described their effects in terms of rays or beams confirms that, as does use of techniques such as translation and collection of light. Since the new planets cannot be seen with the naked eye, they could have no rays. Having no rays means no orb of influence, in much the same way as the lunar nodes and the Part of Fortune have no orbs. So they can only be aspected. Bear in mind that astrology deals with the heavens as they appear to the Earthly observer.

Neither Ward nor Ribeiro appear to apply a 5? orb to non-luminous points; the allowance of 5? seems restricted to conjunctions to house cusps.

Do we follow Lilly and consider only partile aspects? Do we include any planets within traditional orb of the ascendant? Do we adopt Frawley's suggestion of a standardised orb of 3-4 degrees for all planets?

Ribeiro notes that "although the authors refer to partile aspects ... wider aspects are also included."

On the other hand Lilly and the 17th century astrologers restrict their use to consideration of manners.

This would appear to be the case.

Should we include the Almuten of the Ascendant? Montulmo and Schoener do this while others do not. Greenbaum adopts this method while Frawley follows the example of Lilly, Patridge, Gadbury etc in excluding this consideration.

Ribeiro notes that the Almuten referred to in his examples is the planet with the greatest number of essential and accidental dignities; it is a synonym for Ruler of the Geniture. It is definitely included in temperament analysis.

Ribeiro includes the lunar nodes, but excludes the outer planets. In the first place, there is no consensus on their nature: most astrologers in the Victorian and Edwardian periods seem to have taught that the nature of Uranus is similar to that of the South Node ("intensively" cold and dry) while the nature of Neptune is similar to that of the North Node ("remissively" warm and moist). Robert Hand has suggested otherwise.

Traditionally, planets (unlike stars or nodes) receive their temperament according to their position on the celestial sphere, related to their proximity to the Sun. Alfred J. Pearce, in his book The Science of the Stars (1881), writes:

Uranus and Neptune not being known to the ancients were left out in the cold. As they are more remote from the Sun than is Saturn, they should have the same houses and exaltation as Saturn.

And presumably the same qualities.

In the second place, which outer planets should we use? Solar system planets, which include Uranus and Neptune? Dwarf planets, which include Ceres and Pluto? It seems to me that since temperament analysis is a traditional technique, and since there is no consensus of opinion on either the nature or the number of outer planets, it would be folly to use any of them in temperament assessment.

Ribeiro suggests treating Venus and warm and moist, but if we treat Mercury as changeable and the Sun and the Moon according to the season/phase, that will give us two warm and moist planets (Jupiter and Venus) and no cool and moist ones. But if we treat Venus as cool and moist, then the symmetry is perfect: Saturn as cold and dry, Mars and hot and dry, Jupiter as warm and moist, Venus as cool and moist; the Sun and the Moon as variables as well as Mercury. For me, Venus is primarily a Watery planet by nature: sensual, voluptous, emotional, dramatic.

I agree, although I take orientality into account in the case of Venus, for the reasons noted by Ali ben Ragel.

Mercury also presents a problem due its varying descriptions as hot, cold, wet or dry.

To be more precise, Mercury is described by different authors as being hot and dry (Lull), cold and dry (Culpeper), hot and moist (Lull again), cold and moist (Geber). I think this is testimony to its convertible nature.

I like the fact that Ptolemy does not aim to simplify to get that perfect symmetry that Papretis mentions.

I'm reminded of James Wilson's criticism of Ptolemy: "It was a favourite maxim with that author to have every thing, as his grandmother might call it, 'in apple-pie order.'"

I was drawn to Greenbaum's method because of its systematization and simplification of a relatively complex and sometimes obscure method. In practice, however, I generally prefer Ribeiro's approach.

A few other problems to throw into the pot....

Ribeiro states that the astrologers he has studied only consider the nature of the planet in the ascendant not the sign it is in. On the other hand when it comes to planets aspecting the ascendant they only look at the sign not the essential nature of planet. The same approach seems to be applied to Ruler of the ascendant LOG.

This is another interesting discovery of Ribeiro which totally contrasts to the way John Frawley has been teaching temperament. Still, I cannot help wondering why not include the nature of the planet aspecting or ruling the ascendant? Traditional or not I find this approach quite odd.

The problem, I think, comes from the meanings of the words: essence, nature, temperament.

When I was student, our teachers tried to create a difference between what is in the essence of a right (let?s say property right) and what is in the nature.
I think the conclusion of that discussion can be used here in our dilemma.
The essence is something that remains unchanged, without it we can?t talk anymore about a certain thing.
The nature is also something profound but it isn?t inherent to that thing, it can be subject to certain variations (let?s say is in the nature of man to have 5 fingers, but it?s possible also an anomaly). It?s the common manifestation of the essence of that thing, and that?s why sometime we are inclined to give it the whole credit for the actions of that thing.
Now temperament is linked with the materialization of the essence and nature of things, how is, at the level of material world, manifested the nature and essence of that thing (let?s say a pattern of planets manifestation). The difference between nature and temperament is that temperament is in some way the ultimate pattern of manifestation of planets, while the nature of that planet is as we use to say the common order of things.

Coming back to the topic of our discussion, we talk about the nature of planets as something that is common to the manifestation of planets, and I think that their nature is establish, when we relate to qualities, from their relation with Sun.
Now this common relation is in someway altered by different aspects. In this aspects category I would include also phases of planets. At the end of all this aspects comes the temperament of a planet.
But that doesn't mean that we should ignore the nature of that planet (the nature is altered by temperament but it's hard to say that is totally banished).

Every other planet's cycle of growth and decay is dictated by its relationship with the Sun - so the 'new Moon' is the 'young Moon' and any planet that is starting a new cycle from the Sun is also in its own young 'moist' stage.

You are right Deb, and I remember when I translated from Ibn Ridwan commentary to Ptolemy that I found a passage where he uses the same words: heliacal rising-childhood

Hello Gjiada,

1) Heliacal phase is very important for Ptolemy and really changes the nature of a planet, and moreover Ptolemy is different from Lilly.
Ribeiro for example mentions Mars as hot and dry if oriental, but this is not true for Ptolemy, who mentions the opposition as the warmest phase.
A planet in heliacal rising is moist, not dry for him! Then obviously we should also consider the nature of the planet we were talking about.

As Joseph Crane has written there are differences in the way the hellenistic and medieval traditions used the concepts of oriental and occidental of the Sun. Nevertheless I accept your point. I do think planetary phase has to be considered. The debate I suppose is whether this is a slight modification or a major one. Ribeiro seems to have decided to ignore it completely for temperament analysis so I do not find his solution acceptable. On the other hand I have a hard time totally accepting Frawley either. He states for example that Saturn oriental should be considered cold and moist. I accept in relation to the Sun Saturn will be slighly less dry but will it change its nature so fundamentally? I'm with Greenbaum on that one.

There is no mention to the Lord of Geniture

Not in the medieval or reniassance sense but there are precedents in Ptolemy and Firmicus. Joseph Crane discusses the so called Oikodespotes or chart ruler discussed by Ptolemy in his book 'The Hellenistic Legacy'. See the quote from Ptolemy on this.

Fixed stars don't make the temperament, make the human complexion.

Aren't the two intrinsically connected? After all the origin of temperament analysis comes from medicine and physiology seems a part of temperament analysis to me covered by Ptolemy's use of the word.

Lets hear from Ptolemy himself:

Bodily Form and Mixture
And so generally one must observe carefully the rising horizon and those planets that are either upon it or those that are its ruler (Oikodespotes; the almuten) in the way that we said before; and in the same way look particularly to the Moon. For the true disposition of the body is observed through the formative nature of these places and of their rulers, and through the commixture according to each for and in addition through the figure descriptions ( aspects) of the fixed stars co-rising with these. The stars ( planets) having rulership are first in power , but the distinctive character of their places also contributes.
Ptolemy ( Tetrabiblos, Book II, Chapter 11, translated by Dorian Greenbaum.