Hi all,
Well, I did start an interesting thread I do not have something to add in the discusion, but I really wanted tp thank you all, for my understanding of the triplicity lords has grown now, thanks to you!
regards,
Tienka

Deb wrote:Hi Gabe

It took me a while to understand your scheme; when I did I was quite impressed with it. However, I don?t personally feel that kind of logic would lie behind the arrangement of the triplicities,...

There was more than one logic that involved the triplicities. In the Hellenistic texts pre-Valens, the trigons were associated with the winds (See Antiochus - Schmidt's most recent translation). But before the formal assignments of trigon lords to the signs (primary, proxy and assisting) there was the idea of joint domicile mastership which seems to predate the trigon lords proper and the idea here is that the domicle lord or exaltation lord has rulership over a given sign depending upon an almuten like factor (which planet is witnessing the sign it rules). If neither the domicile or exaltation lord are configured to the place, then the domicile lords of the places that are trine to the place in question might watch over that place. Schmidt says that the ruler that is in agreement with the sect of the chart is preferred. For example, if Leo is the sign in question and the Sun does not witness (there is no exaltation lord), then either Mars (for Aries) or Jupiter (for Sagittarius) would rule Leo and this according to the sect (Mars by night and Jupiter by day). As you can see, this is not quite the trigon lords as we know them today.

Valens seems to be aware that one does not always default to the domicile lord when the domicile lord is in aversion as he has used the exaltation lord in such cases. See the example on pg 35-36 of the Anthology (book II, part 1) where he says that the Moon is "the lady of Taurus". In this case Venus happened to be in Aries which is in aversion to the place in question, whereas the Moon was in Aquarius and was able to witness Taurus.

Hi Curtis

I'm not disputing the association between triplicites and winds. It is fairly well established that Ptolemy is passing on a Babylonian concept because his association between triplicities, winds and directions mirrors what is reported in cunieform schemes, such as that found on tablet BM36746, housed at the British Library (Francesca Rochberg dates tentatively around 400 BC, but I am developing an argument that it is older).

My query concerns the way the winds are aligned to the triplicities in Gabe's scheme, because it doesn't fit with what Ptolemy reports, or what I remember seeing in the older reports.

I also agree that various streams of logic pour into these schemes, BTW, but since the concept of triplicities is so ancient and so well-rooted, I personally feel it is unlikely to have been influenced by the concept of planetary joys, which appear to be a much later development. I may be wrong and in any case Gabe has definitely pointed out a very interesting correlation.

Regards
Deb

Hello all!

Curtis,

The joint domicile rulers is another one of those interesting concepts I haven't made much use of, and it does add some more fuel to the fire on the conception of the various schemes of triplicities.

Deb,

The concepts underlying the trigons is pretty old, though I think not well documented enough for my liking and that makes it difficult to see how exactly it has developed.

As for the winds and their corresponding seasons and their matching with the planets in the scheme of Ptolemy, yes I was comparing them with the nature of the planets. As an example, let's take Mars and the west wind. Both the wind and Ares come from Thrace in mythology. Ares is known for his duplicity and switching sides. The agricultural aspect of Mars is lost to Ares, though this might be to his being a foreign god and the Greeks' considerable xenophobia, while the Romans were not so picky. The heat and dryness of Mars, while dangerous in the summer, is needed in the spring to promote germination and prevent molding from winter's cold and dampness.

Now tying the winds with the elements seems trickier, but then again I think tying the trigons to the elements is also tricky as well, when one starts to poke around in the reasoning behind the association. It almost looks like, to me, that Mars gets Water not because Mars needs water to be pacified, but that water needs Mars to be agitated into participating with the rest of matter. But these are my speculations, and are not to be construed as a dogma, particularly a dogma from an astrologer not participating in this thread.

Deb wrote:Hi Curtis
My query concerns the way the winds are aligned to the triplicities in Gabe's scheme, because it doesn't fit with what Ptolemy reports, or what I remember seeing in the older reports.

The directions of the winds / elements are tricky too for the reason that some are reported as seen from the heavens and others are reported as seen from the earth. Not sure if this affects the case in question.

There are winds from the planet's point of view (relative to exaltation degree at the level of the zodiac), relative to the ecliptic (sometimes planetary nodes) and at the lot level (terrestrial).