Hello,

Your thoughts on the exalted ruler sure make sense, I started reading Lilly's CA3 for natal work and it just seemed too simple to use the rulers of the house cusps as sole significators or certain planets for certain things such as Mercury for intelligence, especially when Lilly's thoughts on that contradict some of the older astrologers. What do you think of using the triplicity rulers in tandem with what you suggest above?

In horary astrology, I usually limit to domicile and exaltation rulers e.g. if a querent comes asking about whether his father is seriously ill, I will look into the fourth house and its domicile ruler and in this case I do not look at the exalted ruler. If the client asks whether his father is buying the client?s house (oh yes, there is such a thing!), both the client?s father and the client?s house are ruled by the fourth house. In this case, I will see whether there is aspect between the domicile and exalted lords where one represents the father and the other, the client?s house. Which is which? I will look at both and see which has more affiliation with father and which is more connected to land e.g. if the fourth house is Libra and the question was asked in the evening, I?ll use Saturn as Father and Venus as the querent?s house. Asking the querent on the father?s physical appearance and disposition might help in assigning the domicile and exalted rulers. What if there is no exalted ruler? Then, I?ll see whether there is aspect between domicile lord of the fourth house (which can represent either client?s father or client?s house) and its dispositor (following Sahl). If the domicile lord of the fourth and its dispositor are one and the same (domicile lord in its own domicile), this is a positive indication.

Horary astrology is simpler in this case. What is important is the matter queried by the client. Other matters are not looked into unless part of the query. This is radically different from natal astrology where the astrologer should look into all areas and sub-areas of life in the natal chart. Hence, all rulers should be looked into (where appropriate). However, the rulers of the houses are limited to only the domicile, exaltation and triplicity (in whole sign house system). I am reluctant to use triplicity lord in horary because it is not strongly advocated by traditional astrologers and I do not find the use of triplicity lord as being consistently successful. Having said this, Lilly did use triplicity lord in query of husband on whether the wife is having another man.

I think I read on this forum that Robert Schmidt advocates using the first lord as the first half of life and second lord as the second with the third lord assisting both, while the older astrologers used them as representative of thirds of life.

Yes. According to Schmidt and the Hellenistic astrologers, the first triplicity/trigon lord of the main luminary represents the first half and the second triplicity/trigon lord represents the second half of the native?s life. The third triplicity lord assists the first and second triplicity lords. Medieval astrologers divide life into three parts and each triplicty lord represents each third of life. Schmidt insists that that the medieval astrologers have got it wrong through transmission error but the division into thirds seem to work very well in many charts (at least for me). I haven?t decided on this yet as I am still testing both claims.

astrojin wrote:Schmidt insists that that the medieval astrologers have got it wrong through transmission error but the division into thirds seem to work very well in many charts (at least for me). I haven?t decided on this yet as I am still testing both claims.

The division into thirds has proven very effective in the majority of charts I have applied it to.

james

Astrojin wrote:

When we go down to the signs, we have domicile and exalted rulers for each sign. Hence, all houses also have domicile rulers. If whole sign house system is not used, the houses may be intercepted in one sign or covers more than one sign. The modern astrologers then use secondary rulers which actually complicate things e.g. if the second house begins somewhere in Leo and ends up somewhere in Virgo, the second house will have two rulers i.e. Sun and Mercury. This is not consistent with the idea of sign relationships. In Hellenistic and medieval astrology, there is only one domicile ruler and one (or none) exalted ruler for each sign. Hence, there is only one domicile and one exalted ruler (or none) for each house ? following whole sign house system.

I couldn't agree more. But then I also use whole sign houses so I suppose thats inevitable. Personally I have always felt there was something illogical about intercepted signs in houses. In many cases the sign is completely buried in the middle of a house. Its one of several problems I have with quadrant houses.

However, when you use the term 'medieval' I assume you refer to the earlier Persian and Arab astrologers? Later European medieval or renaissance astrologers do seem to have considered intercepted sign rulers as having signification with the house in some instances too.

The use of intercepted houses has reached a rather bizarre level in modern astrology with some modern astrology teachers emphasizing that planets are weaker if they are in the intercepted sign of a house which is not on the cusp. I remember having this kind of discussion with someone in my astrology Association who had been taught this was why her Moon was not so powerfully expressed as it fell intercepted as the second sign in a house. I tried to convince her this lack of expressive power was more likely due to the Moon's presence in the cadent 9th house by whole sign but to no avail.

Mark

Hello,

However, when you use the term 'medieval' I assume you refer to the earlier Persian and Arab astrologers?

Yes. I forgot to add "early" in in front of the "medieval" term! Later medieval astrologers esp. after Abu Ma'shar seems to have made three major innovations (among others) i.e. using quadrant house systems for topical analyses, using 54321 weigthings for calculation of almuten and conflating some of the horary and natal techniques.

Hello Astrojin (and All):
I got amazed reading your posts and I really liked them: they are a challenge
As I was absent this week I?ll try to point out some of the important things you said and I have to say that some of them I was taught in a different way.
About whole signs it is essential to have that in mind to not miss the point in any delineation. But I think that provided that there are not intercepted houses, a thing that confuses totally our mind corrupting the understanding of the chart, dynamical houses are very important to measure the strength of a planet in them.
We have traditional authors since the Hellenistic period advocating that. Dorotheus says, looking for the hylegiacal places that if we find a planet at 15? from the ASC even if it is in the 2nd sign we can consider his strength as if he was in the ASC.
I?m a real addicted in the matter of using whole signs, but the importance of quadrants can?t be forgot.
Bonatti uses the 8th house cusp to calculate the part of death: "Chapter 11: On the Parts of the 8th house, and on their extraction and their significations -In this chapter we must speak about the Parts of the 8th house, and there are [five Parts. And first concerning the Part of Death, which is extracted from three sgnificators. For it is taken in the dlay and night from the Moon to the degree of the 8;h house, and from above will be added what Saturn had traveled through the sign in which he in), and it is projected from the beginning of the same sign. And it is extracted so, because the Moon is the signiflcatrix of bodies, [and the 8th house is the signiflcatrix of death, which destroys bodies, and Saturn has signification over the end of matters, and over grief and sorrow", etc
In my essay on suicide ( btw, did you read it?- I think that the last thing I did was to put a note on the article before disappearing in the deepest hole of the earth with lot of problems) I found out that quadrants are responsible for the strength to act in first place.
Other thing I?d like to comment is that in the horary you brought about the father?s deal with his son I?d use the 2nd and 8th house to differentiate money entering or going out to help the delineation, and to know if the deal will happen or not. I don?t think it is important to differentiate in this case who is the father and the property.
In my opinion the use of triplicity rulers or exalted rulers to identify who is who is kind of unsettling. I always felt insecure using this kind of technique. But it is a personal issue.
At last, but not least, you pointed out that the primary motivation will not be accomplished by the ruler or almuten of the ASC if it did not look to the house that it rules and if there is no connection at all between both.
This is interesting because I?m not sure if it is Zoller?s understanding and he was an advocate of the use of primary motivation in first place. But I have to say that it makes a lot of sense.
But, on the other hand, we see ancient astrologers choosing a planet as alchocoden for example even if it does not aspect the Hyleg, but because he has many dignities in the place of the Hyleg. Ptolemy also works with kind of an ?almuten thing? when he said to look for the planet that has the most dignities in the hylegiacal places (if you can?t give the role of Hyleg to Sun or Moon).
I would have liked to participate of the forum before, because many of the points you presented were very interesting and provocative( in a good sense).
Thanks for bringing many deep stuff from traditional astrology!

Cl?lia

Hello,

About whole signs it is essential to have that in mind to not miss the point in any delineation. But I think that provided that there are not intercepted houses, a thing that confuses totally our mind corrupting the understanding of the chart, dynamical houses are very important to measure the strength of a planet in them.
We have traditional authors since the Hellenistic period advocating that. Dorotheus says, looking for the hylegiacal places that if we find a planet at 15? from the ASC even if it is in the 2nd sign we can consider his strength as if he was in the ASC.
I?m a real addicted in the matter of using whole signs, but the importance of quadrants can?t be forgot.

Yes. I totally agree. In fact, the Hellenistic astrologers use quadrant house systems for longevity because the strength of the planets is marked by the areas demarcated by the dynamic houses system. Hence, these areas are potent for the determining hyleg/hilaj/apheta/predominator/epikrateteur. The Hellenistic astrologers used the whole sign house system almost exclusively for other matters especially topics of life. The early medieval astrologers also did the same thing. Al-Qabisi even went into the trouble of explaining what he meant by houses (dynamic house system) when dealing with hyleg. So, yes, if a planet is in the second whole sign house system but is still in the first dynamic house system, the planet still have the strength/business. Hence, it is a candidate of hyleg. However, the fact that it is in the second whole sign house system, it does not have association with the first house matters unless it is lord of the first. As I mentioned earlier, the dynamic house system is emphasized for hyleg determination.

This 15 degree space being more active than the degrees following it is mentioned by Dorotheus and followed by the medieval astrologers. I would prefer to open another thread for this 15 degree ?thing?. Whenever something is fixed like this number in ancient astrology, we have to proceed with caution because there must be some philosophical reasoning behind it. The 1, 3, 7 and 15 are all numbers that are very much repeated in Hellenistic and medieval astrology in various concepts. They talk about planets in the same degree (one), the space of one degree before and after (which makes up three), the space of three degrees before and after (which makes up seven) and the space of seven degrees before and after (which makes up fifteen). I would rather open a different thread to discuss these figures/numbers.

Bonatti uses the 8th house cusp to calculate the part of death: "Chapter 11: responsible for the strength to act in first place.

As I mentioned in another post, I do not use lots that use cusps of houses (except the angles) because they result in very different values depending on the house system. It is difficult to prove or even predict anything if the basic calculation itself is dubious.
And yes! I did read your article. My commendation for taking up such a huge task! I will probably give my opinions and comments later.

Other thing I?d like to comment is that in the horary you brought about the father?s deal with his son I?d use the 2nd and 8th house to differentiate money entering or going out to help the delineation, and to know if the deal will happen or not. I don?t think it is important to differentiate in this case who is the father and the property.

In my example I was thinking about client?s father and client?s real estate (which happens to be signified by the same house). If the question was about father?s money, I would have used the fifth (second from four as father?s moving substance). If the question was about client receiving inheritance from father, I would have used the eighth (as eighth is inheritance and this is due only after the father passed away). If it?s about client?s father?s real estate, I would have used the seventh (fourth from fourth = father?s real estate), The eighth house as money from other people is just that i.e. money from ?other? people or spouse and not from father (4th house), sibling(3rd house), children (5th house), etc.

In my opinion the use of triplicity rulers or exalted rulers to identify who is who is kind of unsettling. I always felt insecure using this kind of technique. But it is a personal issue.

Lilly did use exalted ruler in a few occasions and triplicity ruler in at least one occasion (as mentioned in the previous post). I find that using exalted ruler is very helpful in many horary questions provided that no answer can be extracted from the domicile ruler.

But, on the other hand, we see ancient astrologers choosing a planet as alchocoden for example even if it does not aspect the Hyleg, but because he has many dignities in the place of the Hyleg. Ptolemy also works with kind of an ?almuten thing? when he said to look for the planet that has the most dignities in the hylegiacal places (if you can?t give the role of Hyleg to Sun or Moon).

As far as I am aware, only Ptolemy (and his followers) take lord or almuten of hyleg without considering whether it aspects the hyleg. BTW, Ptolemy has a different almuten calculation (it is definitely not the 54321 weighting as seen in later Arabic astrologers). Almost all other astrologers require that the lord (whichever lord) of hyleg aspects the hyleg. Conceptually, this is logical because the alchocoden (which is ?lord? of hyleg) when aspecting the hyleg is also receiving the hyleg! The one receiving (alchocoden) then can give something to hyleg (he is the host and hyleg is the guest) and in this case he gives years of life. A chart can have no hyleg due to two reasons; either the chart has no hyleg at all due to the candidates being cadent,... or the chart has potential hylegs, it?s just that no rulers of hyleg aspect hyleg i.e. there are potential hylegs but no alchcoden. These two different situations give different meanings. In the first case, (no potential hylegs at all), the native belongs to the third birth differentia where short life is prognosticated (usually does not pass age 12, being the one zodiacal profection cycle or Jupiter cycle). In the second case (potential hylegs do exist but no alchocoden that aspects the hyleg), the native can have long life but the first instance his hyleg meets with anaretic (deadly) ray he will (supposedly) die because there is no minimum number given by the alchocoden.

At last, but not least, you pointed out that the primary motivation will not be accomplished by the ruler or almuten of the ASC if it did not look to the house that it rules and if there is no connection at all between both.
This is interesting because I?m not sure if it is Zoller?s understanding and he was an advocate of the use of primary motivation in first place. But I have to say that it makes a lot of sense.

I have to say that I was making a simplification. The element of the ascendant shows the primary motivation of the native. If the domicile lord of the ascendant does not aspect the ascendant, primary motivation is somehow frustrated. However, if exalted lord exists, primary motivation could still be fulfilled if he aspects the ascendant. The further down you go, the more difficult it is to fulfil the primary motivation! This is Zoller?s understanding (at the time that I learnt it a long time ago). However, (unlike Zoller) I find that the ascendant is not necessarily the only point where primary motivation is assessed. The signs of the luminaries can also be the points where primary motivation is assessed if they happen to be placed strongly in a chart e.g. Sun in the tenth in Leo - I would pick that over ascendant! especially if the native shows a strong Leo disposition.

Hello Astrojin

astrojin wrote: As far as I am aware, only Ptolemy (and his followers) take lord or almuten of hyleg without considering whether it aspects the hyleg. BTW, Ptolemy has a different almuten calculation (it is definitely not the 54321 weighting as seen in later Arabic astrologers). Almost all other astrologers require that the lord (whichever lord) of hyleg aspects the hyleg.

I would say that in general line Ptolemy considers the importance of an aspect in choosing if a planet has a rights on a matter or not , ie on a significator.

Robbins translation, Quadripartite, III,2:


"In general the mode of domination is considered as falling under these five forms: when it is trine, house, exaltation, term, and phase or aspect; that is, whenever the place in question is related in one or several or all of these ways to the star that is to be the ruler."

Nice to read your posts, I like them very much.

margherita

Hello,

From margherita:

In general the mode of domination is considered as falling under these five forms: when it is trine, house, exaltation, term, and phase or aspect;

Yes! You would definitely know this better as I am sure that you immersed yourself in Ptolemy a lot longer than I have.

Somehow in the arabian and medieval traditions, the phase became face and therefore the aspect part either dissapears (for those who believe that Ptolemy did not consider aspect) or changes into an additional criterion i.e. alchocoden must aspect hyleg (which is the stand for almost all ancient astrologers). Could we say that those astrologers who claimed that alchocoden does not require aspect to hyleg have simply got it wrong because Ptolemy did consider it?
However most ancient astrologers do require aspect between alchocoden and hyleg which means they still have the aspect criterion whether they consider face or not (early medieval astrologers did not and later astrologers did consider face ruler).

There are two problems with this though. Firstly, the way that Ptolemy puts it does not really mean an aspect is required but aspecting planet should be considered e.g. if Saturn as hyleg is in Pisces, the candidates for alchocoden are the domicile lord, exalted lord, term lord, triplicity lord and any planet that aspects Saturn. This does not imply that any of the 4 lords must aspect Saturn! Unless we are supposed as an additional criterion where we should consider any of the 4 lords that aspect Saturn (which is the way that many medieval astrologers took whether they include face or not).

Another problem is the term phase itself. Does it really mean aspect or conditions relative to sun (phasis) where a planet that makes appearance or is capable of making appearance within seven days before and after birth is another additional criterion in addition to the 4 lords?

Nice to read your posts, I like them very much.

Thank you!

astrojin wrote: There are two problems with this though. Firstly, the way that Ptolemy puts it does not really mean an aspect is required but aspecting planet should be considered e.g. if Saturn as hyleg is in Pisces, the candidates for alchocoden are the domicile lord, exalted lord, term lord, triplicity lord and any planet that aspects Saturn. This does not imply that any of the 4 lords must aspect Saturn!

Yes, I agree with you.
I read these words in the sense a planet beholding whatever significator, body, mind, sizygy, and so on. this planet should be considered in the assessment of rulership in the same way as the rulers of sign it occupies.

margherita

Astrojin:

However, the fact that it is in the second whole sign house system, it does not have association with the first house matters unless it is lord of the first.

I know what you meant, and it is true. If the ruler or let?s say almuten of the first house is a planet in the 2nd and it is not aspected by any planets in the chart this planet is feral, isolated, and can react in a not predicable way.
And it is not predictable because the ASC is not able to manage it, since it is not seen.

The 1, 3, 7 and 15 are all numbers that are very much repeated in Hellenistic and medieval astrology in various concepts. They talk about planets in the same degree (one), the space of one degree before and after (which makes up three), the space of three degrees before and after (which makes up seven) and the space of seven degrees before and after (which makes up fifteen). I would rather open a different thread to discuss these figures/numbers

This can also be seen as follows: the ONE is the beginning, the point of departure. The 3 is the trigon, the 7 the opposition and the 15 is half of a sign, so it is related to the number 2.
Certainly numbers and Geometry has much to do with astrology, as have to do with Music and harmony. Certainly it was used in Magic also, but I am not very much into magic

As I mentioned in another post, I do not use lots that use cusps of houses (except the angles) because they result in very different values depending on the house system. It is difficult to prove or even predict anything if the basic calculation itself is dubious

You certainly have a good point here. In general Parts are second hand delineation, and I rarely need them, except for the POF and the Pars Solis or Spirit and some of the Hermetic parts, but there is not much agreement between authors about them, so we never know which formula to use.

And yes! I did read your article. My commendation for taking up such a huge task! I will probably give my opinions and comments later

!

Thanks, Astrojin! I don?t know if it was useful, but as for me it was, since my ideas on suicide are much more clear now than before!

In my example I was thinking about client?s father and client?s real estate (which happens to be signified by the same house). If the question was about father?s money, I would have used the fifth (second from four as father?s moving substance). If the question was about client receiving inheritance from father, I would have used the eighth (as eighth is inheritance and this is due only after the father passed away). If it?s about client?s father?s real estate, I would have used the seventh (fourth from fourth = father?s real estate), The eighth house as money from other people is just that i.e. money from ?other? people or spouse and not from father (4th house), sibling(3rd house), children (5th house), etc

.

I understand, and perhaps to use the 8th was not a good idea, but certainly the 2nd was: money entering. Each astrologer has his own way to delineate the chart, but when a significator will have to fit for 2 persons I usually look for other houses I can use to give more foundations to my conclusions.

Lilly did use exalted ruler in a few occasions and triplicity ruler in at least one occasion (as mentioned in the previous post). I find that using exalted ruler is very helpful in many horary questions provided that no answer can be extracted from the domicile ruler.

I use exaltations rulers also, but what makes me feel uncomfortable is why to give the exaltation ruler for one of the persons and the ruler for the other. But it is only the way I feel, if it is working for you it is fine. But as you said in another post, sometimes we do not have an exaltation ruler or the exaltation ruler is the same as the ruler ( Virgo). To find other houses to use seems better to me.

As far as I am aware, only Ptolemy (and his followers) take lord or almuten of hyleg without considering whether it aspects the hyleg.

I think that there are other authors that did it. It?s a shame that we do not have the books translated to English, or better , to Portuguese ( they are translated to Spanish, but are out of print,)and I?m referring to Ibn Ragel and Albubather.
I read a longevity delineation by a traditional astrologer from Argentina using this authors and he choose in certain chart the Moon in Sagittarius as alchocoden, being the Sun in Cancer the Hyleg.
This procedure is weird, since the Sun is in the ASC in a nocturnal nativity and the almuten of the Sun is the Moon that do not looks to the Sun and in 2nd place Jupiter which is in conjunction with Saturn in Taurus in the 11th house. I tried hard to reach the same conclusion as the author who got 66 years of life. using an weird method. But nope: the native would die lot of years before he actually did. The Moon was in the 6th house. I would give her the lesser years: 25. But he gave her 66 because she had decan dignity! Argh
The fact is that the chart was a puzzle! I?d like to open other thread to discuss this chart LOL
I?m studying longevity to give classes about it , and I was reading many authors to summarize the important points. Schoener in Opusculum Astrologicum, translated by Project Hindsigh neatly used the ruler of the Hyleg as Alchocodem, without any mention to aspect!
The guy from Argentina did the same, but I can?t see why he gave the middle years to the planet!

BTW, Ptolemy has a different almuten calculation (it is definitely not the 54321 weighting as seen in later Arabic astrologers

)

Counting points seems really boring and not efficient , but for beginners it is useful, since they feel more secure instead of dealing with so many factors without the due experience.

A chart can have no hyleg due to two reasons; either the chart has no hyleg at all due to the candidates being cadent,... or the chart has potential hylegs, it?s just that no rulers of hyleg aspect hyleg i.e. there are potential hylegs but no alchcoden. These two different situations give different meanings. In the first case, (no potential hylegs at all), the native belongs to the third birth differentia where short life is prognosticated (usually does not pass age 12, being the one zodiacal profection cycle or Jupiter cycle). In the second case (potential hylegs do exist but no alchocoden that aspects the hyleg), the native can have long life but the first instance his hyleg meets with anaretic (deadly) ray he will (supposedly) die because there is no minimum number given by the alchocoden.

A paragraph that means a lot of experience! Very true!

The element of the ascendant shows the primary motivation of the native. If the domicile lord of the ascendant does not aspect the ascendant, primary motivation is somehow frustrated. However, if exalted lord exists, primary motivation could still be fulfilled if he aspects the ascendant. The further down you go, the more difficult it is to fulfil the primary motivation! This is Zoller?s understanding (at the time that I learnt it a long time ago). However, (unlike Zoller) I find that the ascendant is not necessarily the only point where primary motivation is assessed. The signs of the luminaries can also be the points where primary motivation is assessed if they happen to be placed strongly in a chart e.g. Sun in the tenth in Leo - I would pick that over ascendant! especially if the native shows a strong Leo disposition.

Yes, because strongly placed means that they look to the ASC! Always the same point!

regards

Clelia

I think that there are other authors that did it. It?s a shame that we do not have the books translated to English, or better , to Portuguese ( they are translated to Spanish, but are out of print,)and I?m referring to Ibn Ragel and Albubather.

I need to fix a mistake: Albubather is already translated to the English by Ben Dykes, Persin Nativities,ll ( Umar Al-Tabari and Abu Bakr)
In a first moment I did not realize that it was the same author!
Mercury?s things!


Cl?lia

Hello,

Clelia:

I think that there are other authors that did it. It?s a shame that we do not have the books translated to English, or better , to Portuguese (they are translated to Spanish, but are out of print) and I?m referring to Ibn Ragel and Albubather.

I don't have Ali Ibn Rijal but I do have Abu Bakar's or Albubather's(translated by Ben Dykes). Looking through it, it seems that Abu Bakar copied from Umar At-Tabari but then both Abu Bakar and Umar credited Ptolemy. Some of the techniques are actually not from Ptolemy e.g. when they claim that Ptolemy allows Sun as hyleg if he is in the 4th (whereas the Greek text that we have now explicitly say that he does not allow any hyleg to be below the horizon except for the 25 degrees below ascendant point). So, they must have used a different source text (probably translated version of Ptolemy). However, the fact that they claim to have followed Ptolemy shows that they do not arrive at the conclusion that alchocoden does not require aspect to hyleg independently (or on their own) because they simply outline "Ptolemy's" method.

I am interested in looking into the chart that you mentioned. Perhaps you can open another thread.

Thank you!