For domiciles and exaltations of planets the expressions
"posed strongly" and "posed well" are often posed as synonymes.
But what is the case for malefics?

On the one hand, a malefic in domicile and exaltation becomes
"well-posed" because its action becomes somewhat more beneficial.
On the other hand, planets in their dignities are called "posed strongly",
because they are in signs according to their own nature.
But does that not contradict the attribute "well-posed", because a
strong malefic can do even more evil?
One could still argue that a planet in its dignties is harmonic with is
sign - and that harmony signifies good.

But there still raises a inconsistency between domiciles and triplicities.
Saturn and Mars are lords of triplicities in just the elements with
opposite nature (hot and dry Mars in cold and moist water, e.g.).
It is said that these elements temper the malefics and damp
their harmful nature.
But that means, that the malefics are "well-posed" in these triplicities
where they are weakened, and not in triplicities which agree with the
own nature of the Mars or Saturn (in contrary to the domiciles Aries
or capricorn, where the malefics are "well posed" in a sign which
agrees with their own nature).
In fact, the malefics are "well-posed" in just the triplicities where
they are weakened, and not where they are strong.
So is there are not a contradiction to principles behind the domiciles?

With best wishes

Felix

Saturn & Mars outside their dignities are hateful. When dignified, they are somewhere between indifferent and a little bit friendly, it depends on the big picture of the chart.

In most cases, even if Malefics are in their dignities, you will need Reception to bring the matter desired to perfection (in horary). This is where they differ from Benefics, i.e., you don't need Reception to succeed if you are 'connected' to a dignified Benefic.

Retrograde Mars, though, is very nasty even when essentially dignified. Usually a mutual Reception between the significators is required to overcome the nastiness of Mars Rx.

Triplicity is just a moderately weak essential dignity. So you basically need Reception for them to perform. Malefics can perform without Reception but 9 times out of 10 you will have to work very hard and overcome difficulties to get things done. Or, as I have witnessed many times, regret the whole thing.

This is the practical side of 'using' Malefics. I know I did not answer your question but in horary an astrologer is more concerned with the planet's ability to perform, not how it will mesh with a sign of a different nature. In natal astrology, I would imagine the combination of different natures gives certain qualities or something along these lines.

Mars, for one, being a fiery Planet rules Scorpio, a sign of Watry triplicity which is kind of against his Nature. Mars is strong in Scorpio that's all I care about. If you want to know why, there are a ton of books by ancient authors where they explain the ideas behind the signs, planets etc. Look in the Downloadable Texts section.

felix wrote: according to their own nature.
But does that not contradict the attribute "well-posed", because a
strong malefic can do even more evil?

An essentially strong malefic doesn't do evil pers?, it can even become an accidental benefic, depending on houserulership and aspects in addition to being in domicile or exaltation.
If the malefic (eg Saturn)is essentially weak, id in Cancer or Aries, then it can be a real troublemaker, but if it is cadent, its power to act is not so great, which is good. So strong can be seen in terms of quality and quantity.
Morin writes quite nicely about all the different possibilities in Astrologia Gallica 21.

Yuki

Hello everyone,

Felix, you touched a subject that I myself have given a lot of tought to. It is a inconsistency (or seems to be) as you pointed, because at some point (essential dignity by domicile) the planet may be good (i.e Mars in Aries) but the principle of triplicity states in an implicit manner that Mars in Aries would be too hot, since Mars triplicity of choice would be water (and earth by participation, as per Dorotheus).

So, if you follow one rationale, Mars is strong because it is following his nature, or else, if you follow the other line of thinking, it just seems to go against the first one.

I did not come to a definite conclusion about this matter, but so far, my thoughts are as follows:

The reasons why each planet received their various dignities are not imediately related to one another in their sources of symbolic meaning, althought they are interwoven, they are not exactly the same thing.

The domicile dignity is related to the planetary speed according to geocentric perception (caldaic order) and seems to put weight on symmetry. The exaltation is even older than this solution, seemingly based on seasonal cycles. The triplicity method is full of controversy, since there is at least 3 traditional ways of looking at it, and there were probably more, that we never got to know of, and it's base seems to be sect. I personally use a system I designed myself for triplicity, because I feel that the triplicity foundation is very clear despite all the controversy surrounding it, and I do not agree with none of the ancients and Morin, that was a reformist himself... but that is me. Terms are a mystery and face we (I) know too little about.

All this, to say that we could, then, have to synthesize these perceptions of the planets to accomodate Ptolemy (and others) explanations for the triplicity of the malefics in relation to their exaltations and lordships.

A planet may be, then, carrier of both essential dignity and essential debility, I see not another way of putting this.

I think the prime example would be Mars in Cancer in a night chart. There he is both in fall and is cooled by the night and by the water element, so, he is not that bad (could be worse if it is a day chart).

By the same token, Mars in Aries would definitly be worse than Mars in Scorpio, because despite Aries being his sign, he is too open, to direct. There, he has the solar quality of all day signs, he is too hot. But still, rulership is rulership, so, it steers Mars in a pro-active direction, as long as this Mars rules a house favourable to the native.

If we take Saturn, that is considered too cold essentialy, two of his strongest dignities are diurnal (Libra and Aquarius) and only one nocturnal (Capricorn). So, theoreticaly, Saturn is better off in Aquarius than in Capricorn. I can not speak the same for Libra with certainty, compared to Capricorn, because I've never seen a definite comparison between rulership and exaltation.

This above is all qualitative "measure", a "measure" of essence, you are actually saying that there is a better domicile for a planet to express it's inner principle by the analysis of their supposed intrinsic qualities x the enviroment they come posited. So, in the end, it is complex, but is possible to use the rationale.

I believe there is room in the tradition for this approach. So, Jupiter would be better in Sagitarius and Venus in Taurus, for example, than in Pisces and Libra, respectively. Also, Venus would be worse off in Aries than in Scorpio, so on and so forth...

Another way of looking into this is delineation of matters by dignity: domicile means such, exaltation that and triplicity this. I do not like this approach, to be frank.

Triplicities are not complicated at all -- they are all about the order of the planets combined with the order of the signs. We know the order of the planets - Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury, Moon. The Sun and the Moon stand out because they are the most important 'planets' in the horoscope.

So we could rearrange the planets by the importance -- the Sun, the Moon, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Mercury.

The Sun exalts in Aries (in the first sign in the succession of signs) so he gets the Fiery Triplicity.

The Moon exalts in Taurus (the second sign) so she gets the Earthly Triplicity.

Next, Saturn, he is the most important planet in the order that rules an aery sign (Aquarius), besides, Saturn exalts in Libra, an aery sign. So he is the dominant 'force' in the Aery Triplicity. The second ruler of the Aery Triplicity is Mercury because he rules the first aery sign (Gemini) in the succession of signs.

Jupiter, the second most important planet after Saturn, rules Sagittarius, so he gets a piece of the Fiery Triplicity. The Sun is the dominant force in the Fiery Triplicity not only because he is the LIGHT but also he has dignities in two fiery signs.

Mars rules Scorpio, he gets the Watry Triplicity. Jupiter (Pisces) and the Moon (Cancer) are already 'responsible' for the Fiery and the Earthly Triplicity, respectively. So Mars is the only 'king' in the Watry Triplicity.

Venus rules Taurus (the second sign), so she joins the Moon in ruling the Earthly Triplicity.

So, as you can see, it is all perfectly simple. The order of the planets + the order of the signs.

Actually triplicities are based upon sect and the domiciles. Robert Hand has a lecture on YouTube about them, I think. If you can't find it (because after a quick look, I couldn't), I will upload an mp3 rip of it I took when it was on there if you want to listen to it.

I'm interested to know where you got the idea that Saturn is the most important of the 5 wandering stars?

Have you read Bonatti's "Liber Astronomiae"? The idea behind the sign rulerships is so simple, it is mind-boggling.

Saturn is not 'the most important' in terms of being better than the others. Maybe I shouldn't put it that way. It is just the good old Chaldean Order I'm talking about. We are using it every single moment -- aspects, translation/collection, Hour Rulers, Faces of the planets etc. All determined by that order.

Seiko wrote:Have you read Bonatti's "Liber Astronomiae"? The idea behind the sign rulerships is so simple, it is mind-boggling.

Saturn is not 'the most important' in terms of being better than the others. Maybe I shouldn't put it that way. It is just the good old Chaldean Order I'm talking about. We are using it every single moment -- aspects, translation/collection, Hour Rulers, Faces of the planets etc. All determined by that order.

I have looked at it briefly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Bonatti use the Ptolemaic triplicities?

Konrad wrote:
I have looked at it briefly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Bonatti use the Ptolemaic triplicities?

I am not sure what you are getting at.

If you have a theory about the triplicities, be it Hand's or someone else's, let's hear it.

I'm getting at nothing, so don't worry yourself about it. I asked a question: does Bonatti use the Ptolemaic triplicities? If you want to see something in that, go ahead but it was a question of genuine interest. Did you come up with that explanation of triplicities yourself as I have never come across it?

As for Robert Hand's thoughts, I have already said that I have the mp3 if you would like to hear it. I don't want to repeat it from memory as I may have remembered some details incorrectly and I feel that it would be unfair of me to misrepresent him so.

Konrad wrote:As for Robert Hand's thoughts, I have already said that I have the mp3 if you would like to hear it. I don't want to repeat it from memory as I may have remembered some details incorrectly and I feel that it would be unfair of me to misrepresent him so.

Konrad, please check your PMs before sharing Hand's lecture.


james

It is not Bonatti's theory, if that's what you meant. Bonnati's explanation of why the planets rule the signs they do is so simple yet so elegant that it blew my mind.

Bonatti does not use any kind of order to be fair but he starts with the Sun and the Moon which is obvious because the luminaries are the heart of the chart and pretty much of our lives. Then he goes on and 'distributes' the planets according to the friendship/enmity towards the luminaries. And it makes a lot of sense -- Saturn's signs opposes the signs of the luminaries while Mars' signs behold their signs by square. Jupiter casts a trine to the luminaries and so on.

This is how the fiery Mars 'gets' Scorpio of Watry Triplicity.

There's a reason why the twelve signs 'begin' with Aries and why the Sun exalts in it. And why the Moon exalts in Taurus, the next sign.

So IMHO either it's the order -- or the ancients thought that the planets could not possibly 'share' their element with their 'enemies'. Or both.

So that's my thinking. Maybe I'm wrong but in any case the table of dignities will not change any time soon, fortunately.