thanks guys,

i understand what you are saying, but it still comes across to me like i said in my first post - diurnal - good, nocturnal - bad.. the example of moon in saturns domicile is made worse by it being a nocturnal chart for the reason it is in saturns domicile. i understand the logic in that but it nevers seems to work in the nocturnal planets favour in reverse..

in the book outlining saturn in its own, or the domicile of others it gives descriptions for both diurnal and nocturnal when discussing the diurnal planets - saturn in the domicile of jupiter, or saturn in the domicile of the sun, but it does not give diurnal and nocturnal descriptions when discussing saturn in the domicile of the nocturnal planets - venus, mars and moon.

when he outlines jupiter in the same manner the only exception to his approach with saturn is when he is discussing jupiter in the moons domicile as i have shared with you already and which martin seems to think is more favourable in the nocturnal description, but either way is considered fortunate regardless of whether the chart is diurnal or nocturnal, perhaps due it being jupiter or perhaps it being the exaltation sign of jupiter.. at any rate - we get no information on either jupiter or saturn in the nocturnal planets domicile with this one exception where it makes the distinction along with a description of the difference whether it is a diurnal or nocturnal planets domicile.

everything that is generally said regarding a chart that is nocturnal in this later section of the book is negative with almost no exception.. it doesn't matter that examples are not given nearly as much for the nocturnal planets as the diurnal planets.. even when a nocturnal planet is in another nocturnal planets sign it is negative and since abu 'ali doesn't give nearly as detailed descriptions when discussing the nocturnal planets by making a comment on whether it is a diurnal or nocturnal chart, it is generally always negative what he has to say.

maybe i am partial as my chart is a nocturnal one!!

here is a fine example with no distinction made on whether it is a diurnal or nocturnal chart. chapter 43
'when venus is in a domicile of mars, the native will suffer misfortune and struggle because of women, and he will have to do with slave-girls and bad women.. he will get married, and he will fall into arguments and disputes and loss of some kind, and he may even murder his wives because of some suspicions.."

now before you point out how venus doesn't do well in mars domicile - so much for venus and mars being sect buddies, lol - it is always negative when it comes to the nocturnal planets. also, and this is something i would actually really like to see some honest feedback on - i get the feeling he is writing to and about men all the time when i read these comments.. it is never about women.. i guess women didn't rate back then.. i believe this is the case as i continue to believe the astrology of the past is slanted in favour of men and of diurnal charts as opposed to nocturnal ones. this book strengthens my view on this all as i see it of course. moon is presently in scorpio applying to saturn.. maybe someone is going to teach me something here and i surely hope so as i am unable to shake my impressions which i have worked to outline to you all here up to this point.

You raise several points, James. One is that ancient/medieval/traditional astrology was slanted towards a male perspective. I don't think anyone would contest that: astrology, like everything else, is a product of its time. But I don't see any 'diurnal slant'.

james_m wrote:i understand the logic in that but it nevers seems to work in the nocturnal planets favour in reverse..

No? For Mars in its own domicile, Abu 'Ali gives a much more positive reading by night than by day. Venus in its own domicile is universally positive (no distinction made between night and day), and the same goes for the Moon in its own domicile and in the domicile of Venus. That's four out of nine combinations of nocturnal planets in the domiciles of nocturnal planets.

It's true that Mars-Venus combinations are generally frowned upon, and perhaps an undue emphasis is put on their possible negative meanings. This, again, probably reflects the social attitudes of the time.

at any rate - we get no information on either jupiter or saturn in the nocturnal planets domicile with this one exception where it makes the distinction along with a description of the difference whether it is a diurnal or nocturnal planets domicile.

I don't quite understand this, and wonder if you may be mixing things up a bit. There are descriptions of Saturn and Jupiter in all the planets' domiciles.

everything that is generally said regarding a chart that is nocturnal in this later section of the book is negative with almost no exception..

This statement just doesn't seem to hold up to investigation, once we start counting.

hi martin,

i am going to respond word for word here and break it down in very clear terms for you, so that you and others understand exactly what i am seeing and can't claim "i don't have it right."

Martin Gansten wrote:You raise several points, James. One is that ancient/medieval/traditional astrology was slanted towards a male perspective. I don't think anyone would contest that: astrology, like everything else, is a product of its time. But I don't see any 'diurnal slant'.

i appreciate your acknowledgement of the historical slant towards a male perspective which includes the topic of ancient and traditional astrology here. that you don't see any diurnal slant requires a consideration of a number of factors which i am slowly getting round to presenting you and the board with. i do see a "diurnal slant" so bear with me as i continue here.

james_m wrote:i understand the logic in that but it nevers seems to work in the nocturnal planets favour in reverse..

Martin Gansten wrote:No? For Mars in its own domicile, Abu 'Ali gives a much more positive reading by night than by day. Venus in its own domicile is universally positive (no distinction made between night and day), and the same goes for the Moon in its own domicile and in the domicile of Venus. That's four out of nine combinations of nocturnal planets in the domiciles of nocturnal planets.

It's true that Mars-Venus combinations are generally frowned upon, and perhaps an undue emphasis is put on their possible negative meanings. This, again, probably reflects the social attitudes of the time.

i was wondering if you would take a closer look and i am glad you did. here is the breakdown and which will answer what you don't quite understand in response to me immediately below what i say here. leaving aside mercury for the moment, we have 3 diurnal planets - sun, jupiter and saturn, and 3 nocturnal planets - moon, venus and mars...

of these planets a full description which includes a comment on whether it is a diurnal or nocturnal chart is given 4 times for the sun in the domicile of saturn, jupiter, mars and the sun. it is given 3 times for jupiter in the domicile of jupiter, sun and moon. it is given 3 times for saturn in the domicile of saturn, jupiter or sun.

for the nocturnal planets we have 1 time given for moon in the domicile of saturn, 1 time for venus in the domicile of jupiter and 1 time for a description of mars in the domicile of mars - the one you have given and the one that is the most favourable of all the descriptions on the nocturnal planets in a nocturnal nativity. in other words - 10 times we get descriptions for the diurnal planets in a diurnal or nocturnal chart, while we get 3 descriptions for the nocturnal planets in a diurnal or nocturnal chart. that is 10 to 3 favouring the diurnal planets getting a throughout description based on whether it is a diurnal or nocturnal chart. this is just further confirmation to me of the diurnal slant to this book.

let me quote one description on the sun in mercury's domicile which is considered neutral to the largest extent..

chap 42 page 66
"when the sun is in a domicile of mercury, he will be a person of many rumors and of good works, a teacher of the various branches of knowledge, perhaps an astronomer, well-known to all, especially if it is a diurnal nativity.. but if it is nocturnal, he will be poor, doing bad things (in fact he will be foul-mouthed in youth), but when he arrives at middle age he will acquire unacknowledged or secret riches. and he will have pains in the stomach or in some hidden part of the body, and he will associate with men who are doing the work of demons."

now mercury is considered more neutral in the sect breakdown then any of the other planets, so please tell me why the negative description purely on the basis of it being a nocturnal chart? you've acknowledged a historical bias favouring males, but for some reason are unwilling to consider a bias that also extends to whether the chart is diurnal or nocturnal. so be it.

james_m wrote:at any rate - we get no information on either jupiter or saturn in the nocturnal planets domicile with this one exception where it makes the distinction along with a description of the difference whether it is a diurnal or nocturnal planets domicile.

Martin Gansten wrote:I don't quite understand this, and wonder if you may be mixing things up a bit. There are descriptions of Saturn and Jupiter in all the planets' domiciles.

refer to my comments immediately given above today.

james_m wrote:everything that is generally said regarding a chart that is nocturnal in this later section of the book is negative with almost no exception..

Martin Gansten wrote:This statement just doesn't seem to hold up to investigation, once we start counting.

well lets just say you and i do a different type of investigative work. thanks for your comments either way..

we can say anything from the past is very difficult to know or understand fully and any firm conclusions made on the past will be next to impossible to make, let alone agree upon with others..

my view on a diurnal bias can be easily cast aside for a number of reasons -all fairly rational i am sure. the idea of a male dominated culture getting reflected in the value system placed on diurnal verses nocturnal planets using this one book is obviously an incomplete position or study. i imagine the idea is unappealing to those who value the insights that can be gotten thru the use of sect. it is only my impression based off abu 'alis last part of this book 'the judgments of nativities' and not something that i picked up from fm or rhetorius writing. in that sense my view stands on it's own in connection with the end part of this book only... perhaps the missing pieces all happened to coincide with more information on the nocturnal planets. i have no idea and i accept this is also a possibility.

james_m wrote:in other words - 10 times we get descriptions for the diurnal planets in a diurnal or nocturnal chart, while we get 3 descriptions for the nocturnal planets in a diurnal or nocturnal chart.

Yes, but the lack of day/night differentiation cuts across both positive and negative readings. In other words, one could argue that the Moon and Venus in a sign of Venus are interpreted more positively than they ought to be in a diurnal chart -- which is why I can't accept an overall 'diurnal slant' to the text.

Two more likely explanations of the difference, to me, are (1) that Abu 'Ali was more scrupulous at the beginning of this section (remember that he begins with Saturn and Jupiter, two diurnal planets) and got more careless as he wrote on, perhaps partly because he expected the reader to get his drift after a while; and (2) that he mentioned sect issues primarily in those cases where he thought they would matter most, that is, where a change of sect wouldn't mean simply 'more of the same'.

(I haven't checked to see to what extent Abu 'Ali's descriptions derive from Dorotheus or other earlier sources. If they do derive largely from other authors, then my comments above may equally be referred to them; but that could also raise the possibility of parts of an original text having been lost.)

let me quote one description on the sun in mercury's domicile which is considered neutral to the largest extent
[...]
now mercury is considered more neutral in the sect breakdown then any of the other planets, so please tell me why the negative description purely on the basis of it being a nocturnal chart?

Obviously because the Sun itself, being the most diurnal planet of all, does much better in a diurnal chart than in a nocturnal one.

James_M wrote:

i suppose one could take this to mean that a planet like mars in a nocturnal chart but in the sign of capricorn would not be favoured so well either as it is in the sign of a diurnally ruled domicile, even if the element conforms with the triplicity of the nocturnal planets.

You have highlighted a fascinating point here James. Personally, I find this far more thought provoking than the narrow point on whether this author did or didn't have an idiosyncracy favoring diurnal births.

As I see it the fundamental distinction would be that Mars would be in sect here. This crucial point must be given its due weight above anything else. The question is how supported is it in that condition? Here it is in a feminine sign which assists. However, the sign ruler (Saturn) is of an opposing sect. Moreover, both Mars and Saturn are the malefics of the opposing sects which makes them less co-operative in nature.

So in a night chart Mars is in sect but its ruler is out of sect.
In a day chart Mars is out of sect but its ruler is in sect.

The weight of ancient sources strongly supports the view that a planet being in sect is more significant than whether its ruler is or not. Nevertheless, there are undoubtably issues related to having a sign ruler for a planet which is of an opposing sect.

In this instance Mars is the exaltation ruler in Capricorn. In a night chart especially Mars is arguably capable of taking over the duties of the domicile ruler if Saturn is also in aversion to Capricorn.

James_M wrote:

.....this to me would be putting a heavier emphasis on the rulership of the planet and whether it is ruled by a diurnal or nocturnal planet, then on the element of the sign.. this is especially interesting in that it seems to over ride the idea of hayz - or having a planet lined up correctly by sect on all levels one of which is the element of the sign as well.

Definitions of Hayz vary. Some based on just planets alignment above/below horizon by sect and others based on sign placement while others include quadrants into this consideration too.

I think your right though. This emphasis on sign rulership doesn't get this strong emphasis in later medieval astrology.

I need to check if this approach to sect utilising sign rulers can be traced back to any hellenistic sources. Its a very logical approach which seems a very practical methodology to adopt.

One could present a hierarchy of decreasing sect harmony for a planet based on rulerships as follows:

1 Planet in sect/sign ruler in sect
2 Planet in sect/sign ruler out of sect
3 Planet out of sect/sign ruler in sect
4 Planet out of sect/sign ruler out of sect

So Moon in Aries in a day chart would score very poorly here. Both the Moon and Mars are out of sect in a day chart. In contrast Moon in Taurus is strongly in sect at night with both the Moon and Venus in sect at night.

The Sun in Cancer in a day chart presents an interesting intermediate position where the Sun is naturally in sect but its ruler the Moon is out of sect. In contrast the Sun in Pisces in the day is perfectly harmonious in terms of its ruler (Jupiter) being in sect. In contrast at night with Sun Pisces we find both the Sun and its ruler out of sect.

Mark

Hello James,

I checked out Rhetorius on the subject of planets sect relationship to domicile lords. However, after a quick scan all the delineations in the book appear to exclusively describe the sect condition of a planet itself and its house placement rather than its domicile lord.

However, one very ancient source, Teucer of Babylon does describe the nature of the planets and suggests that having a planet of the opposing sect ruling a domicile adds to the difficulties of an already out of sect planet. Its seems to largely be one of several 'nail in the coffin' factors for Teucer in accumulating negative testimony for the effectiveness of a planet.

So it seems that Abu 'Ali Al-Khayyat's focus on the sect of domicile lords was relying on an ancient consideration in evaluating sect. I haven't looked at any other texts and it will be interesting to study this topic more widely.

Mark

martin,

it feels like a game of chase, or that game where you are supposed to guess how many balls are under the glass. it is based on the sect of the domicile lord more then whether it is diurnal or nocturnal, but then when the domicile lord is neutral(mercury) it goes back to the planet itself - sun is better in a diurnal chart then in a nocturnal chart.. we didn't get very far with this in the example of venus in mars domicile.. we can say mars doesn't do well in venus's domicile and it has nothing to do with the fact both mars and venus are nocturnal sect.

i claim a diurnal bias favouring diurnal charts and diurnal planets. one could rationalize that heat and light are supportive of life, while the reflected light of the moon is not supportive of it.. i wouldn't want to have to grow a vegetable garden without full sunlight and if i had a choice between the sun and the moon to help it along, i would pick the sun over the moon. if i hired a gardener, aside from wanting to know if they had any cancer or taurus placements, i would want to make sure they were born in the day, LOL! but, this is just a simple and interesting way of thinking about how meaningful the sun as opposed to the moon is for sustaining life.. one could probably fall back on ptolemy for some of this if they wanted. last night reading porphyry of tyee (andrea l. gehrz translation page 12) "in as much as they(venus/mars) belong to the sect of the moon, which emits weaker beams than the sun, the nocturnal planets are exalted in the signs sextile to their own signs. ( james comment- compared to the diurnal planets trine their own signs - stronger beams.)

i continue to wonder about an uneven bias here. if it exists no one in the community wants to have to answer it, or would perhaps prefer to be politically correct for the moment.

mark,

this idea of the nature of the domicile ruler - diurnal or nocturnal - is interesting. i don't recall reading about it in hands book. martin is the first one to use it to explain abu 'ali's views in the end part of his book 'the judgements of nativities'. it is an interesting observation that deserves some consideration. a person has a venus in capricorn in a diurnal chart, and in the diurnal part of the chart - with the sun) - and maybe it isn't so bad if the domicile ruler trumps all the other considerations of sect.. where is an authority like chris brennan when one is having a conversation like this, lol).. sun in aries is less exalted in a nocturnal chart, but it gets a boost given the fact it is in a nocturnal planets sect - mars.. the waters are getting muddy for me at this point. i would like greater clarity on this so if you find a source that gives more insight on all of this that you are able to share with us here, that would be peachy..

james_m wrote:martin,

it feels like a game of chase, or that game where you are supposed to guess how many balls are under the glass.

Perhaps that is because you are being overly reductive, trying to pin a delineation down to one factor when it is really a synthesis of several.

James_M wrote:

this idea of the nature of the domicile ruler - diurnal or nocturnal - is interesting. i don't recall reading about it in hands book.

Hand's book is an extremely useful introduction to the subject of sect but hardly the last word. Books like this should be treated as a starting point for personal research rather than definitive guides. Plus the book was written in the early phase of Project Hindsight in the 1990's. Hand is fundamentally a medieval astrologer. He has obviously added a lot of hellenistic techniques to his toolkit due to his involvement with Robert Schmidt and the editing the Project Hindsight translations.

Fundamentally, though Hand seeks to present sect as a unifying technique in traditional astrology. He essentially settles on a tripartitite approach to sect that seems to be an attempt to reconcile differences between medieval and hellenistic astrology.

Hence Hand focuses on the fundamental distinction of day/night and the two rejoicing conditions of Valens.

To recap the rejoicing conditions are planets in a harmonious hemisphere and sign relative to their respective sect.

I recently, gave a link to an article by Chris Brennan which repeated this emphasis. Personally, though I think this approach is too simplistic.

Even Hand himself though admits the issue is somewhat more complicated. He mentions planetary phase is a factor in sect too but only really explains this in terms of Mercury which is common in sect.

Actually, all the planets become more masculine or feminine depending on their phase to the Sun. Generally, planets rising before the Sun (oriental) are seen as more masculine while those following the Sun (occidental) more feminine.

The Moon is rather different and has its masculkine /waxing phase to the left of the Sun and its feminine/waning phase to the right of the Sun. Hence the Moon, although a feminine planet, is more compatible in aspect with diurnal planets in its waxing phase. So the opposition or square of the Moon to Mars is especially malefic while the Moon is waxing while he Moon-Saturn square or opposition is especially unfavourable with the Moon waning. This would be even worse if these malefics were out of sect.

Lets imagine a reallly difficult scenario here. Say we have Venus in a day chart in Aries. This means the planet is not only out of sect but its ruler is too. As a feminine planet its not comfortable in a masculine sign. On top of this lets say Venus is oriental of the Sun. As this is the masculine phase it puts Venus further out of harmony with its prevailing sect. All this masucline emphasis is likely to produce a pushy, passionate, demanding Venus but there are underlying insecurities with the planet totally out of sect and in its fall. The planet may be still be effective in purely material terms but there are likely to be relationship problems indicated. Interestingly, both Mariolyn Monroe and Jane Mansfield had an out of sect Venus in Aries.

Similarly, we have the notion of quadrants calculated from the ASC in diurnal motion. These are seen as more masculine or feminine. This idea is widely adopted by hellemnistic and medieval astrologers.

So as I see it we have the basic criteria of whether a chart is day or night. Beyond that though there are a number of conditions that can worsen or mitigate an out of sect planet.

Factors to consider are:

1 Hemisphere location by sect
2 Sign placement by sect
3 Planetary phase by sect
4 Sign ruler by sect
5 Quadrant by sect
6 Aspectual contacts by sect
7 Doryphory to both luminaries

Some sources such as Serapio even suggest sect should considered relative to the gender of a person! Hence masculine planets are supposed to be more effective in male nativities and feminine planets in women's nativities. In our more egalitarian age many may dismiss this as pure sexism. However, it just goes to show how pervasive the notion of sect/gender was in ancient astrology.

Why is so much focus put on points 1 & 2 to the exclusion of others in many contemporary sources? I personally, think there are two reasons. Firstly, those wishing to give prominence to the ideas of Valens as a dominant hellenistic source to the exclusion of Ptolemy and those influenced by him. Secondly, those wishing to present sect as a continuous tradition in hellenistic and medieval astrology. Points 1 and 2 effectively end up the basic approach to sect in later medieval and renaissance astrology so its understable why Hand wants to give this so much focus.

I prefer instead to focus on the hellenistic approach to sect. This isn't necessarily synonymous with the medieval aproach. It is is clear that sect is a far wider topic in ancient astrology than normally recognised. In many ways it rivalled essential dignity as a way of assessing planetary effectiveness.

One can clearly identify differences of focus amongst ancient authorities in how sect should be assessed beyond the fundamental distinction of day night. For example, the two rejoicing conditions of Valens and Ptolemy's focus on planetary phase and the quadrants.

Mark

Mark wrote: Factors to consider are:

1 Hemisphere location by sect
2 Sign placement by sect
3 Planetary phase by sect
4 Sign ruler by sect
5 Quadrant by sect
6 Aspectual contacts by sect
7 Doryphory to both luminaries

-------

Why is so much focus put on points 1 & 2 to the exclusion of others in many contemporary sources? I personally, think there are two reasons. Firstly, those wishing to give prominence to the ideas of Valens as a dominant hellenistic source to the exclusion of Ptolemy and those influenced by him. Secondly, those wishing to present sect as a continuous tradition in hellenistic and medieval astrology. Points 1 and 2 effectively end up the basic approach to sect in later medieval and renaissance astrology so its understable why Hand wants to give this so much focus.


Mark

To be fair Robert Schmidt is very critic with Robert Hand's approach to sect, in the preface of the third (or fourth) book of Tetrabiblos. Maybe Hand's book is only written when texts were less known.

For me, I tend to follow Cieloeterra method, considering better working the planets agreeing with the chart sect, diurnal planets with diurnal charts, nocturnal planets with nocturnal chart.

margherita

Jame, I'm not sure I see any in the examples you give of this diurnal preference. I think, like Mark and Martin demonstrate, this is just the normal focus an astrologer might pay to sect.

Martin mentions about the waxing and the waning of the Moon for example and how it affects matters. The idea, which I think you are taking, that there is a black and white "diurnal charts are good, nocturnal ones are bad" just doesn't seem to be present. Take this example from Firmicus for example:
Chapter VII, the Condition of The Planets:

Venus, Mars, Mercury, and the Moon rejoice by night. There?
fore Venus, Mars, and Mercury follow the condition of the Moon.
Favorably located in a nocturnal chart they indicate good fortune,
unfavorably in a diurnal chart, the greatest evils.
If Venus and Mars aspect the waning Moon in a nocturnal chart, the
waning Moon indicates all kinds of prosperity and good fortune. But if a
full or waxing Moon comes into aspect with Venus or Mars, it brings about
the greatest catastrophes and stirs up enormous ill fortune. Venus is
adverse to the waxing Moon because they conflict with each other.

(emphasis mine)

I think examples like this clearly show that the nocturnal planets are fully capable of being fortuitous. Clearly we have some subtle distinctions here even with just such a short paragraph which is encapsulated by what Martin already mentioned regarding the Moon's phase. The point being though that this is hardly black and white. This is taking several things into account, chief of which amongst them is consideration for sect.

Valens has some interesting things to say on sect too, and I think again we will see that there is no bias here. What is true of diurnal charts is true of nocturnal as well.
Book II, Riley translation (emphasis mine)

It is best if the stars of the day sect are found at angles in their own triangles or in operative places; the same is true for the stars of the night sect.
...
It will be necessary to look at the aspects of every houseruler and the arrangement of the configurations, to see if they are appropriate or the reverse. If, for example, Saturn is found in opposition or in square for night births, it will bring about reversals, ruin, dangers, injuries, and diseases, as well as sluggishness in enterprises. For day births, Mars causes hot, reckless men, precarious in their activities and in their livelihoods. They experience imprisonment, trials, abuse, cuts, burns, bleeding, and accidents/falls. But if these stars happen to be configured properly, in their own sects, they are actively positive. As a result, these stars are not to be considered malefics in all cases; they can be bestowers of good. Particularly if Saturn (for day births) has a favorable relationship with the houseruler and has Jupiter and the sun in aspect, it then makes men wealthy, famous, profiting from legacies, lords of estates and slaves, guardians and supervisors of others' affairs. For night births, however, if Saturn is /59K/ configured well and has a relationship with the houseruler, it will also cause the loss of what was gained, reduction in rank, and infamy. Let the same considerations be true for Mars: for night births it grants leadership, generalship, public commands of the masses; for day births (if Mars is in operative places), it brings about the previously /58P/ mentioned circumstances, but it then turns them into reversals, fears, and oppositions; it makes leadership subject to factionalism and terror. It brings attacks of enemies and uprisings of the mob, famines and plagues on cities, assaults, fires, dangerous crises.