Skyscript Astrology Forum

Why do you say that Mercury is not a ruler in a day chart?

I don't; others do. And some of those others are programers for astrology software. I don't see how Mercury (to use this example) can be peregrine in a day chart in Aquarius, but as soon as the Sun goes below the horizon he gains a farily strong essential dignity, and Saturn simultaneously loses one. That simply doesn't make sense. But if we search contemporary opinion we might see that assumption being made, i.e. that the primary ruler is the only one with essential dignity.

Thanks for all the references. I will be printing this out and keeping it.

Tom

I don't see how Mercury (to use this example) can be peregrine in a day chart in Aquarius, but as soon as the Sun goes below the horizon he gains a farily strong essential dignity, and Saturn simultaneously loses one. That simply doesn't make sense.

But it does make sense after all that has been said and written about the importance of sect! In countless discussions at Skyscript it has never been disputed that I?m aware of.

But if we search contemporary opinion we might see that assumption being made, i.e. that the primary ruler is the only one with essential dignity.

Assumption? That is what is being taught outright! Stevens?s position is the minority one, or is at least hardly discussed. A planet having triplicity dignity in sect and possibly being peregrine out of sect ? that?s the norm most of us are used to. Or am I way out of touch here? Yes, it does look like the Lilly influence ? which means this can turn into another battle between Lilly fans and the rest.

Modern contemporary "Traditional" astrology gets a great deal of its impetuous from the recovery and publication of Lilly's books. Since that time of course we have also recovered a much greater portion of the astrological record than even these European astrologers had, so perhaps some things were "cast in stone" a little too quickly

What about the famous large Lilly library? How many of us have read all the books he owned and read ? in Latin if necessary? I don?t know of many previously unknown works discovered and read since then. The number of books read by Lilly (and unread by nearly all of us) far surpasses the number of works discovered since his time.

Strong negative statements were made in the past about peregrine planets, especially in horary. Dorothean, Ptolemy or Lilly triplicities have an effect on determining which planets are peregrine in a chart. The same with Egyptian or Ptolemy terms. There are many variables dependent on the choices of the astrologer that determine whether a planet is peregrine and possibly quite harmful in a chart. This is another indication of astrology as a conflicting and inconsistent mess, unqualified to receive most of the statements of certainty made about its techniques and procedures.

Could we go back to the mystery chart, gentlemen? :-)
Best Regards
Yuzuru

Hello again,

what exactly do we do with the Moon's nodes?

Good question! They are a puzzle. I have nicknamed Mystery guy ?Storm? expressly because of his Nodal configuration. The Atlantic hurricane season began recently, I live where hurricanes strike land, consequently I?ve been knee deep in storm charts all month ? then it dawned on me that his chart could be one of them.

His prenatal lunation was a solar eclipse (eclipses are a Sun, Moon and Moon?s Nodes phenomena). The prenatal eclipse was also a supermoon (term coined by Richard Nolle for when Moon is perigee at new or full). The eclipse ruler was the Sun dignified in Leo conjunct royal star Regulus and falls in Storm guy?s natal 10th. His birth Moon is fast nearing full Moon and is another supermoon, exact perigee close to the hour of his birth. All of these are conditions of MAJOR storms (provided they occur with other factors, of which he has, per my initial post on Moon, Mercury, Jupiter and Nodes).

I find the South Node to be strangely lunar-solar, though not in the usual sense. Even though it is treated as a malefic, it is not unusual to find the SN in the 10th house of folks with successful careers. Storm guy?s success indicators involve both luminaries, both benefics and both Asc major dignity Lords (six key players in any chart). Despite the adversaries indicated by Domicile Lord 1 and Exalt Lord 1 in the 12th (Lilly), success is shown by Lord 10 in 11th (Sun, rewards, honors) in same sign as Lord 1 (Venus = him) both trine Jupiter with some reception (he is not without charm). Angular Moon can mean fame, it has a healthy trine from its dispositor exalted, which is also L1 exalt (though in 12th) - And is conjunct benefic NN trine Asc.

One last thing ? For a long time I have been looking for a chart to test out Bonatti?s consideration #135 and this is the first chart that comes close. ?Storm? has a combination of Moon, Jupiter, Venus, Lord Asc and Asc which, per Bonatti:

?the native will prove very strong and courageous, and none will dare disobey his commands. Bonatti

There is a catch ? Bonatti says the Moon must be unafflicted. Does Bonatti mean any affliction by any means? It is not afflicted by malefics, unless the Nodes are counted as such. It is likely the Mercury opp is considered an affliction, however, Moon-Mercury in any aspect is often better than no aspect (complex issue). For example, Britain?s soon to be Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has Moon opp Mercury. Recalling Steven?s most excellent delineation of the Moon-Jupiter square makes it seem to not qualify as an affliction in the usual sense. Anyway, I am wondering if this aphorism applies in whole or, at least, in part.

Very interesting thread, many good contributors.

Christina

But it does make sense after all that has been said and written about the importance of sect! In countless discussions at Skyscript it has never been disputed that I?m aware of.

Nothing Steven or I have said discounts the importance of sect. Sect is one part of planetary strength, essential dignity another. Sect is an accidental dignity. It still makes no sense to me how Mercury in Aquarius has or doesn't have essential dignity by triplicity based on sect when no other essential dignity, whether by entire sign (Domicile or exaltation) or by parts of the sign (Terms and face) depends on an accidental dignity for strength.

Assumption? That is what is being taught outright!

That's my point. It is being taught outright. The question becomes: is what is being taught outright correct?

Steven's position is the minority one, or is at least hardly discussed.

Steven is quoting Bonatti and others who point out that the triplicity system tells us the order in which the triplicity rulers are used, not that one of the rulers works when another doesn't. I don't think it is fair to say that it is his position alone. Admittedly it is not the usual position, but he has backed up what he believes the authorities are telling us, and those quotes in that context make perfect sense to me.

Look at it this way. If the three triplicity rulers for air are Saturn (Day) Mercury (Night) and Jupiter (always), Jupiter is stronger than both Mercury and Saturn since he always has essential dignity in air while Mercury and Saturn only have dignity in air half the day (roughly). To argue that Jupiter's force is less than the other two because he is only the participating ruler doesn't seem to logical. Why should he alone have dignity by triplicity all day, while the others do not and they are deemed stronger? Lilly et al solved that problem by eliminating the participating ruler (I'm not saying this was a conscious decision, but only that it does seem to solve the problem I've posed), but I'm not so sure this is a legitimate solution and in fact it ignores some older authorities, Dorotheus and Al Khayyat are two whose methods depend heavily on the use of triplicity rulers in a particular order.

NOTE:Usually with these charts I write up the "revelation" of the native as we go along, and the post it when things die down a bit. I simply have not had time to do this this time, but I will reveal the name in a day or so.

Tom

Just a quick question,

If we use the participating ruler as the overall ruler that puts Saturn in Leo as ruler of the Fire triplicity yet in its Detriment.

According to Lilly:

Triplicity: Lilly says that it shows a man: modestly endued with the Goods and Fortune of this world.

Detriment: For a Planet in his Detriment is like a person cast out of all his Estate without hopes of Recovery

So Saturn in Leo has been cast out of his home, yet is able to make it on his own due to good luck? While he is in a sorry state, he is somehow able to make due. Would this be a proper way of interpreting this configuration?

Also, how can we determine the strength of the essential dignity according to tripicity when we change the participating ruler into a overall ruler? Is the overall triplicity ruler always more essentially dignified than a sect triplicity ruler?

To clarify, which is more essentially dignified according to triplicity? Venus in Cancer(Day triplicity ruler) or Moon in Pisces(overall triplicity ruler)?

Interesting posts!

SaturnReturn wrote: So Saturn in Leo has been cast out of his home, yet is able to make it on his own due to good luck? While he is in a sorry state, he is somehow able to make due. Would this be a proper way of interpreting this configuration?

IF Saturn in Leo is angular, well aspected, or at least has another accidental dignity, I think your delineation is right. Otherwise, Saturn in Leo is a nasty troublemaker without power. Suppose a man has Saturn in Leo/Cancer in the seventh house. Saturn is weak, therefore he cannot deny marriage, but he will try and after all he will destroy it. [I am "personalizing" planets here for the sake of simplicity!]

Saturn Return wrote: To clarify, which is more essentially dignified according to triplicity? Venus in Cancer(Day triplicity ruler) or Moon in Pisces(overall triplicity ruler)?

According to every astrologer before Lilly, I guess, who makes this point differently, BOTH the planets you quote are dignified by triplicity, be them in nocturnal or diurnal charts!

Lilly did not invent technique, he reported the convention of his time, and the way he uses the triplicities is very much in the Ptolemaic tradition. Now whether the Ptolemaic tradition is appropriate or not, depends upon the way the triplicity rulerships are used. It is clear from numerous techniques in the Tetrabiblos that the emphasis of ?dignity? was given to the primary ?in-sect? triplicity ruler. And let?s remember that Ptolemy was not inventing this emphasis either, but merely reporting the convention of his own day.

In the matter of term rulerships, for example, Ptolemy records that the Chaldean system was commonly practised in his day. The order of the Chaldean terms entirely relies upon the use of only the primary ?in sect? triplicity ruler, so that, not only does triplicity rulership alter by day or night, the order of the Chaldean terms alters by day or night too, with Mercury taking the place of Saturn for the recognition of the air triplicity by night.

Another example is where Ptolemy writes of the association between directions and triplicities, and gives the emphasis to the main ?in-sect? ruler. The result demonstrates the associations made with those planets in ancient Babylonian sources, which incidentally, make great use of the principle of the triplicity ? from the Babylonians we have the earliest evidence of meanings derived from zodiacal signs grouped in this way.

So I don?t think we can say that this approach does not have a classical basis ? it seems to have a very ancient basis. We may not understand just how ancient it is but it seems to have gone hand-in-hand with the development of the 12 sign zodiac.

I forgot to say about that, sorry. Indeed, what Lilly uses is clearly Ptolemaic! But the great majority of ancient authors use Egiptian terms, and so I feel secure using them too.

And the second question, on the enphasis in the in-sect ruler: I am not expert on that issue, but Steven has a very interesting article exacly about that. I agree with him: the in-sect ruler has the same "dignity points" as the off sect and the participating; What is different is their order: the in sect always goes first in chronological order, assuming the rulership of the first third of life.

steven wrote: The Sun in the 11th is a strong position for the Sun in this diurnal chart! It does indicate reputation and success. However that reputation and success is marred by separation, controversy and exile (this is what Paulus tells us a planet in aversion to its domicile signifies). And Lilly following the ancients tells us that a planet falling cadent of its domicile so that it does not behold it, is indicative that the planet is "ill-disposed" to the signification of those matters.

My humble question is: If a planet is in aversion to its domicile, he loses the rulership of the house in whose sign is? Must we use another rulers of the house's cusp (term, triplicity, decan, etc)?

steven wrote:Since we also see the Sun applying to Jupiter and when joining it committs its disposition! Since Jupiter applies to none, Jupiter has quite some say in what happens to the Suns disposition!

I think the answer of the previous question is in the quote aabove: the sun do not lose the rulership of the tenth house, but because it is in aversion to its own domicile, the application to Jupiter let the benefic say something on carreer matters, I guess. Let me read your oppinion on that!

steven wrote:On that indication alone, I would have to say that while this native receives reputation and success in his profession, there is some aspect of that which brings him into controversy and even exile by his peers and professional associates (the Sun, ruler of the 10th, is in the 11th in aversion to Mercury ruler of the 11th in the 10th!). At some point in this natives' profession he is perhaps in exile to his professional peers because of controversy.

Is there specific delineations to aversion for each of the 12 houses?