Skyscript Astrology Forum

Mark wrote:Morning Sun wrote:

Mars in Scorpio I think can be very treacherous, sneeky, subversive, passive aggressive, sly, deceptive, much more dangerous as they can blindside you, whereas Mars in Aries is a much cleaner energy, more in your face, easy to anger, but dissipated just as quickly, you at least know what you are facing, with Mars in Scorpio, you are not sure what you are facing, the anger and maliciousness is more hidden.

Well your fully entitled to your beliefs. Still, I dont know where you are getting all these totally negative associations for Mars in Scorpio from though. Can you provide any sources please? It sounds more like a debilitated planet in Scorpio like Venus or the Moon to me.

It remains a basic fact ancient astrologers considered Scorpio the joy for Mars. Equally, Aquarius was the sign of joy for Saturn. Personally, I think that is a logical and consistent approach. I also dont have the strongly positive take on Mars in Aries vs Scorpio you have. Mars works in Scorpio in a purer uncorrupted form. Mars is more controlled and less volatile in Scorpio. The energy is more internalised since this is a nocturnal sign. Basically this is as good as a placement in Scorpio gets. As Mars is a malefic its better in a sign compatible with its sect.

Mark

I didn't mean to put just the negative connotations of Mars in Scorpio, Scorpio does internalize as you say, so the Mars energy cannot always be seen, but felt. The nature of Scorpio is secretive, yes, controlled, internalized. Anger or perceived slights in the real world that is internalized is not so good, in my opinion,. They can build up to an unhealthy degree and then be released as in a pent up volcano. That was my point, whereas Mars in Aries is outward energy, the type that can be seen and very clearly demonstrated. It is more of a human nature observation, rather than an astrologically motivated one, so there are no astrological sources to quote. Perhaps the ancients in dealing with Mars as the god of War, and there was a lot of war all the time, felt that Mars in Aries, was more destructive due to what they witnessed and lived through at the time.

james_m wrote:
hi morning sun.. i explained the 3 conditions that define diurnal nocturnal in my first post already.. see the 2nd rationale for defining sect below...

james_m wrote: as to your question on nixons chart - there are three ways to define whether a planet is diurnal or nocturnally placed.. 1st - is it a day chart or a night chart - ie sun above or below the horizon? 2nd is the planet diurnally placed with the sun below or above the horizon line - with sun it is diurnally placed as in the nixon example), and 3rd -is it in a feminine or masculine sign?

Thank you James! Much appreciated!

lihin wrote: A wandering star in sect - even more so in Hayizz - has one or more reasons to feel good, to act auspiciously, if it be inclined to activeness by presence in pivotal or following quadrant fields.
Best regards,
lihin

Lihin. I have not given much consideration to sect before, I do keep it in the back of my mind. So I decided to do some reading on it and start to test it out, as I think you have, judging from your post. I agree with all comments from you, Paul, Mark, Damon and James it definitely is not used alone but another layer of understanding to a chart.

Morning Sun wrote:

Perhaps the ancients in dealing with Mars as the god of War, and there was a lot of war all the time, felt that Mars in Aries, was more destructive due to what they witnessed and lived through at the time.

That rings a bell but I cant place it. One can imagine Mars in Scorpio as more the military strategist knowing when to advance and retreat rather than going for the full on attack straight away like Aries. Mars is not associated with patience but in a fixed sign like Scorpio it probably comes as close as it can. Mars in Aries more likely to go for the jugular while in Scorpio the mood is more 'Sicilian'. Maybe the ancients thought of Mars in Scorpio as more formidable as it could continue a struggle long after Mars in Aries had run out of interest. On a personal level I concede that does sound a bit intimidating.

Mark

Paul wrote:
Other authors simply tell us that Mars is nocturnal but do not usually theorise why. Ptolemy gives us a rationale as to why and as far as I know is the first to do so and others who give a rationale tend to be following from his lead.

Ptolemy in my opinion in Book I, chapter 7, DOESN'T give a rationale, and that was my initial question and post. Who is "They" that Ptolemy is referring to? "They are the ones that made Mars in the Nocturnal sect. WHO IS THEY? As Ptolemy says below:

Ptolemy wrote: "They also assigned to each of the sects the two destructive stars, not however in this instance on the principle of similar natures, but of just the opposite; for when stars of the same kind are joined with those of the good temperament their beneficial influence is increased, but if dissimilar stars are associated with the destructive ones the greatest part of their injurious power is broken. Thus they assigned Saturn, which is cold, to the warmth of day, and Mars, which is dry, to the moisture of night, for in this way each of them attains good proportion through admixture and becomes a proper member of its sect, which provides moderation."

Anyone know who THEY is, that Ptolemy is referring to?

James wrote:

as to your question on nixons chart - there are three ways to define whether a planet is diurnal or nocturnally placed.. 1st - is it a day chart or a night chart - ie sun above or below the horizon? 2nd is the planet diurnally placed with the sun below or above the horizon line - with sun it is diurnally placed as in the nixon example), and 3rd -is it in a feminine or masculine sign?

Many hellenistic astrologers simply describe a chart whether it is day or night. The basic consideration of whether a chart is diurnal or nocturnal is that simple. Light and darkness are a duality not a tripartite division.

Robert Schmidt believes planets above/below the horizon or in a masculine/feminine sign were 'rejoicing conditions' for planets. However, basic sect was determined by the sect light.

These rejoicing conditions are often seen work for or against the sect placement of planets but they dont determine it in ancient astrology. Planetary phase to the Sun was often linked to sect theory too. For example the sect of Mercury was according to Ptolemy dictated by its phase to the Sun. Planets in their waxing phase were seen as more masculine while more feminine in their waning phase. In addition the quarters were also linked to sect through their association with masculine/diurnal or feminine/nocturnal influence.

Things are rather different in medieval astrology where the basic focus on night/day to determine the sect of a chart got gradually lost. Instead the two ancient rejoicing conditions became the basis of sect.

As an example in ancient astrology Jupiter in a day chart would be seen as in sect regardless of whether above the horizon or not. In medieval astrology to be in 'hayz' or similitude it needed to be above the horizon and in a day chart in a masculine sign. Although it got confusing and some sources stated hayz was based on just being in the right hemisphere or the right gender of sign.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/hayz.html

Mark

Jamesm wrote:James wrote:

as to your question on nixons chart - there are three ways to define whether a planet is diurnal or nocturnally placed.. 1st - is it a day chart or a night chart - ie sun above or below the horizon? 2nd is the planet diurnally placed with the sun below or above the horizon line - with sun it is diurnally placed as in the nixon example), and 3rd -is it in a feminine or masculine sign?

Many hellenistic astrologers simply describe a chart whether it is day or night. The basic consideration is this.

Robert Schmidt has suggested being above/below the horizon or in a masculine/feminine sign were 'rejoicing conditions' for planets. However, basic sect was determined by the sect light.

These rejoicing conditions are often seen to strengthen or weaken the sect placement of planets but they dont determine it in ancient astrology. Things are rather different in medieval astrology where the basic focus on night/day got gradually lost.

Mark

I am really trying to get this sect down from Rob Hands Book, but having problems. James says above the Sun in Nixon's Chart is diurnally placed. But it is a nocturnal chart, and the Sun is below the horizon, which makes the Sun out of Sect, as Rob Hand states. Mars also in this Nocturnal chart, under the horizon also says is placed diurnally, because its in the same hemisphere as the sun. page 58.

So are you and Rob Hand saying that in a Nocturnal chart if the sun and Mars are below the horizon they are placed Diurnally? But that is what makes a nocturnal chart, the sun below the horizon, so how can it be placed DIURNALLY? Help please.

Morning sun wrote:

I am really trying to get this sect down from Rob Hands Book, but having problems. James says above the Sun in Nixon's Chart is diurnally placed. But it is a nocturnal chart, and the Sun is below the horizon, which makes the Sun out of Sect, as Rob Hand states. Mars also in this Nocturnal chart, under the horizon also says is placed diurnally, because its in the same hemisphere as the sun. page 58.

So are you and Rob Hand saying that in a Nocturnal chart if the sun and Mars are below the horizon they are placed Diurnally? But that is what makes a nocturnal chart, the sun below the horizon, so how can it be placed DIURNALLY?

I expanded my previous answer while you were posting...

I think James got confused or you misunderstood him.

The sect of a chart is decided by the Sun. Sun above the horizon and the whole chart is diurnal. Below and the whole chart is nocturnal. So Nixon has a nocturnal chart.

That makes Nixon's Sun, Saturn and Jupiter out of sect as its a night chart. Being above /below the horizon doesn't change the chart sect according to hellenistic astrology.

Its better if Saturn is below the horizon at night with its sect mate the Sun and/or in a diurnal sign (in any chart) but that doesn't change the sect of the chart.

Robert Hand was trying to present sect as a coherent idea throughout the tradition. The reality is though that significant alterations happened to the idea from hellenistic to the renaissance. His book is a tad misleading in suggesting the rejoicing conditions are equal considerations in assessing sect. They are not. For example astrologers like Firmicus Maternus or Rhetorius frequently assess a planet's potential on whether it sits in a day or night chart. This was all that mattered to determine the chart sect for them.

Take a look at this quote from Firmicus:

?

Saturn in the eighth house, if by day, allots an increase in income over a period of time. If he is in the house or terms of Mars, he indicates for some an inheritance from the death of strangers. But if he is in this house by night the inheritance will be lost.?? Firmicus Maternus, Ancient Astrology Theory and Practice: Matheseos Libri VIII, trans. Jean Rhys Bram, Book 3, 2; 16-17, pg. 77.

Mark

thanks paul and mark..

i don't question mars or saturn out of sect makes for an excessive expression of their malefic nature, but i do question that they are malefic regardless of sect due being inherently excessive..it is all symbology to begin with, but why should these 2 planets be automatically considered excessive regardless of sect while the others aren't? that only mars and saturn can be excessive and the other planets/sun/moon are somehow immune to being excessive doesn't make sense to me.. i have difficulty with this logic. further to this, in the one quote from ptolemy that paul shares how is it mars moisture is being counterbalanced in the night? i thought mars was dry and hot, not moist? must be some sort of typo from j.m ashmand's translation.. i have bold-ed the quote that doesn't make sense to me!

it sounds as though not all planets are treated equally, lol! some of them are given a head start and are automatically singled out as being preferential, while poor old saturn and mars can't never do anything good and they have to start off in the astrology world with a pox on their soul.. i think saturn and mars deserve more respect from astrologers~!

Paul wrote:
My use of this link was to demonstrate that being out of sect makes for the malefics to be excessive. If you want to find information that says that Mars is naturally excessive we only need to turn to Ptolemy.

Hence the coldness of Saturn is allotted to the day, to counterbalance its heat; and the dryness of Mars to the night, to counterbalance its moisture. Thus each of these planets, being moderated by this combination, is placed in a condition calculated to produce a favourable temperament. 2

Tet. 1.7

I must admit I always thought Mars was so because of excess heat as well as dryness but this may have been an assumption on my part.

Other authors simply tell us that Mars is nocturnal but do not usually theorise why. Ptolemy gives us a rationale as to why and as far as I know is the first to do so and others who give a rationale tend to be following from his lead.

MorningSun wrote:

Jamesm wrote:James wrote:

as to your question on nixons chart - there are three ways to define whether a planet is diurnal or nocturnally placed.. 1st - is it a day chart or a night chart - ie sun above or below the horizon? 2nd is the planet diurnally placed with the sun below or above the horizon line - with sun it is diurnally placed as in the nixon example), and 3rd -is it in a feminine or masculine sign?

Many hellenistic astrologers simply describe a chart whether it is day or night. The basic consideration is this.

james response :true there is a simple definition for sect based on whether is it day or night, but then taking into whether a planet in a feminine or masculine sign as being 'diurnal or nocturnal' may not make as much sense!!! same deal with nocturnal type planets like mars being with the sun during the night as being 'diurnally located'.. it is an extension of the concept of what is diurnal or nocturnal..

MorningSun wrote:Robert Schmidt has suggested being above/below the horizon or in a masculine/feminine sign were 'rejoicing conditions' for planets. However, basic sect was determined by the sect light.

These rejoicing conditions are often seen to strengthen or weaken the sect placement of planets but they dont determine it in ancient astrology. Things are rather different in medieval astrology where the basic focus on night/day got gradually lost.

Mark

I am really trying to get this sect down from Rob Hands Book, but having problems. James says above the Sun in Nixon's Chart is diurnally placed. But it is a nocturnal chart, and the Sun is below the horizon, which makes the Sun out of Sect, as Rob Hand states. Mars also in this Nocturnal chart, under the horizon also says is placed diurnally, because its in the same hemisphere as the sun. page 58.

So are you and Rob Hand saying that in a Nocturnal chart if the sun and Mars are below the horizon they are placed Diurnally? But that is what makes a nocturnal chart, the sun below the horizon, so how can it be placed DIURNALLY? Help please.

james response :morningsun, i never said the sun is diurnally placed.. how can it be in a nocturnal chart?? i said mars is diurnally placed in nixons chart as it is below the horizon with the sun.. yes, it is a nocturnal chart - sun below the horizon, but it is not above the horizon as well which would be another form of being nocturnally based in a night chart!! you will have to continue to ponder on the idea for a longer period of time and realize there are 3 ways for a planet to be nocturnal or diurnal which i articulated in my first post!

James M

i don't question mars or saturn out of sect makes for an excessive expression of their malefic nature, but i do question that they are malefic regardless of sect due being inherently excessive..it is all symbology to begin with, but why should these 2 planets be automatically considered excessive regardless of sect while the others aren't?

Its Ptolemy's formulation. However, its far more nuanced than any of his contemporaries.

planets/sun/moon are somehow immune to being excessive doesn't make sense to me..

Excess is a quality of being a malefic for Ptolemy. Its as simple as that. It ties into his whole approach to planets, signs and planetary phase.

Benefics are by nature moderate and less inclined to extremes.

However, a benefic like Jupiter can be an accidental malefic if it is say out of sect, in its detriment/fall and occidental of the Sun or just linked to a bad house linke the 6th , 8th or 12th. The Sun is not a natural malefic in western astrology ( it is in Indian) but it can be so when planets are under its beams, or combust.

i have difficulty with this logic. further to this, in the one quote from ptolemy that paul shares how is it mars moisture is being counterbalanced in the night? i thought mars was dry and hot, not moist? must be some sort of typo from j.m ashmand's translation.. i have bold-ed the quote that doesn't make sense to me!

The basic nature of Mars ( according to Ptolemy) is its dryness and to a lesser extent heat. The idea is that moisture increases at night because the sun has gone down. It cannot dry things up as it can in the daytime. So the natural moisture of night helps to reduce the excessive dryness of Mars.


JamesM wrote:

it sounds as though not all planets are treated equally, lol! some of them are given a head start and are automatically singled out as being preferential, while poor old saturn and mars can't never do anything good and they have to start off in the astrology world with a pox on their soul.. i think saturn and mars deserve more respect from astrologers~!

Time for affirmative action then you think James?

Of course you know that is untrue. Sources like Firmicus, Rhetorius and Valens talks about how Saturn and Mars can be relatively positive in some charts. See the quote from Firmicus I gave above.

Mark

mark quote "The basic nature of Mars ( according to Ptolemy) is its dryness and to a lesser extent heat. The idea is that moisture increases at night because the sun has gone down. It cannot dry things up as it can in the daytime. So the natural moisture of night helps to reduce the excessive dtyness of Mars."

i understand all that mark, but it still doesn't jive with the quote from ptolemy "and the dryness of Mars to the night, to counterbalance its moisture."

it is not counterbalancing its moisture, it is counterbalancing its dryness!! conversations on forum boards can be really whacky sometimes!!!