Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hello James (Jerd),

Although there's one thing I can't figure out in the "Third part of life" section: how can Venus in Virgo (it's fall/depression state) offer any help to Saturn?

Is it's angularity relative to the Lot of Fortune enough to give it some strenght to help out Saturn?

This is a difficult question (at least to me!) because when I first studied medieval astrology we were taught that we need to look into all dignities of a planet before giving judgment on a particular matter or area of life (all dignities in both essential and accidental). I found this method to be very confusing especially when you have a lot of contradictions from different testimonies (e.g. angular but fall, cadent but in exaltation by sign and degree, in domicile but combust, and so forth).

Using Almuten does not really help distinguish the many manifestations a planet can have. Getting a number out of many essential dignities and debilities and using it to represent all matters of life that a planet may represent is also confusing to me. Over the years I discovered that it is easier to just use the dignities as they are for each properties of the planets have different meanings for different things in life.

An example: Assume you have retrograde Mercury in Cancer within a degree of the sun in the 7th house. Mercury can represent so many things in life (universal) and so many things in this native's life (specific). Do we then assign all matters governed by Mercury to be "combust" and hence, have negative delineation? I don't think so. If Mercury does represent the native's mind or thinking, I would consider the speed and direction more important. Being close to the sun, Mercury is fast and hence, the thinking process is good. Being retrograde, his thinking style is more reflective. Mercury may also represent the native's relationship which in this case is not so good. A naturally fast and dual planet (Mercury) in a fast motion and in the 7th may bring a multitude of relationships that don't last. Being combust may mean clandestine relationships. But if the native wants to know whether any of the significant relationships will give him happiness, the agreement of primary qualities (hot, cold, wet and dry) of the planet and the sign it is in is the most important consideration. We then confirm this analysis with other indicators of relationship.

Coming back to your question, upon reading Valens I find that in using the triplicity method for the general prediction of life - house position relative to ascendant and lot of fortune is the most important consideration (for the three planets that are trigon/triplicity lords of the main luminary) and not their essential dignities. The Greeks were looking for power and recognition via this method. Power and recognition are directly correlated to angularities (or accidental dignities and not essential dignities). The assisting planet (i.e. the domicile lord of the trip lord) can assist if it is configured with the trigon/triplicity lord. As long as it is configured, it can offer help. If it is in complete aversion, then it cannot help. In our case, the assisting planet (venus) can help because it trines Saturn but the help is not much as Venus is debilitated (in Fall in Virgo). However, Saturn does not need to rely on Venus very much because he is angular (the most important consideration in this method). The role of the assisting planet becomes important when the trigon/triplicity ruler of the main luminary is cadent. Hellenistically, Venus is even less helpful because it is not a sect mate of Saturn.

Angularities give recognition and power. Essential dignities were looked upon more for potentials and qualities (or even resources). Sun in Leo in a day chart gives a lot of potentials to be "king" and there are many out there who have the potentials to be "kings" (many are born with sun in Leo) but king of what. Cadent sun in Leo does not push you to the limelight and hence, you are probably a king of a small department in your office (or a head of a monastery somewhere). Angular sun in Leo gives you the potential to be king as well as pushes you to the physical world of opportunities where you realize your potentials to the maximum. You might have angular sun Fall in Libra; the fact that you are pushed to the limelight and into the world of opportunities (Sun angular), you can still achieve worldly success with what little you have (Sun in Libra low on resources or potentials). This is a simplification but I think you get my point. What about those who have all planets cadent? Cadency or apoklima in Greek means turning away. It is good for malefics to have their effects turned away from the native but the reverse is true for benefics. Hence, benefics in cadent houses tend to benefit others more than the native. Sometimes this is a choice made by the native (they turn away from the establishment - they become social workers, environmentalists - those who contribute to others more than towards enhancing their own power base). Never delienate planet in isolation. A planet can be cadent as well as fall but reception and aspects and relationship with fixed stars can surpise even the best astrologer!

PS: I have 5 traditional planets (Sun, Moon, Mercury, Mars and Jupiter) cadent in whatever famous house system, Venus and Jupiter detriment, with Mars opposing and squaring almost all planets - still I thank the Omnipotent One God that I have a relatively easy life!). We are astrologers! We are immune to the effects of the stars (or at least that's what Ptolemy implied in his Tetrabiblos).

Thank you very much astrojin for taking the time to reply; a lot of food for thought

Deb wrote:Obviously, I would be interested if there were any explicit statements to this effect in the early texts!

Serapio, CCAG Book 8, part 4, pg. 231, the first line. Robert Schmidt's translation goes as "That the stars turn bad when opposed to their own domiciles." I finally figured out how to type the Greek on here, but it's taking forever, so I'll save it for another time.

GR wrote:Serapio, CCAG Book 8, part 4, pg. 231, the first line. Robert Schmidt's translation goes as "That the stars turn bad when opposed to their own domiciles." I finally figured out how to type the Greek on here, but it's taking forever, so I'll save it for another time.

But at least we can do a quick transliteration: 'Hoti hoi asteres enantioumenoi tois idiois oikois kakunontai.' This is very interesting; thank you for the reference! Given the frequent diversity of opinion among the Greek authors, and the fact that this doctrine has not been universally upheld by the Arabic authors (and not at all by the Indians), I wonder if Serapio is the only preserved source for it.

Martin Gansten wrote:I wonder if Serapio is the only preserved source for it.

Can't say for certain myself; what is a bit frustrating about these ancient authors is that they do not write clearly, yet they write in a very specific manner. If they wanted to be clear, it wouldn't have killed them to do it, so there is method to their madness. I think it is a mistake for us to read these texts as if they were Bible verses and we some rigid literalists; the only fate for us then would be skepticism. Serapio might be the first to say so explicitly, but it could probably be implied from Antiochus and others.

I agree with astrojin and I think it is a very important point

accidental dignity is usually a lot more important, as we live in the sublunar world

Astrojin -

Yes. Though one might say that perhaps a benefic in some dignity of its own (Venus in Virgo in triplicity) has something positive to contribute.

Also, I sent you a PM.

Nina

Thanks Astrojin,

A wonderfully thought provoking post as usual. What you say about accidental dignity and angularity in particular makes a lot of sense.

The hellenistic approach you mention seems to live on into the medieval period as demonstated in Ben Dykes recent translation of the works of Sahl and Masha?allah where planets relationship to the ascendant is frequently mentioned.

Its tempting to think this might provide a good method to test out the effectiveness of various house systems. In particular if a prominent planet is low or high in essential dignity but comes out weak in accidental dignity in one house system but strong in another. It seems an interesting area for personal research. I am very conscious of these differences looking at charts at present having shifted over to whole sign houses from the quadrant systems.

There is a statement by a famous astrologer (I can not remember his name now, sorry for that) that says that a Lot is nothing more than a Ascendant for a specific matter in the nativity. Edit: remembered the name, it was actually Robert Hand.

So, if the horoskopos is assigned to this point, the angular planets relative to this one AC will be in charge, making them more proeminent in that matter than other planets. At least this is a logical conclusion to me...

But... one has to be carefull not to forget that the nativity is still there, so this represents just one more testimony.

Marta's chart has a Sun in Leo conjunct MC. This is the first thing to consider, but is far from enough. So the sum of testimonies will reveal the secret.

I've read through this and noticed a little confusion. It seems that not everyone regarding this system is using the Whole Sign system which is what Valens strictly used in all of his delienations.

Just a quick look at her chart you notice two Trigons are angular which right off the bat mean the persons life has above average events. Plus the Sun is in the 10th and in its own sign so that's a really strong testimony. Saturn is also angular in the 7th, though probably debilitated a bit due to being conjunct Algol. Jupiter is the only trigon in pretty bad shape.


Her first 19 years would have been determined by the Sun.
From 19 to 31 would have been governed by Jupiter.
After that all the work together with Saturn as the cooperating trigon.

Also, her Lot of Fortune is in Pisces. The Lot of Fortune is the Moon's lot and is in Sagittarius which 10 signs from Fortune. That in itself is a clear indication of eminence.

Etc,etc,etc.

It seems that not everyone regarding this system is using the Whole Sign system which is what Valens strictly used in all of his delienations.

It's my understanding that in addition to whole signs, Valens also used what we call the Porphry system to determine planetary strength. Although the original question concerned Valens, it seemed to me to include the method as it was practiced long after Valens and that was what most people responded to - the understanding of the method including, but not limited to Valens' particular techniques. We're OK with quadrant houses.

Tom

astrojin wrote:
The techniques of predicting the different parts of life using the three triplicity (trigon) rulers seem to fall into 2 contradicting methods:

1. The Hellenistic method (Schmidt, Brennan and others who follow them)

According to them (and they argued persuasively) that ancient Hellenistic astrologers divide life into 2 parts. The first trip lord of the main luminary governs the first part of life and the seond trip lord governs the second part of life. The participating Lord assists both. They also claim that there is a method to calculate/estimate the changeover from the first to the second.

2. The medieval method (The Arabs, Bonatti and many of us!)

They simply divide life into three parts, the first trip lord of the main luminary governs the first part of life, the second trip lord governs the second part of life and the third trip lord governs the third of life.

Yeah, this is correct. The same discussion came up on the Horoscopic Astrology Group a few months ago: http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuse ... 3D61162000

The gist of it is essentially that Dorotheus and Valens are our two primary sources for the application of the trigon lords in the Hellenistic tradition, and they both use it in order to designate two parts of the native's life rather than three. The cooperating lord simply assists the two primary trigon lords rather than setting up an independent third period of the life on its own.

Then at some point in the Medieval tradition it switches to a threefold division of the life rather than a twofold division. This is one of those nagging historical issues that has been bugging for some time now, since it isn't really clear at what point this change in the doctrine took place. It is an important distinction to be aware of though.