paul,
have you read the book i refer to? mark has made general comments nothing specific to do with this book. martin has demonstrated very little in connection to the book, but has raised into focus the idea of the ruler of sect taking on greater relevance to explain/rationalize abu 'ali's comments.

Paul wrote: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,

at no time have i tried to pin anything down to one factor, so i am not sure why this comment is being made.

Martin Gansten wrote:

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.

mark,

i always enjoy folks taking an isolated comment and running with it. i suppose i do this too. no one has said hands book is the definitive one on sect.. however prior to this thread i had not read anyone making a focus on the domicile ruler and what sect it is naturally a part of as a means of explaining the negative characterizations that form so many of the descriptions in abu 'ali's comments on nocturnal charts. it seems you hadn't either, or that something new had been presented given your comments from a few days ago posted down below.. any more leads on ancient sources? you mention one here, but it seems to have a value system that places more importance on the initial focus of sect - day or night with greater difficultly initially given the planets that are ''immediately'' out of sect as a consequence of it being a day or night birth.. unfortunately abu 'alis comments are no where near as nuanced.

Mark wrote: 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.
Mark

Mark wrote: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 undoubtedly issues related to having a sign ruler for a planet which is of an opposing sect.
Mark

anyone care to comment on my quote from yesterday? it would seem an inherent bias is built into the strength of the diurnal verses the nocturnal planets on the basis of the strength of their beams..

here is another one for the folks that like to think all things are equal in astrology - why is it that the moon is always considered better positioned in the first half of the lunar phase, while the 2nd half is treated in an inferior or more negative manner? perhaps someone would like to claim this bias isn't a bias, but is based on something more substantial? first half represents life and growth, while the 2nd half represents decay and death.. that would be a good rationale that i could immediately think of.. i think this concept gets included in the point system the medieval astrologers like to work with. comments on this would also be welcome.

james_m wrote: 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 have one other observation that i would like to share that is connected in some way, although i am not sure exactly how. this has to do with exalted planets with the exception of the moon, all being exalted in signs opposite their own sect..
mars in capricorn - mars belongs to the opposite sect of saturn.
venus in pisces - venus and jupiter opposite sect.
sun in aries - sun and mars - opposite sect.
saturn in libra - saturn and venus - opposite sect.
jupiter in cancer - jupiter and moon - opposite sect.
moon in taurus - moon and venus - same sect.

if being in the domicile ruler of a planet of the opposite sect is considered a negative, why is it that these same planets are exalted in signs that belong to planets of the opposite sect?

now perhaps someone would like to rationalize that the concept of exaltations came after the idea/concept of sect, or some approach based on historical lines, or someone can surprise us with some interesting theory on this. alternatively someone might say it has nothing to do with nothing..

James_M wrote:

no one has said hands book is the definitive one on sect.. however prior to this thread

Perhaps not explicitly but I felt you were kind of implying this.

...i had not read anyone making a focus on the domicile ruler and what sect it is naturally a part ...

I already gave you credit for highlighting this James. Its not something I have personally given a lot of thought to date. Thats just me though. Perhaps students of Robert Schmidt was more artuned to this already.

any more leads on ancient sources? you mention one here, but it seems to have a value system that places more importance on the initial focus of sect - day or night with greater difficultly initially given the planets that are ''immediately'' out of sect as a consequence of it being a day or night birth.. unfortunately abu 'alis comments are no where near as nuanced.

I think nearly all ancient sources state this explicitly or implcitly. I believe I have previously stated several times on the forum that many sources only mention whether the chart is day or night and nothing else. Firmicus and Rhetorius frequently do this.

I have no time at present to go hunting out sources for people to convince them here. The point is a well established as far as I am concerned not a speculation on my part.

Mark

James-M wrote:

if being in the domicile ruler of a planet of the opposite sect is considered a negative, why is it that these same planets are exalted in signs that belong to planets of the opposite sect?

Your comparing apples and pears here James. Most academics suggest the exaltations are pre-hellenistic in origin and date back to Babylonian astrology. Although, Robert Schmidt has suggested the exaltations could be hellenistic in origin due to their relationship to the Thema Mundi (a point noted by Firmicus). I am not convinced by that theory myself.

However old the exaltations actually are planetary sect theory seems to have developed as an alternative system to assess effectiveness of planets.

Comparisons with domiciile rulerships and sect show this too.

For example, look at say Sun in Aquarius in a day chart in the 11th house. In terms of sect we have a very effective planet here as the sect ruler, in a masculine sign, ruled by a diurnal planet (Saturn) and in a positive house, in a diurnal quarter.

However, according to essential dignity Aquarius is opposing the domicile of the Sun. This became a serious debility in medieval astrology (detriment).

So we are comparing different systems that were probably not originally framed with the intention of working integrally together.

Contradicting this we do see sect utilised in the essential dignity of triplicity rulerships. It seems plausible the fully formulated notion of triplicity rulers came after the use of domicile, exaltation and bound rulers. In some respects one can see triplicity rulers as an attempt to blend essential dignity and sect together.

Moreover, we do have have the masculine/feminine nature of the signs. Each luminary rules a masculine or feminine sign. Every other planet has a sign it rules of a masculine/diurnal and/or feminine/nocturnal nature.

Sect is also fundamental to things like calculation of many lots.

Sect is an interesting addition in providing more depth to chart delineation because it can contradict essential dignity and give us additional insights.

For example, Moon in Scorpio is the sign of fall for the Moon. However, using sect we can delineate that a night time Moon in Scorpio is generally much more effective than a day time Moon in Scorpio. At night both the Moon and Mars are in sect. In contrast in the daytime both the Moon and Mars are out of sect.

Of course I am narrowing this down to just a couple of factors. As you know any proper delineation requires a more integrative approach incorporating several factors such as aspectual connections, house placement, phase to the Sun etc.

Mark

james_m wrote:i have one other observation that i would like to share that is connected in some way, although i am not sure exactly how. this has to do with exalted planets with the exception of the moon, all being exalted in signs opposite their own sect..
mars in capricorn - mars belongs to the opposite sect of saturn.
venus in pisces - venus and jupiter opposite sect.
sun in aries - sun and mars - opposite sect.
saturn in libra - saturn and venus - opposite sect.
jupiter in cancer - jupiter and moon - opposite sect.
moon in taurus - moon and venus - same sect.

if being in the domicile ruler of a planet of the opposite sect is considered a negative, why is it that these same planets are exalted in signs that belong to planets of the opposite sect?

now perhaps someone would like to rationalize that the concept of exaltations came after the idea/concept of sect, or some approach based on historical lines, or someone can surprise us with some interesting theory on this. alternatively someone might say it has nothing to do with nothing..

Aries ingress.
Aries to Virgo= Day
Libra to Pisces=Night

Except Moon, Sun,Jupiter,(Merc)- get exalted in signs during the day half.
Venus,Mars,Saturn- get exalted in signs that show up in the night half.

PD

that is a good observation pankajdubey.. this would lend weight to the idea that the primary sect is considered more essential to the strength of a planet then the rulership of the domicile idea as i read it. perhaps we aren't comparing apples and oranges so much as making observations on another system of weighing planetary strength that may have more connections that we'd like to consider? it isn't perfect with the moon and saturn out of sect by this approach, but is a better fit in some respects.

Pakajdubey wrote:

Aries ingress.
Aries to Virgo= Day
Libra to Pisces=Night

Except Moon, Sun,Jupiter,(Merc)- get exalted in signs during the day half.
Venus,Mars,Saturn- get exalted in signs that show up in the night half.

One can look at the zodiac in two ways in terms of sect in ancient astrology.

Firstly, the alternative masculine/feminine order of the signs. Excluding the luminaries, which each rule one masculine or feminine domicile each, the planets are assigned a masculine and feminine sign of rulership.

However, if we are discussing solar and lunar or night-day halves of the zodiac we start with the domicile of each luminary and move through the following signs.

Hence:

Leo-Capricorn-Solar half of zodiac ( order is anti-clockwise -zodiacal)
Cancer-Aquarius-Lunar half of zodiac ( order is clock wise vs zodiac)
Here is an interesting article by Therese Hamilton that explores the topic of the solar-lunar half of the zodiac.

http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/APlanets.htm

On a practical level I find this approach less useful than the simple masculine -feminine nature of the domiciles. I find it more helpful to think of Aquarius as the diurnal expression of Saturn versus its nocturnal expression in Capricorn.

What are we to make of Aquarius falling in the lunar/night half of the zodiac and Capricorn in the solar/day part of the zodiac? This seems to contradict the focus we found above based on the masculine-feminine nature of these signs.

However, there is no denying the solar-lunar division of the zodiac is mentioned by many ancient authors such as Ptolemy, Manilius, Firmicus etc. Its a topic that requires deeper study and reflection.

Mark

I think it's more interesting to note that, while the Sun's exaltation is trigonal to its domicile and the Moon's is hexagonal to its domicile, the exaltations of diurnal planets are trigonal to one of their domiciles, one diurnal & one nocturnal, the nocturnal planets are hexagonal to one of their domiciles, one diurnal and one nocturnal.

But more to James' point, what I think you're seeing is the purposes and general natures of the two sects to begin with, namely, that the nocturnal planets are more changeable and erratic while the diurnal planets are more stable and uniform in their behaviors. This is, again, exemplified by the noticeable behaviors of the Sun and Moon. There can only be day when the Sun is above the horizon, and that's the only time one can see it; while the Moon can be seen above the horizon while it is waning and is seen at night if either waxing or in opposition to the Sun, while if it is conjoined the Sun is becomes invisible.

GR wrote:

I think it's more interesting to note that, while the Sun's exaltation is trigonal to its domicile and the Moon's is hexagonal to its domicile, the exaltations of diurnal planets are trigonal to one of their domiciles, one diurnal & one nocturnal, the nocturnal planets are hexagonal to one of their domiciles, one diurnal and one nocturnal.

To expand on Gabe's point above here is a quote from Robert Schmidt on the ACT forum from 2009 on the subject of the exaltations:

Given the problems of interpreting and dating Babylonian texts, I would like to suggest another way of going about this investigation into the origins of the exaltations. Let me first make three observations.

1) Porphyry pointed out an important relationship between the distribution of exaltations and domiciles?namely, that the exaltation image of a diurnal planet is trigonal to one of its domiciles, while the exaltation image of a nocturnal planet is hexagonal to one of its images.

2) I have noted elsewhere that the exaltation images are the good places in the thema mundi?namely, the ascending image (the Crab) itself, and the images hexagonal, tetragonal, trigonal, and diametrical to the Crab. The only exception to this rule is that no planet is exalted in the Scorpion, which is the trigonal on the left of the Crab; instead, the exaltation of Hermes is in the Virgin, the hexagonal on the left of the Crab and normally considered the least bad of the bad places. However, it is said by Rhetorius (presumably citing earlier remarks) that where Sel?n? is depressed, there no planet can be exalted.

3) The two domiciles of the five planets are regularly and symmetrically placed around the Crab and the Lion.

Notice that in this scheme that concepts of sect, exaltation, and domicile are tightly interconnected in a rather astonishing way. I find it incredible to believe that the exaltations were introduced in Babylonia for reasons unbeknownst to us (with their otherwise somewhat irregular distribution), and that it just happened that they were so distributed as to be compatible with the Hellenistic doctrine of sect and at the same time the very regular geometrical distribution of domiciles.

To me, this bespeaks a Hellenistic origin.

The other alternative, of course, is that both the sect distinction and domicile rulership were part of Babylonian astrology. However, to my knowledge there is no evidence of this.

Robert Schmidt

The Thema Mundi
Mark

thank you mark and gabe for offering more insight into the numerous ways of looking at sect and the division of the zodiac signs differently.

i think an interesting line of action following this discussion would be to present astrology charts that may highlight a particular consideration we have discussed in some way that gives us a greater understanding through any of these approaches to thinking of sect. i suppose i am thinking there is the theory or many theories that can overlap or conflict, but that it would be good to use some charts to highlight some of these ideas we are discussing here. i will look into this and see if i can find a chart. thanks!

Mark said some very insighful things to which I would add some quote from the ancients which apply to the same understanding:

By the way I have read that Saturn becomes more malefic when it speeds up. The logic is presumably that as the slow moving malefic the speed increases its potential to cause destruction?

Abu Ma'shar in his Libri Mysterium, giving analogies of the planets going out of Sun's rays, says about Mars and Saturn:

Then, when Mars gets free of the Sun, it is similar to a sharp and infallible blade and the wound caused by it is incurable; and when Saturn goes out of the sunbeams it is like a lion which throws itself out of its den and kills whoever it meets

We know that superiors, when they go out of the beams, they are direct and their speed increases, this is why it is said that they operate better when they are oriental of the Sun and direct in motion.
We often hear that it is "good" to have this and that, but I ask "good for what"? Is it good to have malefic in good state or is it not? Is it better to have him on a side, or to have him in a full strength?

Valens says that having malefic in operative places (5th and 11th for example) and in good state, even if it is contrary to the sect, grants good things; the difference with the malefic in the sect and in good state, is that the former would take back what was given, that is, it will bring ruins after the success. I wanted to provide the quote from Valens but now I see that Paul already quoted the same passage from book II.

It is true that it is worst to have retrograde planet in bad zodiacal shape. Abu Ma'shar speaks of this:

The stars cause offence particularly if in their receding [retrograde motion] they are in a foreign place or in their adversities or in their humiliations [falls] and especially if they are afflicted with a malevolent star in their receding: then, they are similar to an ill man whose strength is failing and who is seized by another bad thing at once. Indeed, the stars which recede alter their nature and therefore they complete their operations in a weak way.

In book IV when speaking about Zodiacal Releasing from Spirit, Valens gives an example with man who has Jupiter in 11th house, retrograde and in Capricorn (fall), and delineates that Jupiter as the one who grant to him prosperity and acquisitions, but because of the retrogradation and depression (fall) this prosperity didn't last and was turned into misery later on. So basically, Jupiter as natural benefic and in good house granted the good things, but they didn't last because of two things: retrogradation and depression.
I often ask my self would Valens have delineated that Jupiter as such if he had only one of the two debilitations.

Later authors regarded the retrogradation as affliction of the planet, among other factors of affliction. In Abu Ma'shar's "Introduction into Astrology" you would see a list of such afflictions (Sahl and Bonatti has a list too]. Supposedly, the more afflictions planet has, the more her ability to function in a positive way and with good strength is blocked.

Mark,

I personally, dont think being retrograde is necessarily weakening for a planet. As I see it Rx motion adds to the prominence and possible unconventionality of how a planet expresses itself. A Rx planet usually stands out. However, I dont consider it genuinely negative on this criteria alone. For that we need to look at factors like sect, essential dignity, house placement and aspectual connections.

I am not sure if I can agree with this. Retrograde planet is listed into the "weaknesses" of the planets in almost all of the "lists" of traditional authors. Of course, this doesn't mean that they must be right, but if more of them agree on a point, I would surely take it into consideration.
Bonatti clearly speaks about a planet being weak when it is retrograde, when he says that if Jupiter aspects a malefic, he would help mitigating its maleficence, but if this Jupiter is retrograde, then it will also help, but not in such measure as in the former case.
Here is what he says:

?If an Infortune be the Significator, what his condition is; for if it be good, there will good come of the thing; if bad, rather evil; an
ill-planet strong in his own Home or Exaltation, Not joined with any other
Infortune to impede or weaken him, is better than a Fortune Retrograde
afflicted.?

?when an Infortune is Significator and his ill effects are mitigated, whether Jupiter behold him, or is joined corporally to him? For that will wholly destroy his malignity and turn his nature into good, how bad soever he be; so that if Saturn in that place of himself would not bestow some good or perform what he seems to promise, Jupiter will make him do it, provided he be not afflicted himself, as in his fall, Combust or Retrograde (yet even then he helps, but not so powerfully)."

Abu Ma'shar:

"...as for Saturn it debases itself completely in its receding and it is similar to a slave who escapes and who is caught by his master again and put in chains"

It is clear that the old ones regarded the retrogradation as a weakness, how much and in which way this weakness will manifest is another question; but if a benefic retrograde is less able to offer help, then it is also true that the same planet will function in a weaker way in bringing its own significations with easiness and unobstructed.

In Horary astrology (although these rules apply to natal too) we can see that planet applying toward another planet which is retrograde, can't push anything to the second (nor nature, power or management) since it is debilitated and can't hold to what was pushed to her. This is the doctrine of Returning, she returns what was pushed to her from the first, applying planet.

So, my opinion on the matter is that retrogradation is a debility and weakness of the planet, which doesn't prevent the planet to bring forth its significations, but will bring them with one hand instead of two. What this means for every particular planet and situation is hard to tell, one need to observe and apply this on a more practical level.

Modern astrology suggests that in retrograde planets the energy of the planet is internalised. This gives the topic more psychological insight rather than a fatalistic dismissing of a planet's potential.

Well distinguishing clearly modern from traditional approach, let me first say that I appreciate everyone's approach. I will tell my - if I can be hard core traditionalist - opinion on the matter. For me, only planets that are related to me personally can be internalized and to that planets I can give my psychological viewpoint. But I can't internalize or psychologize planets in the chart which do not represent me and my being, planets that represent someone else in my chart. It is true that if my personal significator is retrograde, I can internalize the subject and say that such and such planet would bring psychological issues in my inner life. I remember Cardan is speaking in some of his aphorisms, that a person with ruler of ascendant retrograde is a rebel whole his life. How true this is! I have seen this aphorism applied in persons with such configuration on and on in life. But I can't say that Lord of 6th would represent some of my inner qualities, and hence, I can't internalize its nature and significations.

I know we are not on the traditional section of this forum, but since James started the thread quoting Abu Ali, I felt the need to give my opinion on the matter.

Ile wrote:
We know that superiors, when they go out of the beams, they are direct and their speed increases, this is why it is said that they operate better when they are oriental of the Sun and direct in motion.
We often hear that it is "good" to have this and that, but I ask "good for what"? Is it good to have malefic in good state or is it not? Is it better to have him on a side, or to have him in a full strength?

Ile,

thanks for sharing some of your thoughts and those of others, on retrograde planets. i like your questions! i don't know if i have read anyone answering any of them in a definitive manner. it would be great to get out of the realm of theory into real examples as well to hear more views expressed on these questions and the question of the importance of sect based on the considerations mark has highlighted so well. speaking of mark, he did a brilliant post in that mystery exercise from dec 23rd.
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... sc&start=0

he also commented on the retrograde saturn rising in a capricorn rising chart.. the first chart of chris hatfield aug 29 1959 sarnia, canada 448pm happened to be the military/fighter pilot and an accurate guess on marks part. upon later inspection i note saturn although technically retrograde, is 6.1. days away from turning direct. clearly the speed of saturn in this chart is almost stopped! while the planet is rising in ws house first, or in the 12th if you go with a more medieval or modern approach, (and ruler of the ascendant), i think saturn did conform to offering something unique and didn't seem to interfere with his ability to achieve a high position in that he was the first canadian to land on the moon! would you or someone else on this thread view this 'retrograde' saturn in some context that goes with much of the descriptions you have quoted from various sources in your post? i can't actually see it.


marks quote ( thread is locked so i was unable to quote directly). "Saturn is in the 1st WSH in its domicile of Capricorn. It is also in sect and above the horizon. However, it is retrograde. I associate the Saturn Rx as another indicator of something unconventional and prominent about this persons life. This indicates he might have a scientific or engineering background. Perhaps he went back to College and studied aeronautics or some other technical subject. However, with Saturn involved I suspect this came in a later part of his career."