Skyscript Astrology Forum

To recap the traditional quarters:

ASC-MC Masculine
MC-DESC-Feminine
DESC-IC Masculine IC-ASC -Feminine

Sorry for asking an out-of-topic question,
but could someone tell me the rationale behind the underlined quaters?
Planets are dropping down to the darkest and deepest part of the chart in the DC-IC quarter(losing power, more of a passive principle), while in the IC-AC quarter, planets are rising (more active energy) ...

Martin Gansten wrote:

Ashmand's so-called Tetrabiblos is actually a translation not of Ptolemy's text, but of Proclus' paraphrase. In other words, Robbins and Ashmand did not translate the same text differently; they translated different texts.

Thanks for the back up although I already made exactly the same point earlier in the thread! Seems like nobody noticed though. :

Mark

Mark wrote:This article from Chris Brennan may be of help in clarifying the subject of sect if your struggling with it:

http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2008 ... y-of-sect/

Bear in mind though that several hellenistic astrologers dont even mention the two rejoicing conditions. So in terms of ancient astrology at least it would be an error to think of sect operating in three equally important factors. The fundamental distinction is to focus on whether the chart is day or night.

Its also not just horizon placement or sign gender that are influenced by sect. As I stated already it also influences notions around planetary phase and the quarters.

To recap the traditional quarters:

ASC-MC Masculine
MC-DESC-Feminine
DESC-IC Masculine
IC-ASC -Feminine

The traditional quarters go in diurnal or clockwise direction.

Mark

Thank you Mark, I will read it, The Sect issue is important for 2 reasons.

1. I have always used the qualities of masculine and feminine energies in a chart. A person with more feminine, (receiving energy) lets life come to them, the masculine, their energy being more outward are out there in life exerting their energy to achieve what they want, some are thwarted due to malefic aspects or planet placements, etc.

In a Diurnal Chart the natives are more concerned about the outer world, out there, more social, etc., partaking more of the public world. A Nocturnal Chart thier lives are more centered on their personal life, the outer world is not that important to them.

2. THE MOST IMPORTANT is: Mars being assigned to the Nocturnal Sect and trying to trace the origina of that, BECAUSE, THAT is where the TRIPLICITY Schemata comes from, or am I wrong in thinking that?

Which never made sense to me. So I try to put myself or the Skyscript group as the ones that are coming up with a theory and why? Put yourself back in time, and see if that is what you or the forum would come up with. As it all started with qualities of hot, dry ,wet, moist and the elements, fire, air, earth and water. That is the original basis/foundation is it not?

If so, then why would anyone, put Mars as ruler of the water triplicity, when fire puts water out and scorches earth. Where is the Logic in that? I just doesn't make sense. So if you were devising a triplicity scheme is that what you would do?


Paul,

Thank you so much, your answer below is the confirmation of the way I interpreted it, but wanted to make sure I was understanding it properly. Did Mark or yourself mention that the Medieval and the Hellenistic theories of Sect differed in their scheme or interpretation? I will read up on Valens, book 3, thank you for that info!

Mark wrote:For example in Valens he indicates in Book Three that the importance of sect includes or is predominantly that nocturnal planets be in the opposite hemisphere as the sun and that diurnal ones be with the hemisphere of the Sun.

MorningSun wrote: Paul,

Thank you so much, your answer below is the confirmation of the way I interpreted it, but wanted to make sure I was understanding it properly. Did Mark or yourself mention that the Medieval and the Hellenistic theories of Sect differed in their scheme or interpretation? I will read up on Valens, book 3, thank you for that info!

Yes, I think we've both mentioned something along those lines.

It's worth noting that when a lot of people say a planet is in sect, they mean belongs to the nocturnal set at night and diurnal set during the day. So I have Jupiter in the 4th house and have a diurnal chart. To some, as it is a day chart, my Jupiter will be the malefic of sect, with Venus (a night planet) being contrary to sect. But for others, like Valens, my Jupiter is out of sect as it is in the hemisphere contrary to the sun. Will the real sect please stand up.

mark/paul

mark - thanks for the link for ptolemy.. it annoys me that freak on the book site doesn't spell it out honestly.. it puts his site in a very negative light for me personally..

paul - thanks for sharing that quote as it is what precipitated a very useful conversation here on an essential book that needs to be read and understood as best as one can..

So this brings us back to the original query of: the THEORY of placing Mars in the Nocturnal Sect and wishful thinking.

Back to the: "They" that Ptolemy spoke of who put Saturn in the Diurnal sect and Mars in the Nocturnal, "hoping" it would mitigate their qualities.
You cannot make an elephant anything other than an elephant, by wishing it so. Mars and Saturn, they are what they are!

Mars is in no way, shape or form a Nocturnal or feminine planet period! Its qualities and elements tell you that, that is the basis of Mars. It is what it is. And needs to go back into the Diurnal Sect where it belongs! It works great with Fire and Air!!

Saturn needs to go where its nature is, Nocturnal and dark. That is where these two planets are most comfortable, more of their natures. They both have very good qualities. Saturn builds such strong and lasting foundations. It gives us discipline, form and structure, without which we would not have much of a lasting civilization.

That is one reason why I could never get into the triplicities, they are just wrong in my opinion. Even the reasoning of why they are there is WRONG, as Ptolemy states it in Chapt. 7.

Regarding Marks statement of Mars in Scorpio, being its joy. I don't buy that either. If Pluto was around back then the ancients would have given Pluto to Scorpio. Pluto/Hades, the God of the Underrworld works so well and reflects Scorpio to a Tee. Inward, delving into the depths of things, deep, relective, investigative, secretive, etc.

So that is my take anyway for what its worth!

One more thing if Saturn then were the triplicity ruler of Earth and Water, that would now make total sense of Saturn and all the recent references to Saturn and Water!

Paul wrote:

It's worth noting that when a lot of people say a planet is in sect, they mean belongs to the nocturnal set at night and diurnal set during the day. So I have Jupiter in the 4th house and have a diurnal chart. To some, as it is a day chart, my Jupiter will be the malefic of sect, with Venus (a night planet) being contrary to sect. But for others, like Valens, my Jupiter is out of sect as it is in the hemisphere contrary to the sun. Will the real sect please stand up.

Hi Paul.,

I think you meant Jupiter was your benefic of sect. I certainly hope so.

I had kind of avoided getting into that Valens passage because its been the subject of some debate and controversy. I didn't want to confuse people and I was trying to keep the discussion of the hellenistic period fairly straightforward. However, Skyscript is where people come for less simplistic answers so lets dive into the controversy!

The passage in question is in Valens Anthology, Book III, , Chapter 5:

Concerning the sect of the Stars
It is necessary to consider the sect of the stars, for the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn rejoice when they are above the earth during the day, below the earth at night. But the Moon, Mars and Venus rejoice when they are above the earth at night, and below the earth during the day. Mercury rejoices according to the sect of the houseruler in whose terms the star is located.
The Anthology, Vettius Valens, Book II, , Chapter 5, Translated by Robert Schmidt.

From the comments of Curtis Manwaring here I gather Robert Schmidt believes Valens is not defining the sect of a chart here. That sounds counter-intuitive so let me elaborate.

We know Valens comes after numerous predecessors that worked with the notion of sect. We can can find texts referring to the sect of the planets long before Valens. Schmidt seems to be suggesting therefore that the above 'rejoicing conditions' are additional factors that can support a planet in sect. However they dont define it.

One support for Schmidt's view is that we see ancient astrologers using the terminology of a planet 'rejoicing' in numerous ways to indicate a condition which makes it more auspicious.

Lets take a look at a few comments by the ancient astrologer Serapio of Alexandria who was writing sometime between the 1st century BCE and 1st century CE. This places him anything from 100 to 200 years before Valens. He makes various comments on sect. Headings are mine.

Regarding the Phase the Moon and Sect

...the Moon rejoices conjoining the solar sect (when she is) full , or conjoining with her own sect (when she is) waning.

The Moons waxing phase is seen as more masculine/diurnal here hence aspects to planets of the diurnal or solar sect are seen as more favourable in this phase. Equally, its waning phase it is seen as more feminine/nocturnal and therefore more harmonious in aspect with the planets of the lunar sect in this phase.

On the signs and phase to the sun
.

.. the diurnal stars rejoice in masculine signs and when oriental to the sun. ; and those of the nocturnal sect rejoice in feminine signs and when occidental to the moon.

This is similar to the Valens passage in that the planets are said 'rejoice' in signs of their sect. However, Serpaio focuses on the diurnal planets 'rejoicing' when rising before the Sun and nocturnal planets when rising after the Moon. This seems to be a definition a Doryphory (translated variously as attendants, spear bearers or body guards).

Ptolemy discusses the Doryphory or planetary attendants of the luminaries as a mark of eminence.

I haven't seen Schmidts argument on this set out anywhere but I assume his position is that sect based on a night or day chart was the basic default which all these astrologers took for granted. However, various conditions are linked into sect which are seen to support or negate a planet already in/out of sect. There seems to be different factors emphasized by different astrologers.

Valens definition was very influential and arguably was a major influence on how sect was understood in the medieval period. Or was it misunderstood?

Did the medieval tradition distort or at least transform the hellenistic understanding of sect? People like Robert Schmidt and Chris Brennan think it did.

In contrast Deborah Houlding has suggested the rejoicing conditions were integral to an assessment of sect. For example, Deborah Houlding wrote some years ago in reply to Curtis Manwaring:

I do agree that sect was a more notable principle, put to fuller effect within classical astrology than it was in the medieval and renaissance periods, but from a range of classical sources it seems clear that the '2 rejoicing conditions' you say were not a part of the sect concept were important principles through which matters of sect were reinforced and expressed.

So Deborah Houlding proposes a more inclusive approach to sect that sees the 'rejoicing' conditions as an intrinsic part in the assessment of sect in a chart.

That is how I see the debate but I would welcome others perspectives who have studied planetary sect.

I personally think there is a middle way here. IMHO Robert Schmidt is right to make it clear that the night day distinction is crucial in determining the sect of a chart. However, Deborah Houlding has a good point that other rejoicing conditions were linked to sect. Perhaps we need to look at this a little more widely in terms of hellenistic astrology. Hence as cited above their are various 'rejoicing' conditions linked to sect not just 2 as suggested by Valens. For example, Ptolemy's reference to planetary phase and the quadrants or Serapio's reference to the lunar aspects or the Doryphory.

In many respects sect was an alternative tradition of assessing the planets in contrast to the dignities.

Mark

Paul wrote: It's worth noting that when a lot of people say a planet is in sect, they mean belongs to the nocturnal set at night and diurnal set during the day. So I have Jupiter in the 4th house and have a diurnal chart. To some, as it is a day chart, my Jupiter will be the malefic of sect, with Venus (a night planet) being contrary to sect. But for others, like Valens, my Jupiter is out of sect as it is in the hemisphere contrary to the sun. Will the real sect please stand up.

paul, i tend to think you are familar with the 3 ways a planet can be in or out of sect, but you've only mentioned one for your natal jupiter! as for the heir-achy of the 3 requirements for defining sect, i am not sure what the 1st one would be, but i believe it would be that a day chart favours the planets - sun, jupiter and saturn.. the fact jupiter is under the horizon during the day means it is 1 for 1 out of 2.. the sign position is the 3rd factor..

mark - really interesting post.. joseph crane talks about the importance of the phase of the moon and the planets that it aspects in context of the phase as i recall.. i do believe this is the concept of doryphory applied further.. the planets of the same sect can act as helpers to the sun or moon, depending on whether it is a day or night chart, but the phase is yet another layer to these ideas..

i haven't read serpaio yet, and will have to get a copy of holdens book if it is not available online for free.. hopefully someone responds to your post with more insight/info then me!

Morning sun wrote:

So this brings us back to the original query of: the THEORY of placing Mars in the Nocturnal Sect and wishful thinking.

You know repeating the same point doesn't make it true. Why is planetary sect any more wishful thinking than say domicile rulerships or the tropical zodiac? Its all based on a purely symbolic understanding of reality.

Back to the: "They" that Ptolemy spoke of who put Saturn in the Diurnal sect and Mars in the Nocturnal, "hoping" it would mitigate their qualities. You cannot make an elephant anything other than an elephant, by wishing it so. Mars and Saturn, they are what they are!

Perhaps its a question of you will see it when you believe it but I have seen Saturn working in many night charts in a very negative way. Especially if it lacks dignity or is debilitated too. So if you dont mind I will stick with the astrological tradition rather than one you just made up on the back of a cigarette packet!

Mars is in no way, shape or form a Nocturnal or feminine planet period! Its qualities and elements tell you that, that is the basis of Mars. It is what it is. And needs to go back into the Diurnal Sect where it belongs! It works great with Fire and Air!!

No one said it was feminine. I have seen your lovely diurnal Mars as the source of numerous problems in day charts. Many clients seem to have a diurnal, Mars as the astrological epicentre of their woes. Theories from scratch are all very well but do they work? Not this one as far as I am concerned.

Saturn needs to go where its nature is, Nocturnal and dark. That is where these two planets are most comfortable, more of their natures. They both have very good qualities. Saturn builds such strong and lasting foundations. It gives us discipline, form and structure, without which we would not have much of a lasting civilization.

Well your consistent at least. I give you that much. Good luck in overturning an astrological tradition dating back over 2000 years.

That is one reason why I could never get into the triplicities, they are just wrong in my opinion. Even the reasoning of why they are there is WRONG, as Ptolemy states it in Chapt. 7.

Oh triplicities too? ok

Regarding Marks statement of Mars in Scorpio, being its joy. I don't buy that either. If Pluto was around back then the ancients would have given Pluto to Scorpio. Pluto/Hades, the God of the Underrworld works so well and reflects Scorpio to a Tee. Inward, delving into the depths of things, deep, relective, investigative, secretive, etc.

I dont mean to sound rude but frankly if you think modern rulerships are superior why are you even here?

I am getting pretty tired of people that use their posts on this forum to challenge traditonal astrology. This forum is meant to be a haven for traditionalists to share ideas within a basically traditional framework. Not for modernists to take pot shots. Members dont come here to have to defend fundamental concepts of traditional astrology. Its fair enough to ask questions in an open minded spirit of free enquiry. You dont have to accept the views expressed here. However, people here are not really interested in your idiosyncratic views of why traditional astrological concepts are all wrong or how you propose to improve them.

There are plenty of sites where you can discuss modern astrology. In contrast this particular Skyscript forum is an oasis for traditionalists. Its one of the very few places on the internet where traditionalists can come together to exchange knowledge and ideas. Hence we treasure this space. If your not traditional and want to post here please be respectful of that fact.

Mark

MorningSun wrote:Saturn needs to go where its nature is, Nocturnal and dark. That is where these two planets are most comfortable, more of their natures. They both have very good qualities. Saturn builds such strong and lasting foundations. It gives us discipline, form and structure, without which we would not have much of a lasting civilization.

I won't repeat what everyone else has been saying here as they all have been pretty clear about it but the bolded part is the point everyone is trying to make to you. You are right, both Mars and Saturn are more able to adhere to their innate natures in a dirunal and nocturnal chart respectively. It just so happens that their natures are against growth and life hence them being malefics. I don't think the ancients thought Mars and Saturn inherently bad or evil, it is just their natures are not conducive to an easy and blissful life. This is why it is more profitable for them to be somewhere where their inherent natures are subdued.

Mark wrote: I dont mean to sound rude but frankly if you think modern rulerships are superior why are you even here?

I am getting pretty tired of people that use their posts on this forum to challenge traditonal astrology. This forum is meant to be a haven for traditionalists to share ideas within a basically traditional framework. Not for modernists to take pot shots. Members dont come here to have to defend fundamental concepts of traditional astrology. Its fair enough to ask questions in an open minded spirit of free enquiry. You dont have to accept the views expressed here. However, people here are not really interested in your idiosyncratic views of why traditional astrological concepts are all wrong or how you propose to improve them.

There are plenty of sites where you can discuss modern astrology. In contrast this particular Skyscript forum is an oasis for traditionalists. Its one of the very few places on the internet where traditionalists can come together to exchange knowledge and ideas. Hence we treasure this space. If your not traditional and want to post here please be respectful of that fact.

Mark

Hello Mark,

I am not here to challenge traditional astrology, not did I say modern rulerships are superior. Rob Hand still questions all of the theories. I have studied traditional and am still learning, testing. When something is not logical it just isn't. Critical Thinking demands you find the origin of the Theory which is what I was trying to get to. The basis and foundation which Ptolemy states is NOT FOUNDED on a sound principle of qualities and elements, which IS the beginning. Do you not think so? The very BASIS of the theory, if that is flawed and not sound are you going to follow it?

My astrology library includes: Dykes, Sahl & Masha Allah, Bonatti I, II, All of Morin, The Astrological Record of the Early Sages by Robert Schmidt and signed, from the primary source texts from Antiquity, Firmucus Maternus, Al Biruni, Dorotheus fo Sidon, Al-Khayyat, Most of Project Hindsights material, tracks and monographs, texts; Ibn Ezra, James Holden, Culpepper, William Lilly, 5 books fo Manilius, Joseph Crane, Schoener, A.J. Pearce Robert Hand, Pelletier and I took Robert Zollers Medieval Course. And a HOST of Others,

So to say I am only modern is not true, nor am I here to bash traditional astrology. I question and test eveything just as everyone here. It is a good thing to question, keep seeking, to question if what you are learning is sound, to keep progressing. I am sure you do not accept everything you read as gospel until you check it out. I have an open mind regarding ALL of astrology, I question it all the time, that is how you get closer to the truth and what really works. I still believe the triplicity scheme is ILLOGICAL.

Sorry but it isn't based on the founding principles of qualities and elements. It is right there in Ptolemy, he states why they made it so, and the reasoning that he says "THEY" made it so, was hoping to temper the heat and dryness of Mars by puttiing it in the Nocturnal Sect. Does that sound like a sound principle to you? Seriously does it?

Mark wrote: Perhaps its a question of you will see it when you believe it but I have seen Saturn working in many night charts in a very negative way. Especially if it lacks dignity or is debilitated too. So if you dont mind I will stick with the astrological tradition rather than one you just made up on the back of a cigarette packet!

Of course Saturn and Mars will work in a negative way if they lack dignity or are debilitated. I did say that in a previous post. And your comment of making up a theory on the back of a cigarette pack is unwarranted.

The concept that I mentioned regarding the Triplicity Rulers makes more sense to me, actually sticks with and is MORE IN LINE with the TRADITIONAL astrological beginnings in keeping with QUALITIES AND ELEMENTS!! I don't think you can deny that. Is there any critical thinking at all or at least logic? At least mine has the logic and is IN LINE WITH the very foundation of the qualities and elements!!

Because something has been repeated and repeated over and over does not make it true, nor correct. I am not saying I am correct, I am saying the Triplicity rulerships, are not LOGICAL, nor based on the very foundations of qualities and elements to me.

So I put it out there, to the scholars here. Can you enlighten me on the basis and foundation of the origin of the Triplicity Rulers. Are you just believing it without questioning the foundation or basis of it? And does it really make sense to you or have you just used the system so long it does make sense to you.