Skyscript Astrology Forum

Mark wrote: 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:

...

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.

My own personal theory about this is that the Medieval astrologers kind of made a mistake in treating the two sect-related rejoicing conditions as being on par with the primary consideration, which is just whether it is a day or night chart, and if the planet in question is of the sect in favor or contrary to the sect in favor.

It is not that the other two conditions are completely unimportant or don't relate to a planet's sect status at all, but it is just that they are far less important than the primary condition, and that is why it is the primary thing, and oftentimes the only thing, that is emphasized in the Hellenistic delineation texts.

But then in the Medieval tradition you get the development of the concept of hayz, which essentially treats all three conditions as equal, which, I would argue, is a mistake.

I think that this is why the concept becomes less and less important as the western tradition progresses though, not because sect is useless, but because too much emphasis was being placed on two additional minor conditions whose status had been raised up to the detriment of the overall technique.

Konrad wrote:

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.

Hello Konrad,

Very well put and a great reply. However, if you are wearing an article of clothing that you hate and are very uncomfortable wearing it, you are just not quite your normal self, probably a bit cranky and off, more cranky than if you had comfortable clothing on.

I imagine that is how Mars and Saturn feel when out of their element and qualities. I would still argue that Mars would be a stronger triplicity ruler in a fire and air sign, and is more apt to be cranky, out of sorts in a water and earth sign. Yes, I understand the thinking of why "they" wanted to put Mars and Saturn where did. It is just food for thought, something to ponder.

hi chris,

thanks for indirectly answering a question i had essentially presented to paul earlier on the issue of the 3 ways to define sect.. i like what you've articulated here..

james_m wrote:
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..

Chris Brennan wrote: My own personal theory about this is that the Medieval astrologers kind of made a mistake in treating the two sect-related rejoicing conditions as being on par with the primary consideration, which is just whether it is a day or night chart, and if the planet in question is of the sect in favor or contrary to the sect in favor.

It is not that the other two conditions are completely unimportant or don't relate to a planet's sect status at all, but it is just that they are far less important than the primary condition, and that is why it is the primary thing, and oftentimes the only thing, that is emphasized in the Hellenistic delineation texts.

But then in the Medieval tradition you get the development of the concept of hayz, which essentially treats all three conditions as equal, which, I would argue, is a mistake.

I think that this is why the concept becomes less and less important as the western tradition progresses though, not because sect is useless, but because too much emphasis was being placed on two additional minor conditions whose status had been raised up to the detriment of the overall technique.

Konrad wrote: 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.

konrad - thanks for sharing your thoughts!

using an analogy here - what would happen if a car came with a gas pedal but no brake pedal?

i agree with you that i don't think the ancients thought mars and saturn inherently bad or evil, but in terms of being conducive to an easy and blissful life, i believe there positive characteristics are absolutely essential. if they are positioned in a chart in the most favourable way (leaving aside just what that might be for the moment), then i believe they are of great benefit to the chart dynamic.

i think a case could be made for subduing any of the planets natures when they have gone overboard or gotten out of step with the larger picture of what it means to live a healthy and positive life.. to use another analogy - there is a tv show on now called 'hoarders'.. i don't have a tv, but i have heard about it.. i think it reflects a part of today's culture and i think it reflects an absence of an effective saturn that knows how to cut away, or get rid of excess!!
needless to say, there is that word again 'excess' that paul used earlier in this thread.. i think the value and benefit of any planet really depends on whether it is positioned to be able to do what it does for the benefit of the whole chart, as opposed to running away with the whole chart!! this is why astrology is rather tricky.. a synthesis of the whole chart doesn't come easy..

james_m wrote:hi chris,

thanks for indirectly answering a question i had essentially presented to paul earlier on the issue of the 3 ways to define sect.. i like what you've articulated here..

james_m wrote:
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..

Yeah, that is basically correct. The hierarchy is:

1. Day or night chart, and thus the planet is of the sect in favor or or contrary.

2. Above or below the horizon.

3. In a diurnal or nocturnal sign.

The hierarchy is setup this way for two reasons:

First, in the Hellenistic tradition it seems that not every author applies the concept of sect to individual signs. In the passage by Valens quoted at one point earlier it is worth pointing out that even when he is explaining sect-related rejoicing conditions and he mentions #2, he doesn't mention #3. What this means is that #1 and #2 may have been the only conditions originally.

Second, there appear to have been different schemes for applying sect to the signs in the Hellenistic tradition when it is actually mentioned by various authors, and the rule where the masculine signs are diurnal and the feminine signs are nocturnal is just one of the schemes that happened to win out and get passed to the Medieval tradition. There were others that involved things such as dividing the zodiac into diurnal and nocturnal hemispheres though. This is one of the reasons why I think that people should be careful about treating this third condition as equal to the first.

Chris,

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain Sect so succinctly!! So clear, concise, and a HUGE help in differentiating the Medieval from the Hellenistic !! Your expertise is invaluable. Can't thank you enough!!

No problem. Glad I could help to clarify it, since it is one of my favorite traditional concepts.

Good morning,

Obviously, as Mr Chris Brennan has confirmed, there was no Hayizz in Hellenistic astrology.

Unless one is convinced that innovations are inherently negative and perhaps somehow 'evil', one can examine them on their own merits, whether and to what extent their application leads to perceptible, verifiable improvements of astrological delineations.

Perhaps i missed or misunderstood something, but to me the path to the Mediaeval Hayizz has seemed more stratified, successive than only a set of equal conditions. My understandings of ha?r?sis and Hayizz have been:

H?lios, Zeus and Kronos always form the diurnal, S?l?n?, Aphrodit? and Ar?s the nocturnal sect. When oriental, Herm?s belongs to the diurnal, when occidental to the nocturnal sect.

The various other stipulations 'culminate' in the Mediaeval state of Hayizz. On this there is a significant difference of opinion concerning Ar?s considering His masculine gender, whether He, when in sect, to obtain Hayizz, should be posited

A) above the horizon in a nocturnal chart, in a passive (feminine) sign, or

B) below the horizon in a nocturnal chart, in an active (masculine) sign.

Taking a gradual approach, a wandering star

1. 'feels least good' when out of sect (nocturnal sect in diurnal chart and vice versa),

2. a bit better when out of sect but above (diurnal sect) or below (nocturnal sect) the horizon,

3. better when in sect,

4. still better when in sect and above (diurnal sect) or below (nocturnal sect) the horizon, and

5. best (Hayizz) when in sect, above the horizon and in an active sign if of the diurnal sect in a diurnal chart, or in sect, below the horizon and in a passive sign in a nocturnal chart. Example: Aphrodit? in Pisces in the 3rd counter-clockwise place whilst H?lios is below the horizon. For Ar?s see above.

Hopefully i have not got too much mixed up.

Best regards,

lihin

Good morning,

Referring to one of Ms Morning Star's ("Morning Star' is usually a somewhat veiled way to refer to Aphrodit?, used for example in initiatic rituals to avoid ecclesiastic prosecution) prior posts, indeed the ancient Heathen mind-set was not like Monsieur Ren? Descartes who put spiralling time on a straight x-axis. Things were convoluted, dynamic, 'Hermetic', one extreme becoming its opposite, etc. Ar?s rules one Water and one Fire Sign. Ar?s enjoys being with Aphrodit? and S?l?n? and vice versa, the Former ruling one Earth and one Air sign. Opposites can and do attract.

There is nothing wrong with someone feeling uncomfortable in a mind-set corresponding to a certain epoch or school of astrology. Monsieur Jean-Baptiste Morin abandoned confines and decans. The Aalen (cosmobiology) and the Hamburg schools have no systems of planetary honours / disabilities at all. Instead, they rely on their systems of 'natural significations' that depend on basic definitions of planets, differing considerably even between these two 20th century CE German schools.

Perhaps Ms Morning Star might feel more affinity and thus be more comfortable with one of the modern astrologies than with Hellenistic and / or Mediaeval astrologies. Even amongst astrological authors of these periods there were important differences of opinion including on some basics. In my humble experience, rather than exclusive reliance on 'authorities', there is no substitute for development of ones own faculties of cognition, discrimination, judgement and synthesis - Herm?s!

Best regards,

lihin

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

Eeek ye, I meant benefic

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!

Ye I was going to ignore it too, but as I thought that it was this 'version' of sect that MorningSun was thinking about I thought it better to clarify that other people say different things regarding sect. Also I didn't want to give an impression that the only form of sect is the division by whether the chart is diurnal or nocturnal (even if it's probably the most important or popular one) and everything else is a mistake by the medieval period, because I don't think that's quite true. I think Valens uses both ways and calls it sect so it can be confusing. Originally I wasn't following MorningSun's posts as I had it in my head she meant the more simple diurnal/nocturnal division which is I think what most people mean by sect (this may just be my assumption) so I felt it worth highlighting Valens' quote to see if this was more what she had in mind.

james_m wrote: 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..

I see Chris has answered this already, I deliberately only mentioned that one way not because of not knowing of the others, but to try to clarify why there may have been possible confusion. The way I described is probably the primary way of defining sect, with the rejoicing considerations coming secondary. Personally I don't use the third way at all but that's just my preference. It only dawned on me after a couple of replies that MorningSun meant the secondary rejoicing considerations as being sect so I wanted to clarify the other way which I believe to be the most obvious or primary way (I'm glad people like Mark and Chris appear to agree with that assessment). I think the rejoicing conditions are important though, but ultimately I think I probably agree that it was a misunderstanding that they are given equal importance. Really I actually think they show two separate things, this is just my own view, but that the planets part of the sect of the chart are the ones which 'come into power' and bestow their power in an even manner (and therefore a moderate manner, therefore a benefic one). Those which are in their own field of sect (rejoicing conditions) have a tendency toward being more benefic.
So say Mars is out of sect (ie, it's a day chart) but is below the horizon, I think that Mars is essentially still acting as a malefic, but will act less malefically than were it in the diurnal hemisphere, but ultimately it is more like a restraint than a change of nature itself.
A planet contrary to sect is more 'stop start' or less even in applying its power so is less moderate and more malefic in its own nature. I think really the concept of sect is about determining whether the planet is acting more as a benefic or a malefic as well as being even or uneven in distributing its power. The rejoicing conditions are all a part of the overall judgement but are secondary influences from the primary consideration of whether it is part of the sect of the chart or not.

Therefore I think the two need to be considered - obviously they are not equal and from a practical point of view, the more important consideration is the first one. This is just my own understanding and how I personally use it, though I wouldn't mind hearing from others whether they think that's flawed. However, again, being practical, I also think that a planet in its own domicile is also going to act beneficially.

MorningSun wrote: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 keep saying this as if you know that it was wishful thinking. It may well be that they did because they observed over time that Mars did in fact act more like a benefic during the night. Perhaps it may even be as simple as the understandable observation that during the night when it's very cold and damp, fire (mars) is your friend. During the day when it's hot and dry already, fire is your enemy. Who knows. What we do know is that it's not obvious that it's "wishful thinking" this is in fact just your theory, but you're not backing it up by any logic which is better than the one you're arguing against.

Mars and Saturn, they are what they are!

Yes but what is that? Let's take the example of fire again - is fire good or bad? We cannot change its nature fire is fire, but surely we'd accept that depending on the environment, and where the fire is, it could be good OR bad. That's exactly how the ancients saw it. The analogy would be saying that fire in the fire place on a cold damp night is beneficial but fire in a forest in a hot dry climate is malefic as it will burn and kill. Depending on where you put the fire will depend on whether you see it as benefic or malefic - we're not changing the essential nature of fire, just as our subjective views as to whether it is helpful to us or harmful to us. I think of the same thing with regards sect. Mars in a diurnal sect will suit its hot and dry nature perhaps (as Konrad points out) but who said sect was ever about suiting your nature? It's about determining the quality of the planet, such as whether it is helpful or harmful, and Mars is harmful as part of a diurnal sect, and helpful in a nocturnal one. It's not wishful thinking, that's just how it is. To keep with my analogy, it wouldn't be any more logical to tell the people who got burned out of their homes during a forest fire "Soz guys, but it's just wishful thinking of yours to think that fire is not beneficial during hot dry climates and environments".

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!

Nobody is suggesting it is feminine btw. Nocturnal is not a synonym for feminine. Mars is masculine but better behaved at night so is masculine but nocturnal.
But I would argue when we don't agree with something, only one of the reasons is that this something is wrong, the other is that our understanding or assumptions we're making about it is wrong.
For example you say:
"Saturn needs to go where its nature is"

Why? Whoever said that this was an important consideration for sect? Whoever said that sect is about putting planets where their nature is? Isn't this just an assumption, and when we get down to it, the nature of the disagreement here. You think sect should be about putting planets in the environments that most readily resemble their nature. However the tradition of astrology implies that it is about putting planets in the environments that bring out the beneficial qualities of their nature, not simply match them.

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.

Would they? Why? We didn't. We gave it to Aries. There was a great thread on this some time ago. Rob Hand indicates that 'originally' at a conference in Germany the subject came up and was, by majority, voted against assigning Pluto to Scorpio and was in fact agreed upon to assign it to Aries. After all this is in keeping with the logic that was used to assign the other planets Uranus and Neptune - the Ptolemaic logic was continued, the next furthest out planet would get the next furthest out sign from the Sun, which was Aquarius, then Neptune was discovered so we kept with the trend and put it to Pisces, then Pluto was discovered and so the trend was followed again and assigned to Aries. Then one astrologer thought, nah, I prefer Scorpio, ignored the existing framework, published it as Scorpio, was popular and so it just kind of stuck.
So, would an ancient astrologer have assigned it to Scorpio? Well probably not imo.

Morning Sun wrote:

Hello Mark,

I am not here to challenge traditional astrology, not did I say modern rulerships are superior.

Well you did rather imply that in your comments on why you thought Pluto was a more logical ruler of Scorpio than Mars. Take a look at your own post on that!

Morning Sun wrote:

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.

I think any intelligent astrologer is always questioning and testing out theory against practice. However, what you describe as critical thinking came over more as dismissive scepticism to me. You seemed to have your mind firmly made up at the a start of this thread. And you have kept repeating the same view ever since.

Morning Sun wrote:

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?

I don?t see the approach as fundamentally flawed in the way you do. That doesn?t mean it?s a perfect solution. Clearly astrologers used sect long before Ptolemy came along. Ptolemy is the only astrologer to attempt a logical, systematic approach to the topic. He attempted to fit an existing theory into his systematic approach to astrology based on qualities of the planets. How successful Ptolemy was is a personal judgement.

Your proposed solution doesn?t solve the problem of a masculine planet in the nocturnal sect. Saturn is masculine too. It also ignores the idea of ancient astrology that the heat of the day makes Mars more dry and hot and therefore malefic and the cold of the night makes Saturn even colder. Your problem is not just Ptolemy but the whole idea of sect.

What seems ?logical? to one person may seem the opposite to another. Hence I think it would be more logical to drop the theory altogether if you dont find it convincing. Proposing to change the sect alignment of the malefics is like proposing a change to the domicile rulerships. You can do it but it is no longer in step with a fundamental principle of traditional astrology.

Morning Sun wrote:

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,

Nice library! However, as an anonymous poster here. I can only I judge you by the quality of your comments here not by the alleged size of your astrological library or who you claim to have studied with.

Morning Sun wrote:

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.

Ok your not a sceptical modernist as I assumed. I apologise for that misunderstanding. We had problems with some people posting lately who are essentially modern who dont get the logic of this forum. I clearly misread your motivation in that respect.

However, as I said I can only judge people by how they post here. I don?t know your real name, gender, age, nationality, location, educational standard or whether you are currently in a mental institution or a maximum security prison! All I had to judge was the tone of your posts and they came over as quite sceptical and dismissive to me.

Morning Sun wrote:

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?

Quite seriously yes. I am not being contrarian. It does make sense to me and quite a lot of other people here too.

That is not say astrology doesn?t throw up difficult issues. We confront them all the time. The tropical zodiac itself has the issue of how we deal with southern hemisphere charts which astrologers take different approaches to. If your not convinced I don?t know what can be done about that. Clearly sect is not something you will be utilising. Fine. The idea was very diluted by the time of early modern astrologers like like Lilly, Gadbury, So if if it isn't logical for you you are perfectly at liberty to drop 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!

Morning Sun wrote:

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.

I was trying to make the point that in my experience sect can magnify the inauspicious nature of a planet. Hence I have come across cases where even planets without debility often work negatively if they are totally out of sect. I confess though I could have expressed that point better.

Morning Sun wrote:

And your comment of making up a theory on the back of a cigarette pack is unwarranted.

A rhetorical flourish perhaps but I am afraid I don?t think your theory holds much weight. But maybe that is just me.

Morning Sun wrote:

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.
What traditional source are you deriving your idea of elements and planetary qualities from? You keep repeating this point without elaborating further.

I see you are itching to get into the subject of triplicity rulers. However, that is long way from the assignation of the malefic in sect. I suggest you open a separate thread on that if you feel so strongly about it.

Morning Sun wrote:

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!!

Exactly whose concepts of elements and qualities are you using. Aristotle? Sources please!

Morning Sun wrote:

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.

I think your going to have to open a separate thread on triplicity rulers. It does touch on sect but it will take us into a lot of other areas outside the focus of the thread too.

Mark