One article that I found very interesting, relating to the subject, is this one:

http://www.robhand.com/Matter&FormArticle.htm

It was one of my first readings in astrology, back when I started, but I keep coming back to it, in order to find new meaning, every time.

My current understanding is that there is a difference between an essentially dignified planet in a chart, and an essentially dignified planet as a concept of the "ideal planet" that planet represents (like the ones in the Thema Mundi).

So, these ideal planets derived the ideal signs, that in turn, work as material cause for the mundane manifestations of the planets as we know it. Therefore, the ruler of a sign is the material cause of the sign, and as a consequence, of the planet therein posited (that may be corrupted in it's essential nature by being in a place contrary to it's essential, by having a material cause contrary to it's vocation) and the planet in the sign ends up the formal cause of the ruler, making the ruler, automatically, the final cause for it (the planet in a sign works for a reason, to aid or to hinder the purpose of it's ruler).

Hi Clelia
Nice to meet you to, I read articles on your website long before I joined this forum.

Clelia Romano wrote:

Due the dependence between a planet and its ruler, in practice it is not always ease to separate things,...

Very true, but it seems as if you are confusing houses with signs/domiciles. My quotations are about planets in each others dignities as per domicile, not houses.

If you use the Aristotelian reasoning yours 2nd hypothesis is the correct one.
I would say that a planet in sign X is working and giving material accordingly to the orders and aims of its ruler

.

It's not my hypothesis, to me this is a trueism. The host supplies material for its guest to use or work with.
Schmidt gave - a rather grave - example of Saturn in a domicile (or dignity) of Mars. The ancient textbook read something like: 'Kills sibblings'. So Saturn wants to destroy something, and Mars provides something for Saturn to do that with. On of the universal significations of Mars is: sibblings.

Now, what makes this interesting is that you can have up to 6 planets in the domicile of another, say Venus. That would mean that each one of them works in different ways with the Venus-material and produces a different outcome (apotelesma). So you get 6 different versions of 'venus-products', which to me is very revealing, as it contradicts the idea that it is Venus that produces 6 different outcomes because she 'rules' these 6 planets.
I think it is a (very) different issue.

I have another good example from a different chart: Venus, Sun and Mercury are in Aries in the 7th house and Mars is in the 10th in Cancer. Mars simply uses the material of partnership to elevate himself.

Again, this confuses the house issue with what I just wrote. It is Venus, sun and Mercury who are 'working' with Mars-material, as they are the guests in his domicile.
This is the natives familiarizationspace, as signified by Venus, Sun and Mercury in Mars' domicile. And after that you can perhaps specify it to the fatedness of the Ram, which is 7th sign-fate (that is: when it is the 7th sign from the ascendant, whole sign houses).

Mars transforms the three planets ruled by him in competitive, harsh and confrontational: we see that even Venus, a planet of sensual bond,carries ( after the first contact) the Mars seed.

Again, I would ascribe this to the fact that the planets in the Ram need to/are fated to work with Mars-material.
So I don't think Mars is 'transforming' anything, I think the planets in the Ram are hard at work with Mars' material, which results in competitive, harsh and confrontational attitudes (in general).

Kind regards

Tom wrote:I think the idea that we've had it all wrong for all these centuries is a bit too much to swallow, but elements of this concept might be in the original idea of reception and how the Greeks understood it. I wouldn't discount it entirely

Hi Tom,
I think it's not merely a question of whether or not we have been wrong all these centuries, but what exactly the underlying first principles are.
What concepts actually are the backbone of certain astrological points of view?

The rise of traditional astrology has made a real and fantastic effort to research and restore this (kudos to Deb, and many others in the field).

To my mind it was Schmidt who really opened up this (traditional) field of inquiry even further by being able to reason along the lines of the multidimensional meanings of the Greek terminology. His arguments about and reasoning of the how and why of the Lots (arabic parts) for instance is unsurpassed to my mind.
It really opens up the astrology and the philosophy behind it, which is way beyond the 'what works and what not' issue.

We are the recipients of a vast body of Latin jargon in our astrology, and I think it is worth while to ponder its (Greek) roots, and the subtleties thereof.

So to me it's not about what we've done wrong for centuries, but more about what it opens up as stuff to integrate in our astrology for coming centuries

Sorry all

I didn't mean to stick out my tongue at y'all

I meant this one

Tom wrote: A person was expected to extend hospitality to strangers, and the degree of hospitality extended depended on the social station (essential dignity?) of the recipient and the social station of the "lord" of the domicile. Not to do so would be offensive, and to abuse the hospitality was also offensive. Penelope's suitors clearly abused this custom. On his travels Odysseus was at times treated to good xenia and at other times denied it.

That's the basic rule of Mediterranean culture.
There is no worst sin than betraying friendship and hospitality.
Dante in his Inferno puts at the bottom of the pit with Lucifer traitors of hospitality, State and God.
But even Brutus and Judas are nobody else than people who were guests at the table of the people who betrayed; think of Judas, he literally sat with Jesus and then he sold him to soldiers.

That's for us Italians is very important even nowadays, still we say that "hospitality is sacred".

I think the idea that we've had it all wrong for all these centuries is a bit too much to swallow

I definitely agree.

First of all in Ptolemy and Medieval/Renaissance commentators it's evident that the ruling planet is the receiving one by essential dignity.
See:

In general the mode of domination is considered as falling under these five forms: when it is trine, house, exaltation, term, and phase or aspect; that is, whenever the place in question is related in one or several or all of these ways to the star that is to be the ruler.

So when we want to investigate about the ruler of whatever we should act in this way.

Still the quotes from Hermes are very interesting. It looks like both the planet in the domicile and the sign ruler are interchangeable, the one depends on the other and the opposite.

See the same chapter of Liber Hermetis quoted by Hermes:


Mars in the house of Venus.....Indeed some persons kill them on behalf of women, or they kill the women, or the women kill them.

For me, I prefer Ptolemy method because Renaissance and Early Modern authors have left several examples rather than guessing Hellenistic method.

margherita

[

Clelia Romano wrote:

Due the dependence between a planet and its ruler, in practice it is not always ease to separate things,...

Very true, but it seems as if you are confusing houses with signs/domiciles. My quotations are about planets in each others dignities as per domicile, not houses.

Hello Hermes:

I don?t know how can we see planets effects except by seeing them acting and causing accidents through the mundane houses they are in or the houses they rule. In order to turn any discussion down to earth and avoiding the abstract scenery of theoretical reasoning we have to use the houses where planets are in or rule. It is not a confusion but a solution in order to see the result of their power.

Maybe the question you raised would be clearer and plain if it was: a planet in a house gives the matter with which the ruler works or, just the opposite, the guest has power over its lord and uses its matter to act?

In the present stage of my knowledge I think the first choice is the right one:-)

best regards
Cl?lia

Clelia, if you allow me to disagree, although looking at the houses is important, I believe the houses are the last in line for consideration, cause they are more mundane than signs and planets. When looking at the origins of astrology as philosophy and a practical construct, it is better to think whole signs, that represents an ideal working frame, than to look at quadrants, that tries to reflect better the accidents of the sub-lunar world.

Now, if we are discussing matter and Aristhotelis, we have to establish chronology of the elements involved, both as a concept, and as a mundane existence per itself.

Which came first? The Signs? The Planets? The Houses?
I find it reasonable to say that:

First (but after God) there were the Planets (the vagrant stars). After them, came the signs (and this is open for discussion, of course).

So, the planets are matter for the signs, they are the material causation of the signs as well as their efficient cause.

That being established, we, knowing that a ruler provides the material causation of a sign, also know that the sign provides the matter for the planet therein posited. Venus in Aries exists because of Mars, Mars gives to Venus, through Aries, the matter that constitutes it as Venus in Aries. As we know, Mars' material is the least adequate type of material with which Venus could have to work through.

Now, about reception, who is the one favored through reception? The one receiving or the one received? I tend to think it is the one received. It is so much so, that the planet received can act to the benefit or malefice of the ruler, and still, the ruler is obliged to it. In the doctrine of disposition, we see that a planet finds dignity not only in itself, but when it lacks essential dignity, it looks, in turn, to it's dispositor. This would also explain why the lack of an aspect with the dispositor is a grave problem, because a planet not linked to the planet that endows matter, lacks matter with which to work.

So, if the planet can not provide itself by it's own means (by having dignity) it is the dispositor that has to do the provision... after all, the ruler of the kingdom has to look after it's subjects. This rationale confirms that even a corrupted planet can succeed in it's endeavor to a certain height, if it has quality matter with which to work (you may be miserable, but it is better to be miserable in a plenteous realm than to be miserable in a miserable realm). And the contrary can not happen, cause a planet that has some dignity provides for itself to some extent, so it has less need of a ruler, cause it is it's own ruler. The higher the rulership, the better is the quality of form taken.

So often, in natal, we worry a lot about a planet posited in a house, because we are looking for trouble along the road (and this discussion, "which one is more important, the ruler, or the planet in a house?" drags on). If it is a malefic (accidental or essential) it means that the purpose of the ruler, the ideal sought after by it, will be prone to problems and defects promoted by a received malefic. It is like receiving a bad guest in your house, one that lacks moderation and may be contrary to the nature of the host and it's purpose. So, that becomes a permanet problem, cause the radical chart will always say something about our fate. In turn, if it is benefic (accidental or essential) it will favor a moderate relationship, being a respectful or even a helping guest (so I guess noone would like to see lord eight siting in first).

Looking at horary, we also worry about planets posited in a house, cause they may show aid or hindrance, but the ultimate testimony of a question coming to fruition, is determined by the rulers. The result may not be the ideal one, depending on what obstacles sits on the way, but for something to happen, the rulers have to be linked in some way.

And that is why mutual reception is so strong. Both planets are obliged to help each other in their final causation, meaning, the purpose for which they are, the reason of their existence.

Hello Felipe:

Of course you can disagree, in astrology you don?t have commandments

I did not understand why the origin of signs and planets was important to the present question But probably signs came first, because the Primary Motion was immediately experienced, carrying out of vision all the sky in only 24 hours. Planets are not so fast and dramatic.

I used houses instead of signs or planets to explain my point of view because it is easier to see through them the accidents of the native?s lives. If Mars is in the sign of Venus in the 7th, relationships will be very different from the other way around, i.e. if Venus is in the sign of Mars in the same house.
Using houses, in this case the 7th house, turns it simple to see through partnerships which planet is giving the form and which is showing the effect.After all we experience the planets effects through the houses they are in or rule!

BTW, I agree that the result also depends on the celestial (and mundane, again houses) condition of the dispositor and the disposited planet.

best regards

Clelia

Clelia Romano wrote:
I used houses instead of signs or planets to explain my point of view because it is easier to see through them the accidents of the native?s lives.

Hi Clelia

I understand you porint of view, but it is interesting that you claim to see the accidents of the native's lives merely - or clearer - through the houses. The quotes I gave speak of rather interesting accidents possible in the native's life.

If Mars is in the sign of Venus in the 7th, relationships will be very different from the other way around, i.e. if Venus is in the sign of Mars in the same house.

The same now goes for the mere fact of Mars is in the sign of Venus and not just in the 7th, relationships will be very different from the other way around, i.e. if Venus is in the sign of Mars and then not neccesarily in the 7th.

This adds new info, it doesn't contradict anything. It is a new layer of delineation.

Regards

I think the idea that we've had it all wrong for all these centuries is a bit too much to swallow

I definitely agree.

Hi Margherita

It is indeed too much to swallow when one is of the opinion that astrology, of whatever kind or background, is set in stone. It is not.
What often is set in stone is the way people work with astrology. After a while, it often becomes a methodology set in stone, and even traditionalists then seem to have trouble accepting different points of view.

Much of the work of traditional astrology of recent years has been to (try to) correct some faulty opinions or badly understood methodology of modern astrological practices.
But you seem to imply that traditional astrology as such is beyond that?

First of all in Ptolemy and Medieval/Renaissance commentators it's evident that the ruling planet is the receiving one by essential dignity.

Now that is right on the mark, as far as the receiving bit is concerned. Receiving defines the function of this planet as being the host.
Interpreting the term 'ruler' as 'the boss' instead of the steward, is a mistake in my opinion. I think due to translation-issues.

I also think Ptolemy (the bane of horary astrology) offers little help in all of this and is often a source of much confusion, as he was (most) probably not an astrologer at all.
Please read the introduction of James Holden to his translation of Abu Ali Al Khayyat, which relates the unfortunate incidents during the renaissance leading to Ptolemy being seen as the authority on the Greek branch of astrology, which he is not.

Morinus says (I paraphrase book 22, I forget where exactly) that the signs have no power of their own, but are dependent on their ruler. So if the Sun sucks (pardon my French), so does Leo, and any planet there.

I know it can be read both ways (Sun as RULER messes up, or Sun as messed up STEWARD has little to offer as buildingmaterial for Leo), but it is open for an alternative view.

regards

Hello Hermes

Interpreting the term 'ruler' as 'the boss' instead of the steward, is a mistake in my opinion. I think due to translation-issues.

Translation of what? Ptolemy has been translated several times and in the Renaissance the Arabic version was questioned in many points, but in my knowledge not about this.

I also think Ptolemy (the bane of horary astrology) offers little help in all of this and is often a source of much confusion, as he was (most) probably not an astrologer at all.

That's the legend spread in the English speaking astrological traditional world.

The point is impossible to do natal astrology without Ptolemy.

Almost everything which can be used come from Tetrabiblos, the directions, the system of directions/profections/solar returns .....

Without considering Ptolemy the astrologer is obliged to re-build the system of Hellenistic astrology, but if we follow Ptolemy we have so many examples to follow. It's true that Ptolemy is very stingy with words, but we open whatever commentary to Tetrabiblos and there is plenty of examples, calculations, and natal charts. Why we should discard the most beautiful minds of Middle Ages, Renaissance and Modern times in name of the crusade against Ptolemy it's a mystery to me.

As for your example I'm not so bad inclined. It's obvious that in the chapter from Liber Hermetis the guest planet has some influence on the planet ruling the sign which occupies, still obviously then the astrological procedure went another direction.

margherita