For what its worth though Mind does not mean intelligence. The two are not the same. Also whilst Morin may or may not have said this about the Moon regarding the Wife and the Mother (I do not know) I'm not sure why this tells us anything about traditional astrology as a whole. I could pluck a quote from a 'psychological astrologer' and present it to an actual psychologist and ask if it resembles any psychology they know and conclude that psychological astrology is on dangerous ground indeed if they say no.

Hi Tom I inadvertently deleted the part where Paul mentions Morin. It is above

Hi Tom I inadvertently deleted the part where Paul mentions Morin. It is above

You said

pages 17 and 18 Morin talks about that

Talks about what? Precisely what are you referring to? Pages 17 and 18 cover a lot of ground in a chapter titled: "The accidental determinations of the primum caelum." What part of this are you referring to?

Morin's references to "wife and mother" in relation to the Moon have to do with when the Moon signifies one and when the Moon signifies the other. He often refers to the Moon as significator of moral character, but your reference to pages 17 & 18 isn't telling us anything at all.

well its a long quote but here it is:

"Consider also the fact that for
the length of time Mercury remains in the same sign the mental qualities
produced would be the same all over the world, which is certainly
contrary to experience, since in fact at each hour or even at each minute
these qualities do change. So, if Mercury, the general significator of the
mind according to analogy, is found to be the particular significator of
this same thing by position or rulership in the first house?which refers
to the mental qualitiesas well as of the whole general condition of the
body and soul?the effect of Mercury on the mental qualities in such a
case will be very strongly pronounced. Similarly, if Mercury has some
relation to the Ascendant or its ruler by rulership or by aspect it will also
have a stronger influence on the mental qualities. And the more such
determinations it has the greater will its influence be on the mental
qualities, but if there are no such determinations Mercury will have no
reference to the mental qualities; and the same is true for the other
planets and houses.
One may object that in several places Ptolemy takes into first
consideration the position of the general significators with respect to the
angles of the horoscope, and consequently, these should be considered an
important determining factor.
I would reply that this determination is still too general since there
are only four angles in the horoscope, nor is a specific determination as
possible as it is by using the twelve houses. And unless the determination
is a specific one the Moon could not indicate the moral character any
more than the mother or the wife. But Ptolemy, as is evident from the
passages cited above, does not follow our method nor do any other
astrologers; instead, when evaluating the mental qualities, they only
consider Mercury and Mercury's ruler, regardless of what Mercury's
condition may be in the horoscope?that is, they do not consider its
specific determinations. Their method must be false since as long as the
Moon would remain in the seventh house, the same things would have to
be predicted for both the mother and the wife, and that would be
senseless; for even if the Moon were ruler of the fourth house and
therefore significator of the parents and the mother in particular, it is still
located in the seventh house and by this determination through location
refers more clearly to the wife than to the mother; and so on for the other
planets and houses.

Good afternoon,

Mr Damon's quotation from a translation of Monsieur Jean-Baptiste Morin's Astrologica Gallica is an excellent supportive example of why i do not believe that there is such a thing as 'traditional astrology'. Rather, there are at least Hellenistic, Mediaeval, Renaissance and Modern astrologies and within each many conflicting schools and authors.

Although Mr Robert Zoller teaches primarily Mediaeval astrology, his approach includes an appreciable influence of Morinus, for example precisely in the interpretations of houses where accidental configurations prevail over natural significations, although the latter are not negated.

As we have discussed somewhat in another thread, Klaudios Ptolomaios was not a 'pure Aristotelian'. In my humble opinion Morinus came closer. We might discuss the differences of elemental qualities attributed to the planets between the two in another thread.

Best regards,

lihin

Tom wrote: Now to answer Paul's earlier question which was (paraphrasing not a direct quote): who uses analogy to determine sect? Morin did. Again he was the only one.

Thank you for this Tom. I didn't think any major astrologer attributed Saturn to the night sect. I guess Morin was a bit of a reformer - I am not familiar enough with his work to say.

Hi Tom
I had just been reading his views on sect on pages 72-73 when I read your post:
"Albohali,1 who judges happiness or misfortune for the native from the rulers of the Sun's triplicity when the horoscope is diurnal, but from the rulers of the Moon's triplicity when it is nocturnal. Such judgments, however, would be completely universal ones and common to the entire earth, and therefore absurd. The fact is, nothing can be predicted from the rulers of the triplicities which from the planet's location, rulerships and aspects cannot be predicted with greater precision or certainty. For example, in the first horoscope of Albohali, which is nocturnal, the Moon rules the second and is in the sixth, conjunct Saturn in Scorpio, where the Moon is in fall. However, Mars, ruler of the Moon, is in Aquarius and square to the Moon and Saturn; what clearer indications of poverty could the ruler of the second house possibly show? And so, the cause of poverty was quite evident without resorting to the triplicities, but by means of the triplicity rulers given by us, poverty is also shown. However, according to Albohali, the Moon is by night the principal ruler of its triplicity, with Mars as partner; the Moon and Mars are in cadent houses?the Moon in the sixth and Mars in the ninth?and this is sufficient evidence according to the method of Albohali. But I think that the Moon in fall ruling the second and afflicted by the conjunction of Saturn and the square to Mars is a much more significant and reliable indication. In Albohali's second horoscope, which is diurnal, the Sun is in Aquarius in the eleventh and conjunct Mercury. According to both Albohali and myself Saturn and Mercury would be the Sun's triplicity rulers. But Saturn is conjunct Mars in Scorpio in the eighth, and Saturn and Mercury are in succedent houses, from which Albohali foretold that the native would attain the highest public office and great prosperity. Such things, however, could not take place through Saturn and Mercury as they are in square, but instead from other stronger and more evident causes?through Venus, ruler of the second, in the tenth and trine the second house cusp, and therefore in its own triplicity; and also from Jupiter in the fourth and in its exaltation, as well as in mutual reception with the Moon. Therefore, since Jupiter and Venus are in such a favorable condition, and are by nature analogous to wealth as well as in positions indicative of position and wealth, honors and prosperity will proceed from them. And the malefics in trine to Jupiter and sextile Venus will not stand in the way, but will also assist as they are in the eighth house, which through opposition to the second indicates money. These conclusions are, of course, in conformity with the method of interpretation outlined above. From Albohali and other ancient and modern astrologers I could cite many examples showing a similar approach. Let us say now that the rulers of the triplicities have a certain influence and it is possible to make a judgment from them, for when a sign's influence undergoes any modification at all it will affect in a certain measure the other signs of that triplicity because of the similarity of their natures. But the signs act in accordance with the nature and state of their rulers, as has frequently been stated, and a judgment based on a sign's ruler is much more reliable that one based on the ruler of the triplicity, because the ruler of a sign is a more proximate cause and one on which the sign's action essentially depends; the ruler of the triplicity, however, is a more remote cause, and one on which the sign's action does not essentially depend. I maintain also that the influence of the aspects is much more important than the power of the triplicity rulers alone, to which I ascribe a minimal value resulting from that general conformity in the fundamental nature of the signs of the same triplicity, however much the signs may differ in other respects. Indeed, Cancer is a sign lunar in nature, while Scorpio is martial and Pisces jovial, but they are of the same watery nature. And also, I think that a consideration of the triplicity rulers is more valid in matters of temperament and character than in the judgment of other circumstances and events. And so, dignity by rulership of a house?other things being equal? is more significant than by exaltation in that house, but this in turn is more significant than by triplicity. But it is certain that a planet influences the affairs of the houses by virtue of its dignities of ruler-ship, exaltation, and triplicity?wherever that planet may be?and whether or not it sends any aspect to those houses. The explanations given earlier refer to domicile and exaltation, which pertain to a single planet, but since for a triplicity three planets refer to the same sign, one should observe whether the horoscope is diurnal or nocturnal so that only two planets need be taken into consideration; one of these will be the principal ruler of the triplicity while the other will only be the secondary."

I myself have seen one case in which an Astrologer made sect to fit the chart,like Antoine Garth in his example of Hitler and MLKing

Good afternoon,

Thanks to Mr Damon for this additional, excellent quotation. Monsieur le docteur Jean-Baptiste Morin de Villefranche was doubtless one of the greatest astrological authors we have the privilege to read, whether or not one agrees with him in all details. His exceptionally clear and logical approach helps those who have bathed or are bathing in them climb out of the muddled waters of the 'Neptunian' 19th and 20th centuries' influences of Madame Helena Petrovna Blavatsky's theosophism and related movements.

Best regards,

lihin

http://pt.scribd.com/doc/57424678/Ville ... lica-XVIII



http://rester.us/prdl/author_view.php?a ... 0&limit=10

If you understand spanish or french you can read some of his books here

http://pt.scribd.com/doc/119090426/Sola ... Ps-18-E-19

this one in english

Tom wrote:

I have to admit I'm having a tough time following this thread.

Me too and I have been around since almost the beginning! The focus of the thread has been the basis for assigning the malefics by sect in ancient astrology and the historical origins of triplicity rulers.

Not sure why we have drifted into a discussion of Morin who is probably one of the least representative astrologers of the tradition as a whole. Still, I suppose if you want to challenge the traditional notion of sect Morin is the only game in town. I can see why Morin is appealing to many as his stance is arguably closer to modern astrology in quite a few respects.

Regarding damon's quote Tom's writes:

What Morin is discussing on 14 & 15 is not sect, but general significators.

Tom wrote:

Now to answer Paul's earlier question which was (paraphrasing not a direct quote): who uses analogy to determine sect? Morin did. Again he was the only one. He discusses the traditional determination of planetary sect and then explains why he thinks older astrologers were wrong. The idea is that, say Saturn has a cold and dry nature, the colder and drier Saturn is, the more it is like its nature and therefore the stronger it is, So Saturn is part of the night sect. This isn't all that bad. After all we argue that planetary strength is the result of the planet being most able to act like itself without restriction as it does in domicile, because the nature of the planet is such that it is uninhibited by the sign. So then why say that it is stronger when a cold dry planet is made to be warmer and more moist in the day time? That is, to Morin, an inconsistency.

Thanks I will check out the reference you give with interest. Its something of a debate in itself whether sect is a qualitative or quantitative issue. In other words are we discussing making a planet being more powerful in effect or rather altering its nature? This subject has been discussed amongst hellenistic astrologers too. For example Chris Brennan has suggested planetary sect can alter the nature of a planet but not really its power to act. On the other hand some hellenistic sources have been interpreted by other astrologers as implying more about the power of a planet to act.

This debate is very similar to discussion about how essential dignity operates in the chart. Is a planet without dignity less able to act or is the issue more about how it will act in the chart? I dont think Saturn or Mars out of sect are automatically 'weaker'. Rather I see their intrinsic malefic potential intensified. I think house placement , and aspectual contacts are the key determinant of a planets ability to express itself.

As with any crime investigation of a suspect we examine both motive and ability to act. The nature of a planet is what determines its motive. We investigate that with dignity, sect and planetary phase. Hence Mars or Saturn out of sect are arguably more malefic and therefore more destructive in nature. How these planets express that nature on the world at large is largely an issue of house placement and aspectual connections.

Tom wrote:

But keep in mind these are his ideas about sect and they are not the ideas of the majority of traditional astrologers. In fact because he lived when the popularity of astrology was declining on the European continent, and he died before his book came out, and his book did not become influential until the 20th century, it is safe to say no astrologers other than Morin looked at sect this way.

Yes I tend to regard Morin as an astrologer outside the mainstream of ancient, medieval or renaissance astrology. He was probably the first astrologer since Ptolemy to attempt a thoroughly systematic reevaluation of the entire astrological tradition. Hence he rejected many ideas treasured in traditional astrology.

A lot of focus is put on Morin's emphasis on accidental vs natural significators. I am no authority on Morin like Tom but I dont think that made his thinking unique amongst renaissance astrologers. It may have created a clear contrast to Ptolemy but that is a different issue.

Much more radical though was Morin's naturalistic approach which dispensed with traditional ideas he couldn't find a natural or logical explanation for. Hence, Morin proposed abandoning or a radically reforming many ideas which were central to the ancient and medieval tradition:

-Planetary Sect (Reform or Abandonment?)
-Combustion theory (Abandoned)
-Triplicity rulerships (A comprehensive overhaul)
-The Lots/Parts (With the exception of Fortuna all were abandoned)
-The bounds/terms, decans , dodecatamoiria (Abandoned)

I find it puzzling that Dr Benjamin Dykes recommends Morin as a good examplar of medieval natal astrology. In many respects Morin rejects fundamental aspects of that tradition. Perhaps this is just a pragmatic recognition of the lack of English language translations of many good traditional works on natal astrology from the Latin west or renaissance. A good example is Cardano who seems to have been more representative of the renaissance tradition than Morin. Sadly, we have very little of his work available in English at present

Incidentally, here is a piece not just setting out Morin's system of triplicity rulership but also controversially advocating its adoption:

http://altairastrology.wordpress.com/20 ... riplicity/

Mark

Hello Paul and everyone,

I have started to read this thread at a later stage and was thinking about adding my thoughts because it appeared somehow noone understood the concept behind MorningStar's doubts ? but in the end Paul has termed it in a way I thought was fitting, even if it was in a form of questions:

Paul wrote: 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.

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.

The bold text is the main mistake or misunderstanding or the reason of the further doubts a student of traditional astrology can have: if one starts reading the classification of the planets for the first time(s), the explanations somehow suggest, at least in the beginning of the descriptions, that the inherent nature of the planets and division/classification is somehow coherent.
I admit, it is not written literally that this is the principle applied, but I have had the similar approach and doubts as MS and it was not something I have imagined myself but that came to my mind as something that seemed a logical consequence of the things I had previously read, now I think probably the assignment of masculinity/femininity of the planets according to their nature.
But, as Paul has answered the doubts (at least, my ones) already: being nocturnal/diurnal is NOT about the planet being in an environment matching its nature.
Thanks for clearing it.

Iris

Good morning,

This thread with its references to several periods of astrology is an excellent illustration that there is no such thing as "the tradition" but rather, at most, several of them. Prof. Dr. Jean-Baptiste Morin was, so it looks, indeed a major 'innovator' like Klaudios Ptolomaios.

'The proof of the pudding is in the eating'. Systematic, scientific, statistical research could eventually demonstrate which theories of ha?r?sis, if any, are valid. Although such research is very difficult in astrology do to the complexities of its objects and to their inter-reliance, it is not impossible. Nearly exclusive use of 'anecdotal evidence' by astrologers to date has left astrologies' flanks wide open to attacks by sceptics.

One might attempt to summarise the development of ha?r?sis:

1. In Hellenistic astrology ha?r?sis , a reflection of the most evident astronomical phenomenon of night and day, was a major, if not overriding principle of horoscopic astrology with two major schools of elemental rulerships by sect that have survived in practice: Dorotheus of Sidon and Klaudios Ptolomaios, one major difference between the two concerning the planet Mars, focus of this thread.

2. In Mediaeval astrology secta (Latin) became less important. Dorotheus' system predominated.

3. In Renaissance astrology, the importance of sect declined further and, as we have seen in this thread, Professor (of mathematics) Dr. (of medicine) Jean-Baptiste Morin proposed a revision of the system. Herr Professor Johannes Sch?ner (follow the link posted above by Mr Mark) also developed a slightly revised system.

By the way: Who, based on what authority, determines what and whom are 'mainstream?

4. In Modern astrology, the astrological application of sect has mostly been abandoned altogether.

Best regards,

lihin