Do you determine the angularity of trigon lords using angular whole sign houses, dynamic angles or both? I feel like I've never been able to get a definite answer on this and it bugs me every time I'm interpreting a chart and have to deal with an ambiguous situation. I'll give some examples below:

*trigon lord conjunct the MC but in the 9th house

*trigon lord in the 8th house but a few degrees away from the descendant

In both cases the trigon lord is highly dynamically angular and common sense would dictate that the trigon lord should be considered powerful yet both of these trigon lords are in weak or middling houses... Alternately, what about situations like the following:

*trigon lord is in the WSH 10th house while the MC is in the 9th house, therefore the trigon lord is technically cadent; at least dynamically speaking

*trigon lord in the 1st house but the ascendant is already separating from it by many degrees

I just feel like there's too much wiggle room here and I wish I had more rigorous rules for determining trigon lord strength. I welcome both textual knowledge but also first hand experience as well; maybe especially first hand experience.

I can say from my own personal experience reading charts that in non-ambiguous cases of trigon lord angularity it does seem to correlate with wealth or a good upbringing.

Personally, I always use quadrant house positions (that is, the actual angles). But then there is the issue of which zodiac to use to determine the triplicity rulers...

Martin Gansten wrote:Personally, I always use quadrant house positions (that is, the actual angles). But then there is the issue of which zodiac to use to determine the triplicity rulers...

I assume you get pretty good results this way? This makes a lot of sense, especially since you're in Sweden and there are lots of people with their MC in the 12th house IIRC. Come to think of it, far north places like Scandinavia should be a perfect testing ground for finding the proper way to measure trigon lord strength. What do you think?

The only argument I have against using the actual angles here is that it almost seems like we're mixing metaphors. IIRC the trigon lords concept is based on whether or not a trigon lord can see the ascendant through a Ptolemaic aspect (bringing to mind the nautical metaphor and the trigon lords acting as the winds). When seen through this lens the rationale for using only WSH angular houses makes much more sense. In this case I wonder if actual angles and angular WSH houses are actually measuring different kinds of strength? Hmmm...

kubernetes wrote:I assume you get pretty good results this way? This makes a lot of sense, especially since you're in Sweden and there are lots of people with their MC in the 12th house IIRC. Come to think of it, far north places like Scandinavia should be a perfect testing ground for finding the proper way to measure trigon lord strength. What do you think?

Yes, I think the overall results are satisfactory (although angularity isn't the whole story: dignities and configurations matter too). Sweden covers a wide swath of latitudes, from around 55 to 68 degrees north, and things get decidedly weird in the far north, where parts of the ecliptic never rise or set; but even at more moderate latitudes, the MC can sometimes fall in the 8th or 12th sign from the Asc, not just the 9th or 11th.

The only argument I have against using the actual angles here is that it almost seems like we're mixing metaphors. IIRC the trigon lords concept is based on whether or not a trigon lord can see the ascendant through a Ptolemaic aspect

I don't recall reading that, but then again, I've forgotten a lot over the years. In any case, aspecting the Asc sign won't do as a definition of angularity. Of course, you may say that a planet should ideally be angular and aspect the Asc; but Valens' very first example of the technique involves Mars in Scorpio as the primary triplicity ruler, not aspecting the Asc in Libra, and Valens still considers it well placed (epitop??s eschēmatismenos), being succedent in its own domicile and triplicity and in its own sect.

Martin Gansten wrote: Yes, I think the overall results are satisfactory (although angularity isn't the whole story: dignities and configurations matter too). Sweden covers a wide swath of latitudes, from around 55 to 68 degrees north, and things get decidedly weird in the far north, where parts of the ecliptic never rise or set; but even at more moderate latitudes, the MC can sometimes fall in the 8th or 12th sign from the Asc, not just the 9th or 11th.

I don't recall reading that, but then again, I've forgotten a lot over the years. In any case, aspecting the Asc sign won't do as a definition of angularity. Of course, you may say that a planet should ideally be angular and aspect the Asc; but Valens' very first example of the technique involves Mars in Scorpio as the primary triplicity ruler, not aspecting the Asc in Libra, and Valens still considers it well placed (epitop??s eschēmatismenos), being succedent in its own domicile and triplicity and in its own sect.

What's your opinion if someone had a trigon lord in the 1st house but the ascendant had already separated by a significant amount of degrees? You would count this as a cadent trigon lord in spite of being in the 1st house, right?

The thing about the nautical metaphor was something I picked up from the Delphic Oracle program, although I might have been mistaken about the context in which it's used. You're definitely right about the example you provided. In another thread I recently made, I went through a ton of Valen's example charts and I saw plenty of "well placed" trigon lords in the 2nd house and plenty of "weak" trigon lords in the 9th house. It appears that Valen's system of trigon lord strength depends entirely on angularity and not on anything relating to the nautical metaphor as I had originally thought.

This is off-topic kubernetes, but just wanted to say thanks for starting up the other thread with the chart examples, which could prove very useful to others who are picking their way through that text.

Deb wrote:This is off-topic kubernetes, but just wanted to say thanks for starting up the other thread with the chart examples, which could prove very useful to others who are picking their way through that text.

No problem, I love contributing to the forum. Those examples always made my eyes glaze over trying to figure them out in the past, just glad I could help out

kubernetes wrote:What's your opinion if someone had a trigon lord in the 1st house but the ascendant had already separated by a significant amount of degrees? You would count this as a cadent trigon lord in spite of being in the 1st house, right?

If the planet had risen over the horizon by a significant number of degrees (however we want to define that, exactly), I wouldn't see it as being in the 1st house at all. So yes, to me it would be cadent.

It appears that Valen's system of trigon lord strength depends entirely on angularity and not on anything relating to the nautical metaphor as I had originally thought.

Angularity, yes, but he also mentions things like sign placement and sect.

I recently gave a talk on the nativities of the last four British monarchs (including Charles III) in the light of this technique (and using a sidereal zodiac). They are very interesting because of the contrast: one who abdicated before being crowned, one who became king unexpectedly, then the longest-reigning monarch ever, and now the oldest one to succeed to the throne. And I think the differences are reflected in their charts.

Martin Gansten wrote:

kubernetes wrote:What's your opinion if someone had a trigon lord in the 1st house but the ascendant had already separated by a significant amount of degrees? You would count this as a cadent trigon lord in spite of being in the 1st house, right?

If the planet had risen over the horizon by a significant number of degrees (however we want to define that, exactly), I wouldn't see it as being in the 1st house at all. So yes, to me it would be cadent.

That's an excellent visual aid. I think sometimes with astrology its easy to get lost in the 2D details and forget about the celestial reality. Thank you for your answer.

For anyone else reading and curious about this topic I recently consulted my copy of "Hellenistic Astrology, The Study of Fate and Fortune" by Chris Brennan; on page 499 he has a detailed segment on this exact topic. His conclusion from consulting the old authors (Dorotheus, Valens, Rhetorius) is that there is some ambiguity about this and it needs more research and experimentation to determine. The actual passage is more interesting and nuanced than this but that's the general gist. So basically I'm back where I started but at least I know there was never any definite answer to begin with (until we determine one).