Skyscript Astrology Forum

Although, I was originally taught Lilly's modified version of Ptolemy's Triplicity rulers I have recently been working with the Triplicity rulership system suggested by Dorotheus of Sidon in the Carmen Astrologicum. As I understand it this was the Triplicity system used by most of the hellenistic, and medieval astrologers.

The two Triplicity systems lead to different approaches to delineation of planetary strength. For example Lilly's modified version of Ptolemy's system leads one to conclude that the Moon in Pisces or Scorpio is peregrine. However, using the Dorothean system the Moon is never peregrine in these signs as the Moon is a participating triplcity ruler in the water signs. Similarly, with Jupiter in the air Triplicity, Saturn in the fire Triplicity, Mars in the earth Triplicity.

However, I recently obtained a copy of Lee Lehman's 'The Martial Art of Horary' where she seems to challenge the practical relevance of participating triplicity rulers, at least in terms of horary and electional work.

Delineating a horary chart Lehman states:

Jupiter is in Aquarius , the ruler of the 6th house, shows the condition itself. Jupiter is peregrine and retrograde. (The Martial Art of Horary , p170)

In her footnote to this section Lehman explains why she regards Jupiter as peregrine:

''For those astrologers who use the three Triplicity ruler system , you might think Jupiter is not peregrine, having participating or mixed Triplicity. I examined this question with my students while Jupiter was transiting Aquarius . Jupiter acted peregrine, so we concluded that , however, useful it might be in natal work , the participating Triplicities are ineffective in horary , and to a large extent in electional as well.'' (The Martial Art of Horary p338)

As I haven't had that much experience of using the Dorothean Triplicity rulers I would be interested in the views of anyone else who has tried out Dorothean rulerships in relation to horary and electional charts. Does your experience confirm Lehman's conclusion?

Yes, at least mine does. I've experimented lately with almutens, both with combined and of one point, and using all three triplicity rulers seems not to work as well as using only the one in sect. At the moment I'm slightly favouring Ptolemy's triplicity rulers, where the Moon is the nocturnal ruler of Water signs, not Mars. If you take Bill Gates' chart, with Dorothean triplicities, using only the ruler in sect, you get Mars as almuten of the MC. Mars is in his detriment in the 4th house - not very descriptive of Gates' career and reputation. But with Ptolemy's triplicity rulers you get Jupiter, okay, he's not massive either, but he's on the 3rd house cusp, that might go with computers, I would think. In fact with Regio houses Jupiter is exactly on the 3rd house cusp.

Hello Papretis,

Thanks for replying. This kind of practical feedback is just what I was hoping for. We seem to have considerable choice in Triplicity rulers!

a) Lilly's system of Triplicity Rulers:

Fire: Sun /Jupiter
Earth: Venus/Moon
Air : Saturn/Mercury
Water: Mars /Mars


b) Ptolemy's system of Triplicity rulers:
( Day ruler indicated first, night ruler second and participating ruler in brackets)

Fire: Sun/ Jupiter/ (Mars)
Earth: Venus/ Moon/ (Saturn)
Air: Saturn/ Mercury/ (Jupiter)
Water: Venus/Moon/ (Mars)

c) Dorotheus of Sidon's system of Triplicity rulers:

Fire: Sun/Jupiter/ (Saturn)
Earth: Venus/Moon/ (Mars)
Air: Saturn/ Mercury/ (Jupiter)
Water: Venus/Mars/ (Moon)


d) Morin's suggested Triplicity system

Fire: Sun /Mars (Jupiter)
Earth: Mercury/ Saturn (Venus)
Air: Saturn /Venus (Mercury)
Water: Jupiter/ Moon (Mars)

e) Lee Lehman's simplified version of Dorothean Triplicities

Fire: Sun/Jupiter
Earth: Venus/Moon
Air: Saturn/Mercury
Water: Venus/Mars

f) Your simplified version of Ptolemy's Triplicity system

Fire: Sun/Jupiter
Earth: Venus/Moon
Air: Saturn/Mercury
Water: Venus/Moon

If we drop participating Triplicity rulers as Lehman suggests the most controversial issue seems to be deciding the water Triplicity rulers ( excluding Morin).

There is obviously a lot of scope for personal exploration here. I am interested you are finding difficulties with the Dorothean triplicities matching the actual chart in natal delineation too. This issue does need testing in practical chart situations. Certainly with horary, especially, you need crisp precise answers and perhaps thats why the participating rulers do not assist a clear judgement. I do think its important to choose an approach and stick with it for a while or we could be changing Triplicity systems at a whim or through intellectual curiousity.

The original Ptolemaic triplicity system you suggest does attract me though. I am not really clear why Lilly made Mars the the night triplicity ruler of water if he was relying on Ptolemy.

The fourth triplicity, formed by Cancer, Scorpio, and Pisces, is left to the remaining planet, Mars, who has right in it by means of his house, Scorpio. But, as the signs which compose this triplicity are feminine, the Moon by night and Venus by day, through their feminine condition, govern it, together with Mars. Cancer is on the summer circle, Scorpio on the winter, and Pisces on the equinoctial. This triplicity is western, in consequence of the government of the Moon and Mars; but it is also blended with the south by the joint dominion of Venus, and therefore becomes south-west.

Claudius Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos I 22

I take it from this Ptolemy is stating that Venus is the day ruler, Moon the night ruler and Mars a participating ruler?

Perhaps this lack of clarity by Ptolemy explains Lilly's decision to assign Mars as night and day ruler. Or was he applying pragmatic considerations based on his experience of looking at triplicity rulers in thousands of charts? Alternatively, perhaps he thought the weakness of both Venus and the Moon in Scorpio made Ptolemy's arrangement unsuitable?

The philosophical appeal of Ptolemy's, Dorotheus or Morin's participating rulers is that each planet represents a domicile ruler or exaltatiion ruler in each triplicity. The exception being Jupiter in Air in either the Ptolemaic or Dorothean system. Morin's system appears to be the most logical on that basis as every Triplicity ruler is either a domicile or exaltation ruler. However, his system has to sacrifice the link between planetary sect and Triplcity rulership found in the full Dorothean system.

Hello,

In Bonatti's (see Liber Astronomiae) and Ibnu Ezra's (see The Book of Wisdom) both use Dorotehan trip rulers. This is because, in their scheme of interpreting houses, each trip ruler of each house gives different meaning or governership of the house e.g. 7th house may govern your spouse, associates and conflicts but using the trip rulers; the in-sect trip ruler of the 7th may govern your spouse, the out-of-sect trip ruler of the 7th governs your conflicts and the participating trip ruler of the 7th governs your associates. This cannot be done if we drop the participating rulership of trip rulers. Some astrologers may argue that we don't have to stick with Dorothean's as long as we have all three trip rulers for each element (which still means we cannot discard the participating trip rulers).

For me I use Dorothean's trip rulers (all three) for house delineation.

However, in determining the dignities of planets when situated in certain parts of the zodiacal sign - I still haven't decided yet...

Let's say that Saturn rules something in your chart and it happens to land in Aries (in Dorotheus trip rulership, Saturn is the participating ruler of fire signs). Let's say that Saturn is not in its own term (Saturn cannot be in its own face). So, Saturn is positied in its own trip rulership (alas participating trip rulership using Dorotheus scheme). Do I take Saturn being dignified in this position? I usually ignore this "dignity" as Saturn is also in Fall - Fall supersede the other lower dignities. The same goes for Saturn in Leo (Saturn is detriment in Leo). Some astrologers may argue that the "Fall" (or "detrimental") is cushioned by the trip dignity but I prefer to observe the dispositor of Saturn's condition (in this case Mars) to see the outcome of the fall.

Let's say that Saturn is in Sagitarrius, another fire sign (instead of Aries or Leo) and Saturn is not in its own term or face. So, Saturn is positied in its own trip rulership (alas participating trip rulership using Dorotheus scheme). Saturn is not in fall or detriment. How do we handle this dignity then? Using Bonatti's concept of trip rulerships, a planet in its own triplicity is like a planet amongst allies. But is that so for all three trip rulerships? Alas, Bonatti did not say clearly.

I would surmise (and this is my own twist) that a planet in its own in-sect trip rulership is truely amongst allies. It is like a man (or woman!) that has close or powerful allies to hep him/her. A planet in its own out-of-sect trip rulership is actually amongst allies who are in a different sect than him (e.g. those allies you have in your enemies camp during war - which is an advantage to you as long as these "allies" are loyal to you!). A planet in its own participating trip rulership is like a person who is among allies who happen to know others who can help him e.g. the native has a friend A and A does not have the power to help the native but A happens to know B who can help. Obviously, it depends on B whether he/she wants to help the native! This position is of course the weakest of all the three trip rulership...which is probably the reason for a planet in its own participating trip rulership to behave like a planet in peregrine.

Hello Astrojin,

Thanks thats all very useful. As you state, where the participating ruler is debilitated in a Dorothean triplicity, ie Moon in Scorpio, Saturn in Leo, Jupiter in Gemini or Mars in Taurus, that seems much more important. Of course the same logic can apply to the night and day triplicity rulers ie Venus in Virgo, Moon in Capricorn, Venus in Scorpio and Mars in Cancer.

I'm sorry to seem obtuse but I'm not entirely clear if you are referring to your experience of Dorothean triplicity rulers in just natal delineation or including horary and electional charts? The latter two are what Lehman is questioning not the use of participating rulers in natal analysis.

Hopefully, this will all be clearer when I get a copy of Ben Dykes new complete translation of Liber Astronomiae where Bonatti discusses horary and electional astrology.

Hi MarkC and astrojin,

In Bonatti's (see Liber Astronomiae) and Ibnu Ezra's (see The Book of Wisdom) both use Dorotehan trip rulers. This is because, in their scheme of interpreting houses, each trip ruler of each house gives different meaning or governership of the house e.g. 7th house may govern your spouse, associates and conflicts but using the trip rulers; the in-sect trip ruler of the 7th may govern your spouse, the out-of-sect trip ruler of the 7th governs your conflicts and the participating trip ruler of the 7th governs your associates. This cannot be done if we drop the participating rulership of trip rulers. Some astrologers may argue that we don't have to stick with Dorothean's as long as we have all three trip rulers for each element (which still means we cannot discard the participating trip rulers).

For me I use Dorothean's trip rulers (all three) for house delineation.

However, in determining the dignities of planets when situated in certain parts of the zodiacal sign - I still haven't decided yet...

I think - and this is not necessarily the final word about the issue - that reading cusp dispositors in this way and determining dignities and almutens are two different things. Like J. Lee Lehmann has stated, it is my experience too, that for example Saturn in Fire just doesn't act like a planet in his/her own element. Some time ago I studied with the ADB database people who have a lot of planets in a certain dignity. I got really good results, some of them I've put on this forum under other threads (John Lennon thread for example).

I studied people who had many planets in their own triplicities, both by using all three triplicity rulers and by using only the one in sect. I didn't find anything in common with people picked by the first method, but people picked by the second method proved to be a more homogenic group. I got a feeling of a hippie type, growing a beard, wearing a kaftan and jumping in a tour bus with Grateful Dead - that's how a planet in his/her own element is like. It acts freely and naturally.

Another important result I got was that all the dignities are different - it's not very wise to add and deduct them with points. I've heard that Hellenistic astrologers used terms to determine life expectancy and that's what term seems to be like: people with a lot of planets in their own terms were often exceptionally gifted, able and physically beautiful, which makes them attractive to other people. Emmylou Harris, pianist Van Cliburn and Giorgio Armani have four planets in their own terms; Giulietta Masina, Ryan O?Neal, homicide Ted Bundy, Jessica Lange, Don Johnson, Jose Feliciano, conductor Claudio Abbado, Serge Gainsbourg, Francoise Gilot, Chrissie Hynde, Nicolas Cage, Mia Farrow, Prince, Matt Dilloin, Louis Vuitton, John Irving and poet Frenando Pessoa have three planets in their own terms. Many of these people really are also physically beautiful.

If you pay attention to the term rulers of the Ascendant, you?ll see what a big role they play in determining the appearance. This way I also become absolutely convinced about the validity of Ptolemy?s terms in comparison to the Egyptian ones. If you want to check it out by yourself, collect pictures of people with Leo Ascendant (because there these two term types differ most), arrange them according to the terms and think, if people with the Ascendant in the first six degrees of Leo look more Saturnine (Ptolemy) or Jupiterian (Egypt) ? or if people with their ascendant in mid-Leo look more Venusian (Ptolemy) or Saturnine (Egypt) etc.. The answer seems quite clear, at least for me.

The group of people with a lot of planets in their own faces has many philosophers, intellectuals and analysts: Jurgen Habermas, Stephen Arroyo, Oliver Stone (going over and over the Vietnam war), Jean Paul Sartre, Igor Stravinsky ? these people have four planets in their own faces. Erica Jong, Woody Allen, Oriana Fallaci, Martin Luther, Charles Baudelaire, Albert Camus, Honore de Balzac, Simone de Beauvoir, Marie Curie, Henri Bataille, Jean-Jacques Beinex, Fernando Pessoa all have three planets in their own faces. I get a feeling about pitiless self-examination, about seeing oneself and the whole world in a painfully honest, critical way. ?A planet in his/her own face is like a man going through psychotherapy?, s/he?s like someone who?s experienced an abyss and is now recovering from that.

So, a planet in his/her detriment but own term looks maybe beautiful and healthy outside, but is debilitated inside, a planet in his/her fall but own face is like someone who?s fallen from a high position, but is able to analyze what happened, a planet in his/her own detriment but own element is like someone in a bad position, who has got accustomed to it etc. (these are just possible suggestions, more study is needed). And with essentially debilitated planets it?s always crucial to look if there?s receptions, if the domicile or exaltation ruler conjoins or aspects the planet, because that alters the situation completely ? always, I guess.

Hello again,

I'm sorry to seem obtuse but I'm not entirely clear if you are referring to your experience of Dorothean triplicity rulers in just natal delineation or including horary and electional charts? The latter two are what Lehman is questioning not the use of participating rulers in natal analysis.

I use the three Dorothean trip rulers for natal delineation (at least almost always!). For horary though, I'm still fiddling. At the moment, I only use the In-Sect trip ruler - this seems more telling. So, I kind of agree with Lehman.

Can I offer an opinion:

Fire - Sun,
Air - Jupiter,
Water - Moon,
Earth - Saturn.

Hi Zuli,

Can I offer an opinion:

Fire - Sun,
Air - Jupiter,
Water - Moon,
Earth - Saturn

So you are only suggesting one ruler for each triplicity? Have you tested this out or is it just a theory? I am all for trying things out but I do want to work within the tradition.

Why Jupiter for Air when it has no rulership or exaltation there? Surely , Mercury or Saturn makes more sense if you are only allowing one ruler?

Fire - Sun,
Air - Jupiter,
Water - Moon,
Earth ? Saturn

It really is a pretty scheme. Simple, no need for convoluted thinking. It is closely tied to temperament ? it even looks meaningful. Jupiter and Air are both warm and moist ? sanguine. This is the simplicity one yearns for. Simplicity is often what reveals the most. The two lights and the two classical outer planets have triplicity rulership over the elements ? that seems appropriate. It would be so nice to say 'Done with trying to figure it out. This is it'.

I suppose it all depends on what you are using the triplicity rulerships for.

indeed.........

Hello,

Quote:

Fire - Sun,
Air - Jupiter,
Water - Moon,
Earth ? Saturn

It really is a pretty scheme. Simple, no need for convoluted thinking. It is closely tied to temperament ? it even looks meaningful.

Well, if we are looking for triplicity - element - temperament agreement then let me suggest another variation:-

Fire - Mars
Air - Jupiter
Water - Venus
Earth - Saturn.

I leave the luminaries out of the scheme because the luminaries (sun and moon) are the king and queen of a chart (similar reason as to why there no sun's or moon's terms). The 5 planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) are the "agents" of destiny. Even, in Chinese Astrology and Philosophy - there are 5 elements corresponding to the 5 planets (and this is probably why they had/have 5 elements). Jupiter = abundance = wood element, Mars = fire (what else!), Saturn = earth, Venus = metal, Mercury = water. In chinese philosophy, there is no air element. This is taken up by water (water in liquid form = water, water in vapor form = air).

But, in Western system (or other then the Chinese) we have only 4 elements. One of the planets must then, not rule any element. This falls to Mercury who is by nature = "variable" i.e. not male not female, not diurnal not nocturnal, ...

So,
Saturn: planetary nature = cold + dry. The corresponding element (cold + dry) = earth. The coressponding temperament is then melancholic (Saturnine).

Jupiter: planetary nature = hot + wet. The corresponding element (hot + wet) = air (hot is moving and active, wet is fluid and connecting, combine then and we get air). The coressponding temperament is then sanguine (Jovial!).

Mars: planetary nature = hot + dry. The corresponding element (hot + dry) = fire. The corresponding temperament is the choleric (fiery).

Venus: planetary nature = cold + wet. The corresponding element (cold + wet) = water. The corresponding temperament is the phlegmatic.

So each agent of destiny (excluding Mercury) is given one element to rule, one pair of qualities and one temperament.

*** Note: some classical astrlogers put Venus = hot + wet...