Andrew Bevan wrote:When I come to think about it, it is curious how the Moon is the only planet that is exalted in a sign ruled by a planet of its own sect...
First I had to read a bit on the concept of 'sect' to be able to comment. I read Ptolemy Tetr. I.7 and 18 (Robbins transl.) and Deb's article 'The Classical use of Triplicities'. There are some differences between Ptolemy and other authors. Furthermore I find the rationale difficult to understand, moreover because at first sight it seems to me that for example in the Aries triplicity the badly fitting 'overheating' Mars is quite easily replaced by 'cold' Saturn.
However I am quite curious and I'm going to have a closer look. Especially when the article mentions Dorotheus' remark: 'If you want to know about a man's general relationship with women, look to the triplicity of Venus:...'. At the end of my life my relationship with women will be ok, and knowing that in my 90ies 2ndary progressed Venus will conjunct my Ascendant I have quite a thing to look forward to.
But seriously, I wonder if it is still in use today by (traditional) astrologers. Isn't there the risk that there is too much information to be found in a chart?
Another interesting issue I believe that can be derived from the examples given in Deb's article is that it seems that according to the examples the 'whole signs houses' method is used (and indeed seems to be the only usable one).
Perhaps this Moon position is inevitable and just a coincidence without a meaning. Perhaps you've already noticed it but there also are other curiousnesses. Moon and Mars are in their
fallin a sign ruled by a planet of its own sect. Venus, Jupiter and Saturn are in
detriment in the signs (Scorpio, Gemini, Aquarius respectively) ruled by a planet of its own sect.
Quite difficult material thus. I don't know what to think of the Moon's particular position. Coincidence or an especially good position...?
As Porphry registered, the diurnal planets cast their exaltations according to their trines, the nocturnal planets according to their sextiles.
All the planets cast their exaltations clockwise, against the order of the zodiac. The exceptions being Jupiter and Mars, who are masculine planets and cast their exaltations from feminine signs.
Another special position is Mercury's, one could view him as exalted in a sign ruled by him or in square aspect to the other sign he rules. Porphyrius' explanation is given in Andrew's link.
Perhaps these are just some inevitable 'shortcomings' of an otherwise 'perfect' scheme. Sorry if I can't be of a lot of help and perhaps I'm reasoning things away but I'm not very experienced in rulerships.
The other scheme in Deb's article puts Mercury under the diurnal sects but Ptolemy Tetr I.7 "Mercury common as before, diurnal when it is a morning star and nocturnal as an evening star."
http://www.geocities.com/astrologysourc ... .htm#side7
However fascinating material, reading Tetrabiblos I.18 I don't really feel comfortable with Ptolemy's rationale for relating the signs of the triangles to the four colures, it feels a bit like squeezing a triangular block of wood in a square hole of a shape sorting box.
) Mars.