Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hi

In the example below from the last chart in the article,which one is Dorotheus referring as house of death,being ruled by Venus?
I first thought it was the eight but now I`m not sure whether it might be the 4th.

Thanks

This man will 'abound in gold and silver' says Dorotheus; but he also adds a warning:- 'his end is evil because the lord of [the cardinal] under the earth, from which the matter of the end and the situation of death are known, is Venus, and Venus in this nativity is cadent in the sign of calamity [12th house]'.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/triplicities.html#trip1

Yes, he is referring to the 4th house. A "cardinal" is a pivot or angular house.

Konrad wrote:Yes, he is referring to the 4th house. A "cardinal" is a pivot or angular house.

Thanks

Konrad wrote:Yes, he is referring to the 4th house. A "cardinal" is a pivot or angular house.

Hi
if you look at the ruler of endings for JFK, Venus, it is cadent but not in an evil house. Having been murdered I expected him to have Venus in 12th or 8th or several evil aspects
Do you think the evil aspect from the Moon in 12th is enough to cause his tragic death?
http://www.astrotheme.com/astrology/Joh ... ld_Kennedy

Venus is also ruler of the 1st, being disposed by Mercury which is in the 8th(ruling the 12th) closely conjunct oriental Mars (contrary to sect) and in detriment.

Pretty evil.

Moreover,the Moon in the 12th translates the light from Venus to Mars!

Goran

cor scorpii wrote:Venus is also ruler of the 1st, being disposed by Mercury which is in the 8th(ruling the 12th) closely conjunct oriental Mars (contrary to sect) and in detriment.

Pretty evil.

Moreover,the Moon in the 12th translates the light from Venus to Mars!

Goran

yes but hre we are using triplicity rulers, not venus the natural ruler of libra, otherwise anything goes

Well, triplicity rulers were never meant to explain "everything" regarding a certain topic, that was my point.

When analyzing any area of life, we should collect as many testimonies as we can find. So if Venus as a first triplicity ruler of the 4th is somehow unable to reflect the kind of death a person suffered(at least at the first glance!), should we still abide by its testimony alone and disregard what she or other elements of the chart are otherwise able to show us?

The only way Venus could show a violent death in this case is if we also analyze its ruler, Mercury and its position/aspects.
Venus happens to ruler the ascendant, and that's of paramount importance - especially if we take a look at how she's disposed.

Moreover, this Venus is also besieged between the two malefics which is very, very bad! Mars is in front, Saturn behind her.

It's the whole picture that leads us to a conclusion, not only a part of it.

Goran

cor scorpii wrote:Well, triplicity rulers were never meant to explain "everything" regarding a certain topic, that was my point.

When analyzing any area of life, we should collect as many testimonies as we can find. So if Venus as a first triplicity ruler of the 4th is somehow unable to reflect the kind of death a person suffered(at least at the first glance!), should we still abide by its testimony alone and disregard what she or other elements of the chart are otherwise able to show us?

The only way Venus could show a violent death in this case is if we also analyze its ruler, Mercury and its position/aspects.
Venus happens to ruler the ascendant, and that's of paramount importance - especially if we take a look at how she's disposed.

Moreover, this Venus is also besieged between the two malefics which is very, very bad! Mars is in front, Saturn behind her.

It's the whole picture that leads us to a conclusion, not only a part of it.

Goran

When a system uses so many factors it looks like a cop out in case the the traditional method doesnt work,but thats my opinion

damon wrote:

cor scorpii wrote:Well, triplicity rulers were never meant to explain "everything" regarding a certain topic, that was my point.

When analyzing any area of life, we should collect as many testimonies as we can find. So if Venus as a first triplicity ruler of the 4th is somehow unable to reflect the kind of death a person suffered(at least at the first glance!), should we still abide by its testimony alone and disregard what she or other elements of the chart are otherwise able to show us?

The only way Venus could show a violent death in this case is if we also analyze its ruler, Mercury and its position/aspects.
Venus happens to ruler the ascendant, and that's of paramount importance - especially if we take a look at how she's disposed.

Moreover, this Venus is also besieged between the two malefics which is very, very bad! Mars is in front, Saturn behind her.

It's the whole picture that leads us to a conclusion, not only a part of it.

Goran

When a system uses so many factors it looks like a cop out in case the the traditional method doesnt work,but thats my opinion

From Abu-Ali al-Khayyat's Judgement of Nativities (Ben Dykes translation, p331 of Persian Nativities vol 1):

"In whatever is signified, this must chiefly be noted: if it has only one testimony, it is routine (note from translator: Vulgare common and of little note), if two, it will be stronger, if three complete..."

This is the way it works, I'm afraid. I would never predict anything on the basis of one testimony and this is the advice of the astrologers past.

When a system uses so many factors it looks like a cop out in case the the traditional method doesnt work,but thats my opinion

Interesting because my opinion is exactly the opposite. That the identical factors, en masse, are highly unlikely to repeat in another chart is evidence that the chart is unique and astrology is not formulaic. Astrology isn't formulaic. Everyone with, say, Mars square the ASC ruler, doesn't die violently and the other factors show us which ones do and which ones don't.

Read John Worsdale's book Celestial Philosophy. He demonstrates over and over how a piling up of various testimonies determines the potential of the chart - not simple formulae.

Tom wrote:

When a system uses so many factors it looks like a cop out in case the the traditional method doesnt work,but thats my opinion

Interesting because my opinion is exactly the opposite. That the identical factors, en masse, are highly unlikely to repeat in another chart is evidence that the chart is unique and astrology is not formulaic. Astrology isn't formulaic. Everyone with, say, Mars square the ASC ruler, doesn't die violently and the other factors show us which ones do and which ones don't.

Read John Worsdale's book Celestial Philosophy. He demonstrates over and over how a piling up of various testimonies determines the potential of the chart - not simple formulae.

Well I believe in keeping it simple, otherwise we can make a mess. Many studies in psychology have shown the human brain isnt capable of Holistic judgements,like reading whole charts. We arent evolved enough for that. No wonder most predictions fail.
Second,one has to ask how astrologers could ever find out how all those little details worked. Unlike us,they did not have computers for large scale meta analysis.
Some guy did once my chart using stars like Eris, Snow white,Orcus,you name it,all in all, about 100 factors.
I have a hard time believing it, when they over stretch the interpertration like that.
Take Jimmy Dean. I dont need these Hellenic factors to see his deadly car crash. Uranus was conj. Mars,lord of 8th at the time of the crash, and I saw a few more similar cases.
But when I look at the triplicities in his chart, it does not make so much sense,and is redundant
My 2 cents

Damon, although I suspected otherwise, I gave you the benefit of the doubt believing you were simply asking questions about traditional astrology, a topic that you don't seem to know much about. It is becoming more clear that is not your purpose. From the guidelines:

I do not believe this is an appropriate place for, ?which one is better traditional or modern? debates.

Since this is about the 3rd or 4th recent attempt to do just that, I'm going to drop the qualifier and state outright this is NOT the place for those debates. They are tiresome. We have outstanding modern astrologers all over the Forum. If you don't care for raditional astrology, you are welcome to post over there.

I really don't care about anyone's opinions of what humans are sufficiently evolved for or what they aren't. That's just wind. The subject matter here is traditional astrology. The purpose of the Forum is to discuss the tradition not defend it. It was separated from the general astrology forum in part for that purpose. Traditionalists wanted a safe haven to discuss the subject without extracurricular topics getting in the way. Please take note and act accordingly. Thank you.