Skyscript Astrology Forum

http://cura.free.fr/09-10/1004doug6.pdf

They show an impressive qualitative agreement with Sect theory
for MA, VE, SA, and MO, as indicated by the number of comments in green, but
much less agreement for the case of JU. It is worth noting here that although JU
was considered more diurnal than SA by the classical astrologers, a nocturnal
JU was seen as less damaging than a nocturnal SA or a diurnal MA, (Hand 1995:
22-23). This would not imply that it was actually stronger at night of course, so
there is a question mark over the character of JU among eminent professionals,
in relation to Sect. As the ancients recognised in the cases of MA and SA,
efficacy is not necessarily equivalent to intensity of a planetary influence, and it
may be that eminent professionals also require some moderation of the JU
effect to avoid failures caused by over-confidence.

Hi
I`ve been reading this old thread,which surprisingly got no response from members.
The authors conclude that sect of the planet is by far more important than sect of the chart,except for the Moon,more common in night charts for writers,and in day charts for mlitary.

Did any Greek or Roman astrologer suggested sect of planet was more important than sect of chart?

thanks

I guess I missed this thread too when it was raised. This former member tended to open up multiple threads simultaneously. It can lead to a diffusion of focus on the topics raised.

Regarding views on whether planets are better at night or day it seems that Indian astrology has evolved a different take on this. Particularly regarding Venus and Saturn. In the traditional Indian astrological weighting/pointing system known as Shadbala it seems that Venus is seen as stronger in the daytime while Saturn is regarded as stronger at night than in the daytime. This is the opposite of what hellenistic astrology teaches.

According to the Divaratri Bala system the Moon, Saturn and Mars are powerful during midnight. At noon they are powerless. Hence the two malefics + Moon are regarded as strong at night. The Sun, Jupiter and Venus are powerful during noon and are powerless during midnight. These are the natural benefics + the Sun. Adaptable Mercury is not effected by night/day distinctions.

We dont seem to have any hemispheric focus in this system.

The Indian notion of Venus being better in the day does seemed challenged by this research.

The general lack of evidence to support Jupiter being better in day charts (as suggested in Indian and hellenistic astrology) is interesting.

Did any Greek or Roman astrologer suggested sect of planet was more important than sect of chart?

Your wording seems a little confusing. Do you mean was sect determined by simple diurnal/nocturnal distinction vs diurnal/nocturnal+ hemispheric location by some astrologers?

There are many examples of ancient astrologers just referring to sect in terms of night or day (e.g. Firmicus Maternus and Rhetorius)

Possibly the clearest example of a reference to sect determination involving hemisphere location of planets is from Vettius Valens in the Anthology, Bk III, Chap.5:

Concerning the sect of the Stars
It is necessary to consider the sect of the stars, for the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn rejoice when they are above the earth during the day, below the earth at night. But the Moon, Mars and Venus rejoice when they are above the earth at night, and below the earth during the day

Mark

Thanks Mark
Yes I was referring to sect of the planets. The article suggests it works better than sect of chart.

Vedic astrologers also tend to believe that a planet that rules an evil house is unfavourable,but then again said planet may also rule a good house,which leaves me some doubts about their theory.
They also believe the Sun is a malefic ( because in India it scorches everything,but certainly not in the West).

Personally it makes sense to me that if I`m born at noon but my Moon is on the other side of the world(IC) she is in sect, albeit invisible.
Ideally it seems a planet should be in sect both by itself and by chart sect,but the article is at times confusing on that score,a bit too technical for me

astrocorreia wrote:

Vedic astrologers also tend to believe that a planet that rules an evil house is unfavourable,..

Its not just an Indian idea. In traditional medieval astrology there is also an identical idea that even a generally beneific planet (Jupiter or Venus) can at times act as an ''accidental malefic'' because it natally rules or is placed in an especially unfavourable house such as the 6th, or 12th.

Mark

Which ones? Morin?Lily?

This will probably need another thread,but many people now use whole sign house system like Indian and Hellenic astrologers. But this system poses some problems.
Suppose someone has DEC at 29 Cancer,and Sun at 0-1 Leo.His Sun would be in 8th house by whole sign,but technically and astronomically clearly angular in 7th . I have some problems accepting that such a Sun is in 8th house.
It`s possible WS was an early primitive attempt to draw houses IMHO

Thanks