31
Hello James,

I checked out Rhetorius on the subject of planets sect relationship to domicile lords. However, after a quick scan all the delineations in the book appear to exclusively describe the sect condition of a planet itself and its house placement rather than its domicile lord.

However, one very ancient source, Teucer of Babylon does describe the nature of the planets and suggests that having a planet of the opposing sect ruling a domicile adds to the difficulties of an already out of sect planet. Its seems to largely be one of several 'nail in the coffin' factors for Teucer in accumulating negative testimony for the effectiveness of a planet.

So it seems that Abu 'Ali Al-Khayyat's focus on the sect of domicile lords was relying on an ancient consideration in evaluating sect. I haven't looked at any other texts and it will be interesting to study this topic more widely.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

32
martin,

it feels like a game of chase, or that game where you are supposed to guess how many balls are under the glass. it is based on the sect of the domicile lord more then whether it is diurnal or nocturnal, but then when the domicile lord is neutral(mercury) it goes back to the planet itself - sun is better in a diurnal chart then in a nocturnal chart.. we didn't get very far with this in the example of venus in mars domicile.. we can say mars doesn't do well in venus's domicile and it has nothing to do with the fact both mars and venus are nocturnal sect.

i claim a diurnal bias favouring diurnal charts and diurnal planets. one could rationalize that heat and light are supportive of life, while the reflected light of the moon is not supportive of it.. i wouldn't want to have to grow a vegetable garden without full sunlight and if i had a choice between the sun and the moon to help it along, i would pick the sun over the moon. if i hired a gardener, aside from wanting to know if they had any cancer or taurus placements, i would want to make sure they were born in the day, LOL! but, this is just a simple and interesting way of thinking about how meaningful the sun as opposed to the moon is for sustaining life.. one could probably fall back on ptolemy for some of this if they wanted. last night reading porphyry of tyee (andrea l. gehrz translation page 12) "in as much as they(venus/mars) belong to the sect of the moon, which emits weaker beams than the sun, the nocturnal planets are exalted in the signs sextile to their own signs. ( james comment- compared to the diurnal planets trine their own signs - stronger beams.)

i continue to wonder about an uneven bias here. if it exists no one in the community wants to have to answer it, or would perhaps prefer to be politically correct for the moment.

mark,

this idea of the nature of the domicile ruler - diurnal or nocturnal - is interesting. i don't recall reading about it in hands book. martin is the first one to use it to explain abu 'ali's views in the end part of his book 'the judgements of nativities'. it is an interesting observation that deserves some consideration. a person has a venus in capricorn in a diurnal chart, and in the diurnal part of the chart - with the sun) - and maybe it isn't so bad if the domicile ruler trumps all the other considerations of sect.. where is an authority like chris brennan when one is having a conversation like this, lol).. sun in aries is less exalted in a nocturnal chart, but it gets a boost given the fact it is in a nocturnal planets sect - mars.. the waters are getting muddy for me at this point. i would like greater clarity on this so if you find a source that gives more insight on all of this that you are able to share with us here, that would be peachy..

34
James_M wrote:
this idea of the nature of the domicile ruler - diurnal or nocturnal - is interesting. i don't recall reading about it in hands book.
Hand's book is an extremely useful introduction to the subject of sect but hardly the last word. Books like this should be treated as a starting point for personal research rather than definitive guides. Plus the book was written in the early phase of Project Hindsight in the 1990's. Hand is fundamentally a medieval astrologer. He has obviously added a lot of hellenistic techniques to his toolkit due to his involvement with Robert Schmidt and the editing the Project Hindsight translations.

Fundamentally, though Hand seeks to present sect as a unifying technique in traditional astrology. He essentially settles on a tripartitite approach to sect that seems to be an attempt to reconcile differences between medieval and hellenistic astrology.

Hence Hand focuses on the fundamental distinction of day/night and the two rejoicing conditions of Valens.

To recap the rejoicing conditions are planets in a harmonious hemisphere and sign relative to their respective sect.

I recently, gave a link to an article by Chris Brennan which repeated this emphasis. Personally, though I think this approach is too simplistic.

Even Hand himself though admits the issue is somewhat more complicated. He mentions planetary phase is a factor in sect too but only really explains this in terms of Mercury which is common in sect.

Actually, all the planets become more masculine or feminine depending on their phase to the Sun. Generally, planets rising before the Sun (oriental) are seen as more masculine while those following the Sun (occidental) more feminine.

The Moon is rather different and has its masculkine /waxing phase to the left of the Sun and its feminine/waning phase to the right of the Sun. Hence the Moon, although a feminine planet, is more compatible in aspect with diurnal planets in its waxing phase. So the opposition or square of the Moon to Mars is especially malefic while the Moon is waxing while he Moon-Saturn square or opposition is especially unfavourable with the Moon waning. This would be even worse if these malefics were out of sect.

Lets imagine a reallly difficult scenario here. Say we have Venus in a day chart in Aries. This means the planet is not only out of sect but its ruler is too. As a feminine planet its not comfortable in a masculine sign. On top of this lets say Venus is oriental of the Sun. As this is the masculine phase it puts Venus further out of harmony with its prevailing sect. All this masucline emphasis is likely to produce a pushy, passionate, demanding Venus but there are underlying insecurities with the planet totally out of sect and in its fall. The planet may be still be effective in purely material terms but there are likely to be relationship problems indicated. Interestingly, both Mariolyn Monroe and Jane Mansfield had an out of sect Venus in Aries.

Similarly, we have the notion of quadrants calculated from the ASC in diurnal motion. These are seen as more masculine or feminine. This idea is widely adopted by hellemnistic and medieval astrologers.

So as I see it we have the basic criteria of whether a chart is day or night. Beyond that though there are a number of conditions that can worsen or mitigate an out of sect planet.

Factors to consider are:

1 Hemisphere location by sect
2 Sign placement by sect
3 Planetary phase by sect
4 Sign ruler by sect
5 Quadrant by sect
6 Aspectual contacts by sect
7 Doryphory to both luminaries

Some sources such as Serapio even suggest sect should considered relative to the gender of a person! Hence masculine planets are supposed to be more effective in male nativities and feminine planets in women's nativities. In our more egalitarian age many may dismiss this as pure sexism. However, it just goes to show how pervasive the notion of sect/gender was in ancient astrology.

Why is so much focus put on points 1 & 2 to the exclusion of others in many contemporary sources? I personally, think there are two reasons. Firstly, those wishing to give prominence to the ideas of Valens as a dominant hellenistic source to the exclusion of Ptolemy and those influenced by him. Secondly, those wishing to present sect as a continuous tradition in hellenistic and medieval astrology. Points 1 and 2 effectively end up the basic approach to sect in later medieval and renaissance astrology so its understable why Hand wants to give this so much focus.

I prefer instead to focus on the hellenistic approach to sect. This isn't necessarily synonymous with the medieval aproach. It is is clear that sect is a far wider topic in ancient astrology than normally recognised. In many ways it rivalled essential dignity as a way of assessing planetary effectiveness.

One can clearly identify differences of focus amongst ancient authorities in how sect should be assessed beyond the fundamental distinction of day night. For example, the two rejoicing conditions of Valens and Ptolemy's focus on planetary phase and the quadrants.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

35
Mark wrote: Factors to consider are:

1 Hemisphere location by sect
2 Sign placement by sect
3 Planetary phase by sect
4 Sign ruler by sect
5 Quadrant by sect
6 Aspectual contacts by sect
7 Doryphory to both luminaries

-------

Why is so much focus put on points 1 & 2 to the exclusion of others in many contemporary sources? I personally, think there are two reasons. Firstly, those wishing to give prominence to the ideas of Valens as a dominant hellenistic source to the exclusion of Ptolemy and those influenced by him. Secondly, those wishing to present sect as a continuous tradition in hellenistic and medieval astrology. Points 1 and 2 effectively end up the basic approach to sect in later medieval and renaissance astrology so its understable why Hand wants to give this so much focus.


Mark
To be fair Robert Schmidt is very critic with Robert Hand's approach to sect, in the preface of the third (or fourth) book of Tetrabiblos. Maybe Hand's book is only written when texts were less known.

For me, I tend to follow Cieloeterra method, considering better working the planets agreeing with the chart sect, diurnal planets with diurnal charts, nocturnal planets with nocturnal chart.

margherita
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com

36
Jame, I'm not sure I see any in the examples you give of this diurnal preference. I think, like Mark and Martin demonstrate, this is just the normal focus an astrologer might pay to sect.

Martin mentions about the waxing and the waning of the Moon for example and how it affects matters. The idea, which I think you are taking, that there is a black and white "diurnal charts are good, nocturnal ones are bad" just doesn't seem to be present. Take this example from Firmicus for example:
Chapter VII, the Condition of The Planets:
Venus, Mars, Mercury, and the Moon rejoice by night. There?
fore Venus, Mars, and Mercury follow the condition of the Moon.
Favorably located in a nocturnal chart they indicate good fortune,
unfavorably in a diurnal chart, the greatest evils.
If Venus and Mars aspect the waning Moon in a nocturnal chart, the
waning Moon indicates all kinds of prosperity and good fortune
. But if a
full or waxing Moon comes into aspect with Venus or Mars, it brings about
the greatest catastrophes and stirs up enormous ill fortune. Venus is
adverse to the waxing Moon because they conflict with each other.
(emphasis mine)

I think examples like this clearly show that the nocturnal planets are fully capable of being fortuitous. Clearly we have some subtle distinctions here even with just such a short paragraph which is encapsulated by what Martin already mentioned regarding the Moon's phase. The point being though that this is hardly black and white. This is taking several things into account, chief of which amongst them is consideration for sect.

Valens has some interesting things to say on sect too, and I think again we will see that there is no bias here. What is true of diurnal charts is true of nocturnal as well.
Book II, Riley translation (emphasis mine)
It is best if the stars of the day sect are found at angles in their own triangles or in operative places; the same is true for the stars of the night sect.
...
It will be necessary to look at the aspects of every houseruler and the arrangement of the configurations, to see if they are appropriate or the reverse. If, for example, Saturn is found in opposition or in square for night births, it will bring about reversals, ruin, dangers, injuries, and diseases, as well as sluggishness in enterprises. For day births, Mars causes hot, reckless men, precarious in their activities and in their livelihoods. They experience imprisonment, trials, abuse, cuts, burns, bleeding, and accidents/falls. But if these stars happen to be configured properly, in their own sects, they are actively positive. As a result, these stars are not to be considered malefics in all cases; they can be bestowers of good. Particularly if Saturn (for day births) has a favorable relationship with the houseruler and has Jupiter and the sun in aspect, it then makes men wealthy, famous, profiting from legacies, lords of estates and slaves, guardians and supervisors of others' affairs. For night births, however, if Saturn is /59K/ configured well and has a relationship with the houseruler, it will also cause the loss of what was gained, reduction in rank, and infamy. Let the same considerations be true for Mars: for night births it grants leadership, generalship, public commands of the masses; for day births (if Mars is in operative places), it brings about the previously /58P/ mentioned circumstances, but it then turns them into reversals, fears, and oppositions; it makes leadership subject to factionalism and terror. It brings attacks of enemies and uprisings of the mob, famines and plagues on cities, assaults, fires, dangerous crises.

37
paul,
have you read the book i refer to? mark has made general comments nothing specific to do with this book. martin has demonstrated very little in connection to the book, but has raised into focus the idea of the ruler of sect taking on greater relevance to explain/rationalize abu 'ali's comments.
Paul wrote:Jame, I'm not sure I see any in the examples you give of this diurnal preference. I think, like Mark and Martin demonstrate, this is just the normal focus an astrologer might pay to sect.
martin,

at no time have i tried to pin anything down to one factor, so i am not sure why this comment is being made.
Martin Gansten wrote:
james_m wrote:martin,

it feels like a game of chase, or that game where you are supposed to guess how many balls are under the glass.
Perhaps that is because you are being overly reductive, trying to pin a delineation down to one factor when it is really a synthesis of several.
mark,

i always enjoy folks taking an isolated comment and running with it. i suppose i do this too. no one has said hands book is the definitive one on sect.. however prior to this thread i had not read anyone making a focus on the domicile ruler and what sect it is naturally a part of as a means of explaining the negative characterizations that form so many of the descriptions in abu 'ali's comments on nocturnal charts. it seems you hadn't either, or that something new had been presented given your comments from a few days ago posted down below.. any more leads on ancient sources? you mention one here, but it seems to have a value system that places more importance on the initial focus of sect - day or night with greater difficultly initially given the planets that are ''immediately'' out of sect as a consequence of it being a day or night birth.. unfortunately abu 'alis comments are no where near as nuanced.
Mark wrote: Teucer of Babylon does describe the nature of the planets and suggests that having a planet of the opposing sect ruling a domicile adds to the difficulties of an already out of sect planet.
Mark
Mark wrote:James_M wrote:
i suppose one could take this to mean that a planet like mars in a nocturnal chart but in the sign of capricorn would not be favoured so well either as it is in the sign of a diurnally ruled domicile, even if the element conforms with the triplicity of the nocturnal planets.
You have highlighted a fascinating point here James. Personally, I find this far more thought provoking than the narrow point on whether this author did or didn't have an idiosyncracy favoring diurnal births.

As I see it the fundamental distinction would be that Mars would be in sect here. This crucial point must be given its due weight above anything else. The question is how supported is it in that condition? Here it is in a feminine sign which assists. However, the sign ruler (Saturn) is of an opposing sect. Moreover, both Mars and Saturn are the malefics of the opposing sects which makes them less co-operative in nature.

So in a night chart Mars is in sect but its ruler is out of sect.
In a day chart Mars is out of sect but its ruler is in sect.

The weight of ancient sources strongly supports the view that a planet being in sect is more significant than whether its ruler is or not. Nevertheless, there are undoubtedly issues related to having a sign ruler for a planet which is of an opposing sect.
Mark



anyone care to comment on my quote from yesterday? it would seem an inherent bias is built into the strength of the diurnal verses the nocturnal planets on the basis of the strength of their beams..

here is another one for the folks that like to think all things are equal in astrology - why is it that the moon is always considered better positioned in the first half of the lunar phase, while the 2nd half is treated in an inferior or more negative manner? perhaps someone would like to claim this bias isn't a bias, but is based on something more substantial? first half represents life and growth, while the 2nd half represents decay and death.. that would be a good rationale that i could immediately think of.. i think this concept gets included in the point system the medieval astrologers like to work with. comments on this would also be welcome.
james_m wrote: porphyry of tyee (andrea l. gehrz translation page 12) "in as much as they(venus/mars) belong to the sect of the moon, which emits weaker beams than the sun, the nocturnal planets are exalted in the signs sextile to their own signs. ( james comment- compared to the diurnal planets trine their own signs - stronger beams.)

38
i have one other observation that i would like to share that is connected in some way, although i am not sure exactly how. this has to do with exalted planets with the exception of the moon, all being exalted in signs opposite their own sect..
mars in capricorn - mars belongs to the opposite sect of saturn.
venus in pisces - venus and jupiter opposite sect.
sun in aries - sun and mars - opposite sect.
saturn in libra - saturn and venus - opposite sect.
jupiter in cancer - jupiter and moon - opposite sect.
moon in taurus - moon and venus - same sect.

if being in the domicile ruler of a planet of the opposite sect is considered a negative, why is it that these same planets are exalted in signs that belong to planets of the opposite sect?

now perhaps someone would like to rationalize that the concept of exaltations came after the idea/concept of sect, or some approach based on historical lines, or someone can surprise us with some interesting theory on this. alternatively someone might say it has nothing to do with nothing..

39
James_M wrote:
no one has said hands book is the definitive one on sect.. however prior to this thread
Perhaps not explicitly but I felt you were kind of implying this.
...i had not read anyone making a focus on the domicile ruler and what sect it is naturally a part ...
I already gave you credit for highlighting this James. Its not something I have personally given a lot of thought to date. Thats just me though. Perhaps students of Robert Schmidt was more artuned to this already.
any more leads on ancient sources? you mention one here, but it seems to have a value system that places more importance on the initial focus of sect - day or night with greater difficultly initially given the planets that are ''immediately'' out of sect as a consequence of it being a day or night birth.. unfortunately abu 'alis comments are no where near as nuanced.
I think nearly all ancient sources state this explicitly or implcitly. I believe I have previously stated several times on the forum that many sources only mention whether the chart is day or night and nothing else. Firmicus and Rhetorius frequently do this.

I have no time at present to go hunting out sources for people to convince them here. The point is a well established as far as I am concerned not a speculation on my part.

Mark
Last edited by Mark on Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

40
James-M wrote:
if being in the domicile ruler of a planet of the opposite sect is considered a negative, why is it that these same planets are exalted in signs that belong to planets of the opposite sect?
Your comparing apples and pears here James. Most academics suggest the exaltations are pre-hellenistic in origin and date back to Babylonian astrology. Although, Robert Schmidt has suggested the exaltations could be hellenistic in origin due to their relationship to the Thema Mundi (a point noted by Firmicus). I am not convinced by that theory myself.

However old the exaltations actually are planetary sect theory seems to have developed as an alternative system to assess effectiveness of planets.

Comparisons with domiciile rulerships and sect show this too.

For example, look at say Sun in Aquarius in a day chart in the 11th house. In terms of sect we have a very effective planet here as the sect ruler, in a masculine sign, ruled by a diurnal planet (Saturn) and in a positive house, in a diurnal quarter.

However, according to essential dignity Aquarius is opposing the domicile of the Sun. This became a serious debility in medieval astrology (detriment).

So we are comparing different systems that were probably not originally framed with the intention of working integrally together.

Contradicting this we do see sect utilised in the essential dignity of triplicity rulerships. It seems plausible the fully formulated notion of triplicity rulers came after the use of domicile, exaltation and bound rulers. In some respects one can see triplicity rulers as an attempt to blend essential dignity and sect together.

Moreover, we do have have the masculine/feminine nature of the signs. Each luminary rules a masculine or feminine sign. Every other planet has a sign it rules of a masculine/diurnal and/or feminine/nocturnal nature.

Sect is also fundamental to things like calculation of many lots.

Sect is an interesting addition in providing more depth to chart delineation because it can contradict essential dignity and give us additional insights.

For example, Moon in Scorpio is the sign of fall for the Moon. However, using sect we can delineate that a night time Moon in Scorpio is generally much more effective than a day time Moon in Scorpio. At night both the Moon and Mars are in sect. In contrast in the daytime both the Moon and Mars are out of sect.

Of course I am narrowing this down to just a couple of factors. As you know any proper delineation requires a more integrative approach incorporating several factors such as aspectual connections, house placement, phase to the Sun etc.

Mark
Last edited by Mark on Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

41
james_m wrote:i have one other observation that i would like to share that is connected in some way, although i am not sure exactly how. this has to do with exalted planets with the exception of the moon, all being exalted in signs opposite their own sect..
mars in capricorn - mars belongs to the opposite sect of saturn.
venus in pisces - venus and jupiter opposite sect.
sun in aries - sun and mars - opposite sect.
saturn in libra - saturn and venus - opposite sect.
jupiter in cancer - jupiter and moon - opposite sect.
moon in taurus - moon and venus - same sect.

if being in the domicile ruler of a planet of the opposite sect is considered a negative, why is it that these same planets are exalted in signs that belong to planets of the opposite sect?

now perhaps someone would like to rationalize that the concept of exaltations came after the idea/concept of sect, or some approach based on historical lines, or someone can surprise us with some interesting theory on this. alternatively someone might say it has nothing to do with nothing..
Aries ingress.
Aries to Virgo= Day
Libra to Pisces=Night

Except Moon, Sun,Jupiter,(Merc)- get exalted in signs during the day half.
Venus,Mars,Saturn- get exalted in signs that show up in the night half.

PD

42
that is a good observation pankajdubey.. this would lend weight to the idea that the primary sect is considered more essential to the strength of a planet then the rulership of the domicile idea as i read it. perhaps we aren't comparing apples and oranges so much as making observations on another system of weighing planetary strength that may have more connections that we'd like to consider? it isn't perfect with the moon and saturn out of sect by this approach, but is a better fit in some respects.