Hellenistic delineations

Re: Hellenistic deliniations

I might just mention a few gleanings.

1. The sun isn't so important in Hellenistic astrology. The really important "me" point" is the degree of the ascendant. Several of the authors cited above used it to calculate all kinds of "lots" (which came to be known as Arabic parts.) I would suggest that these sometimes seem more important than houses in determining areas of life.

2. Angularity gives a planet a huge amount of strength, notably if it's in the first or 10th house. The 9th, 5th, and 11th houses were also good news. The 7th and 4th houses are next in order of favourability. If you've got planets in the sixth, 12th, or 8th house, normally they're toast. And you might even be a wretched person.

3. Lords are really important to some of the authors, and they are calculated in several ways. One way that we use in modern astrology is identifying the so-called accidental house-cusp ruler: the planet that rules the sign on the cusp of the house in question. Its location says a lot about how the house in question functions. But they also looked at the lords of triplicities, which varied depending upon whether you had a day or night birth.

4. Because precise planetary positions were sometimes hard to calculate, the ancient astrologers tended to consider tenanted signs in aspect, not planets based upon degrees and orbs.

5. Neo-Hellenistic astrology gave whole sign houses a lot of cachet. But Porphyry, who developed a simple quadrant house system, was also a Hellenistic astrologer. Because a lot of the methods don't refer to houses, you can use either whole signs or Porphyry with a lot of them.

Re: Hellenistic deliniations

RU: yes your Moon is below the horizon and therefore in the day hemisphere of the chart; some later authors considered th hemispheres not from the horizon but relative to the houses: thus houses 1-12-11-10-9-8 = one hemisphere and houses 7-6-5-4-3-2 = the other hemisphere; however we do not find this approach among the Greco/Roman authors, nor among the Islamic transitional-era authors.

It might be interesting to compare Vedic astrology's outlook in this matter: the classical jyotish authors (such as Parasara) did not give the same importance to the doctrine of sect as Hellenists did, however jyotish always included (what we know of as sect) in their estimations (calculations) of planetary strength: they gave (and still do give) points for planetary strength in their calculations according to the following model:

Vedic "sect" considerations:

+Sun gets strength if in the DAY part of a DAY chart (note that this is similar to what I have discussed above as a later development in Western astrology where the Sun became considered to be in sect only when above the horizon in a day chart)

+Moon gets strength only if in the night part of the chart (same as the Hellenists)

+Mercury gets strength in either hemisphere of the chart (same here as with the Hellenists)

+Mars gets strenth only if in the night part of the chart (same as the Hellenists)

+Jupiter gets strength only if in the day part of the chart( same as the Hellenists)

Now there are 2 reversals in the Vedic classical authors relative to the Greco/Romans:

+Venus gets strength only if in the DAY part of the chart (reverse of Hellenists)

+Saturn gets strength onli if in the NIGHT part of the chart (ditto)

Interesting that their is agreement relative to 5 of the 7 planets between the ancient Greco/Romans and the ancient jyotish seers; interesting too the reversal of Venus and Saturn.

Re: Hellenistic deliniations

dr. farr your comment on another thread seems to be saying that the Sun is always in sect - however, to begin with, before considering any additional considerations such as (halb) the Sun is in sect when above the horizon and the Moon in sect when the Sun is below the horizon

dr. farr said:

Remember that the Sun is always in sect, but more "potent" in a day chart;

Click to expand...

Re: Hellenistic deliniations

Not for Paulus (at least): Sun was always in sect but its "value" as such only "counted" if it were above the horizon in a day chart. In my understanding of the literature, the Moon is in sect only when in the night hemisphere of a given chart; if in a night chart the Moon is in the day hemisphere, then not only is the Moon out of sect but also is out of sect in its period, which authors like Paulus (and other later authors like Abu Mashar and Al-kindi) stated made the Moon "powerless" in such a situation.

Re: Hellenistic deliniations

dr. farr said:

Not for Paulus (at least): Sun was always in sect but its "value" as such only "counted" if it were above the horizon in a day chart. In my understanding of the literature, the Moon is in sect only when in the night hemisphere of a given chart; if in a night chart the Moon is in the day hemisphere, then not only is the Moon out of sect but also is out of sect in its period, which authors like Paulus (and other later authors like Abu Mashar and Al-kindi) stated made the Moon "powerless" in such a situation.

Click to expand...

dr. farr, so when Chris Brennan writes an article on an Hellenistic Astrology website with the following declaration, what is your view on that

"Robert Schmidt points out that the notion of sect could by likened to the concept of a two party political system, as in the case of the United States where you have two political parties who are vying for control of the White House.

When the Sun is anywhere above the horizon, as demarcated by the ascendant/descendant axis, the chart is considered to be a diurnal or day time chart and the planets of the diurnal sect are considered to be the party in power, while the nocturnal planets have less power to push their own agenda. Conversely, when the Sun is anywhere below the horizon the chart is considered to be nocturnal, and thus the nocturnal sect is considered to be the party in power and it has the ability to push its own agenda, while the diurnal planets have their authority reduced somewhat.

Mercury is considered to be intrinsically neutral, as he often is in astrology, but he is usually said to ally himself with the diurnal sect when he is a morning star, or conversely he allies himself with the nocturnal sect when he is an evening star. Mercury is a ‘morning star’ when he rises before the Sun on the day of the native’s birth, and he is an ‘evening star’ when he sets after the Sun on the day of the native’s birth."
http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2008/11/25/the-astrology-of-sect/

Re: Hellenistic deliniations

dr. farr said:

Not for Paulus (at least): Sun was always in sect but its "value" as such only "counted" if it were above the horizon in a day chart. In my understanding of the literature, the Moon is in sect only when in the night hemisphere of a given chart; if in a night chart the Moon is in the day hemisphere, then not only is the Moon out of sect but also is out of sect in its period, which authors like Paulus (and other later authors like Abu Mashar and Al-kindi) stated made the Moon "powerless" in such a situation.

Click to expand...

Paulus understanding of the Sun and sect seems very similar and mostly in agreement with that of Valens dr. farr because if according to Paulus the "value" of the Sun is not "counted" unless the Sun is above the horizon in a day chart, then one might question the real difference

With reference to your comments of the moon, I earlier posted the following remarks
2.) In a nocturnal chart you'd want the nocturnal planets in the upper hemisphere away from the Sun (hayz).

Any nocturnal planets in the lower hemisphere in a nocturnal chart are still in sect but are considered slightly out of sect and more diurnal in nature (halb).

Re: Hellenistic deliniations

sandstone said:

i would like to point out jup asc provided a link earlier that is more medival then hellenistic in content.. the x-files site..
quote from the curtis manwarings site
These interpretations are more in line with medieval thinking than Hellenistic.
tjust think.. a new subforum!!! yum, yum..
one for hellenistic, the other for medival..

Click to expand...

To clarify, I have just received the following response from Zoidsoft whose website is the lost horoscope x files

zoidsoft said:

I wrote this stuff back in the mid-90s after having been to one of Schmidt's lectures on Aristotle and Ptolemy. Ptolemy tried to rewrite the astrology of the time to fit with natural / physical causes in line with Aristotle's thinking.

This is the path that medieval astrologers took later on, but Aristotelianism originated during the Hellenistic period so it is not correct to call this kind of thinking "medieval" in origin because the medieval astrologers were trying to faithfully preserve Ptolemy.

However, I currently believe that such thinking is not an accurate representation of what the "founders" had in mind.

Click to expand...

Re: Hellenistic deliniations

waybread said:

Is it too much to suggest that people who really want to learn Hellenistic astrology buy a few books? Honestly,I don't think it is something one can pick up on a thread without a lot of previous study. Which all takes time. If you have a good grasp of modern astrology; or better yet of neo-traditional astrology, you can see better how Hellenistic astrology was put together. But this takes years of study, not days or weeks.

Put differently you wouldn't take your drivers' license for a 16-wheeler until you've passed the basic driver's license test in a small automatic shift sedan. You wouldn't apply to law school prior to graduating from high school.

If it is too much to suggest that people begin a collection of astrology books, a good place to start is the Skyscript website, which has many articles and links. Or just google Chris Brennan or Robert Schmidt. A good recent textbook on traditional astrology is Avelar and Rebeiro. You can order it via amazon.com or try the American Federation of Astrologers' on-line book shop. Joseph Crane's books have been mentioned.

Click to expand...

Happy New Year! waybread, I am curious if your remakrs are directed towards me, the OP? If so, you might have missed this post

tsmall said:

Thank you JUPITERASC for the post on sect. All, I haven't forgoten about this thread. Holiday craziness... I need to spend more time reading, and I have a book or two to order....

Click to expand...

I have Ptolemy, Valens, and Ben Dykes' Intro to Traditional Astrology, as well as seven or eight other books. The intent of this thread was to actually try to apply Hellenistic methods to delineate a real chart. Once the kiddos go back to school, I'll have more time to read, but I wanted to do this here because I thought it could be interesting for other members as well.

Re: Hellenistic deliniations

Waybread, I'm a little surprised that you don't think hellenistic astrology is worth being studied here. Why study modern, medieval, Chinese and whatever else but hellenistic is the one we ought to go to a college library? I don't see anything so complicated here that I have only one choice and that is books. The OP for example seems to want to explore this from a relatively beginning point, and I would never advice Valens' or Ptolemys' works as starting material or self-guide at the start. The stickies have some great guides on modern astrology but until this thread there was a vacancy for hellenistic practices.

I'm no doubt I'm not alone in saying I've learned an incredible amount from modern astrology on here. The site allows a kind of interactivity where either finer points can be explored or indeed ab inizio. There seems to be good interest in this, looking at the participants alone (new and old to the site) and every time I come to the site I've found more people converting to hellenistic methods, they say so themselves.

On a minor technical point, planets in 12th in hellenistic astrology at least, I believe contain the energy in the sense that it's not directed at the individual. Benefics are swallowed here, they do little or no good, and so too for malefics - anyone correct me if I'm a little astray here, it's good to have the malefics in the 12th or the 6th because the malefic energy is not directed at the individual.

I thought it would be useful to put in the list of house associations. I note some differences between hellenistic and other considerations, one that shines here is that sex belongs to the 5th house here, whereas all of the modern books I've read to date have given that to the 8th (perhaps the Pluto link). Talking about sect and rulers placed, we're likely to hit on this anytime soon.

1st house: life, body, breath, physical appearance, health
2nd house: manner of living, possessions, substance, money
3rd house: siblings, cousins, neighbors, community, travel
4th house: parents, family, home, hidden matters
5th house: children, sex, good fortune, creative endeavors
6th house: illness, enemies, work, service, subordinates
7th house: relationships, marriage, spouse, other people in general
8th house: death, benefits from death, the possessions of others
9th house: foreign travel, foreigners, philosophy, astrology, religion
10th house: what one does, reputation, career, superiors
11th house: friends, allies, gifts, hopes
12th house: enemies, ailments, foreign countries, jails

http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2007/06/10/whole-sign-houses/


An interesting note on sign aspects:

"Signs are whole divine energies and should be treated as such. In Hellenistic astrology, the sign was more important than the planet. It created or adopted the planet for its own paticular expression. If a planet was destroyed or removed, another would take its place. Planets are expendable. Signs are not."

http://www.librarising.com/astrology/misc/wholesignaspects.html

Re: Hellenistic deliniations

Sorry if I seemed grouchy (very early) this morning, people. After hosting a fun dinner party last night and washing up a kazillion glasses, &c., we determined that our dog had run away and was nowhere to be found. This is rather serious in our climate. I kept myself awake for several hours by trawling astrology threads, and calling her every 10 minutes, & finally went to sleep after 3:30. Fortunately she appeared at the back door around 7:30, exhausted but safe. I feel much nicer now.

So kudos to you bibliophiles out there who are buying books, like tsmall. I forgot to mention Manilius, one of the easier-to-find early sources. Some of today's Hellenizers don't like his work because it is so different from that of the client-oriented astrologers like Valens, but he comes from an older tradition of Greek star lore, so is kind of an interesting bridge.

I have to say, too, that Valens is loaded with mathematical techniques, so if this isn't your idea of a good read, I just found the others more accessible.

In terms of seeing a chart interpreted using Hellenistic techniques, book-buyers might also purchase Tamsyn Barton, Ancient Astrology. This is a history book, but she also interprets a chart using Hellenistic methods.

Byjove, I do think Hellenistic astrology is worth being studied here. I would just hope that participants have done some homework, first. And maybe this is my pet peeve, dragged in from entirely different threads, where people seem to want astrology tutorials without having done much to prepare themselves; or to jump into Astrology 401 before having passed Astrology 101. Lord knows my ignorance shines through gaping holes, however.

I do think books are extremely important. I attempted above to show people where they could find relevant books without having to pay a lot of money for them; i.e., via the Inter-library loan service of most public libraries. Of course, a lot of rubbish gets published in books, but the rubbish quotient on the Internet is far higher. For one thing, books published by an established reputable press run manuscripts through a serious review process before they agree to publish them. In contast, I could set up a website and post any misinformation I wanted with no prior sniff-test whatsoever.

Also, Hellenistic astrology is not merely a collection of techniques to be applied to a horoscope, with a 2012-vintage interpretation out the other end. Without reading some of the sources in the original, one can get some kind of neo-Hellenistic astrology that is distinctly modern in many ways. There's nothing wrong with hybrid astrology. I just wouldn't call it Hellenistic. Some of the astrology practiced in Hellenized Egypt was black magic in nature (see Betz, Greek Magical Papyri.) But nobody wants to give client reads today based on that material. Let's just prune it out of the Hellenistic family tree.

One reason why I don't think I want to practice Hellenistic astrology although I've been reading a lot of it lately, is because so many of the interpretations are just seem dire to the point of being silly. So how does one practice a reasonably authentic Hellenistic astrology without the sensationalistic interpretations? I mean, if your Mars and Saturn are vermisched, you are going to become a temple robber or total miscreant. Nor do I personally think it is ethical to do death predictions, although that was a huge concern back when the average life expectancy was under 30, and they wrote extensively on this topic.

The house meanings vary, depending upon the source. Which is why I think it is important to dig beneath the blogosphere. To some ancients, the 3rd was simply the house of the goddess, the moon, and brothers. The 9th was the house of God. And the 12th was a wretched house indeed to some authors. One author recommended that the astrologer pray, before casting a chart, that the client have no planets in the 6th, 8th, or 12th houses. Which is one reason why I think the idea of a coherent Hellenistic "tradition" is untenable.

I've gotta run now, but I will post more on this topic after my New Years skyping with relatives!

Re: Hellenistic deliniations

Regarding my understanding of the issue of sect based on my insights into the old literature PLUS Hand's take on it:

-in the question of sect there is sect and period
-first, the period: its either Day (Sun above the horizon) or Night (Sun below the horizon)
-in a diurnal chart the Sun and the diurnal planets are in their period, ie, they are the "party in power"
-in a night chart, the Moon and the nocturnal planets are in their period, ie they are the "party in power"
-now, the question is, are the members of the party in power where they are supposed to be, ie, are they in the appropriate SECTION (Day or Night SECTION) of their power?
-if they ARE then they are in their period (in their power) AND in sect
-if they are NOT, then while their period is in power they are NOT where they should be to wield that power, ie, they are not in sect.

Example:
+ a nocturnal chart
+therefore Moon, Venus and Mars have the power because it is the PERIOD of their power (ie, it is night above the earth)
+now, Moon is below the horizon in the day part of the chart; Venus and Mars are both above the horizon in the night part of the chart (the period of the chart)
+now lets estimate the strength of the 3 nocturnal planets
Moon is in its period (night chart) = +1
Moon is NOT in its proper section (sect) because it is in the day part of the chart, under the earth = -1
Net sect power of Moon = 0

Venus and Mars are both in their period (night chart) = Venus+1, Mars+1
Venus and Mars are also in their proper section(sect) because they are in the night part of the chart (above the earth in a night chart) = Venus+1, Mars+1
So the net sect power of Venus is +2 and of Mars is +2

What about the diurnal planets in the above example? Let's say that Jupiter is above the earth, and the Sun and Saturn are below the earth:
Sun is NOT in its period because it is a night chart therefore Sun = 0
Sun is in its proper section (the day section) of the chart, under the earth = +1
Therefore the sect (related) strength of the Sun = +1

Saturn is not in its period because it is a night chart therefore Saturn = 0
Saturn is in its proper sect (the day section) of the chart, being under the earth = +1
Therefore the sect (related) strength of Saturn = +1

Jupiter is not in its period because it is a night chart, therefore Jupiter = 0
Jupiter is NOT in its proper sect because it is posited in the night section of the chart above the earth, therefore this = -1
The sect (related) strength of Jupiter, then, would be -1

In our hypothetical example, the final (net) sect/strength determinations for the planets in this nocturnal chart would then be:
Moon = 0
Venus = +2
Mars = +2
Sun = +1
Saturn = +1
Jupiter = -1
The sect/strongest planets would be the nocturnals Venus and Mars; the weakest sect planet would be Jupiter.

Now the above is how I understand the sect literature I have read; and this literature is from the older times (Paulus, and the early Islamic-era transitionalists who were still much influenced by the Hellenists, ie, Al-Kindi, Sahl, Abu Mashar) I might have totally misunderstood everything I read, and might be quite incorrect; but I don't think so, I think I have understood the material I have read in this regard.
But I won't argue the point! Especially so because, unlike the Hellenists and neo-Hellenists, I do not give enormous importance in delineation to the sect issue: I regard it merely as one of the determinants of relative planetary strength (like the Vedics do), and, although important, not moreso than the totality of testimonies in determining relative planetary strength.

Re: Hellenistic deliniations

byjove said:

Waybread, I'm a little surprised that you don't think hellenistic astrology is worth being studied here. Why study modern, medieval, Chinese and whatever else but hellenistic is the one we ought to go to a college library? I don't see anything so complicated here that I have only one choice and that is books. The OP for example seems to want to explore this from a relatively beginning point, and I would never advice Valens' or Ptolemys' works as starting material or self-guide at the start. The stickies have some great guides on modern astrology but until this thread there was a vacancy for hellenistic practices.

Click to expand...

byjove I would agree that until this thread there was a vacancy for specifically hellenistic practices and I also agree that since we do not insist that medieval astrologers have degrees in Latin and Greek or that Chinese astrologers are fluent in Pin Yin or any of the myriad Chinese dialects, then why indeed must we frequent college libraries in order to study Hellenistic? Unless of course we want to

byjove said:

I'm no doubt I'm not alone in saying I've learned an incredible amount from modern astrology on here. The site allows a kind of interactivity where either finer points can be explored or indeed ab inizio. There seems to be good interest in this, looking at the participants alone (new and old to the site) and every time I come to the site I've found more people converting to hellenistic methods, they say so themselves.

Click to expand...

The interactivity is most useful I agree byjove

byjove said:

On a minor technical point, planets in 12th in hellenistic astrology at least, I believe contain the energy in the sense that it's not directed at the individual. Benefics are swallowed here, they do little or no good, and so too for malefics - anyone correct me if I'm a little astray here, it's good to have the malefics in the 12th or the 6th because the malefic energy is not directed at the individual.

Click to expand...

I understand that
(a) planets located in ANY Cadent house direct their energies away from the native and towards others instead.

(b) planets located in ANY Cadent house produce few, if any events and/or are unlikely and/or less likely to produce many/if any events

(c) Cadent houses are the 3rd, 6th, 9th and 12th

Therefore any planets located in the 12th (or any other Cadent house) in Hellenistic astrology direct their energies away from the native. When considering the malefics, this is regarded - in a sense - as good for the native.

However, I assume that if the native then somehow causes harm to others in any way, then obviously the native suffers the consequences of their actions. Thus receiving consequences of the action of malefics in 12th or any other Cadent house

Configuration and/or aspects between domicile and exaltation lords of malefics in 12th would require additional study.

Benefics in 12th (or any other Cadent House) also direct their energies away from the native so this is regarded - in a sense - as not so good for the native.

However, the native may 'do good work for the benefit of others' and thus may receive some 'indirect' reward. There are additional considerations such as planetary aspect or configuration between domicile and exaltation lords.

Although the 9th house is a Cadent House it is configured to the Ascendant and thus my understanding is that any planets located in 9th are therefore potentially able to do business: the 3rd is also Cadent yet configured to the Ascendant although the extent to which planets are fit to do business when located therein requires more research as it seems likely to be yet another of those areas where, for excellent and interesting reasons, opinions tend to differ

byjove said:

I thought it would be useful to put in the list of house associations. I note some differences between hellenistic and other considerations, one that shines here is that sex belongs to the 5th house here, whereas all of the modern books I've read to date have given that to the 8th (perhaps the Pluto link). Talking about sect and rulers placed, we're likely to hit on this anytime soon.

Click to expand...

Sex would certainly appear to be most 'creative' when one considers the creation of children byjove

byjove said:

1st house: life, body, breath, physical appearance, health
2nd house: manner of living, possessions, substance, money
3rd house: siblings, cousins, neighbors, community, travel
4th house: parents, family, home, hidden matters
5th house: children, sex, good fortune, creative endeavors
6th house: illness, enemies, work, service, subordinates
7th house: relationships, marriage, spouse, other people in general
8th house: death, benefits from death, the possessions of others
9th house: foreign travel, foreigners, philosophy, astrology, religion
10th house: what one does, reputation, career, superiors
11th house: friends, allies, gifts, hopes
12th house: enemies, ailments, foreign countries, jails
http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2007/06/10/whole-sign-houses/

Click to expand...

thank you for those basic significations of the Hellenistic houses - obviously we shall discover numerous variations that are dependent upon the surviving writings from that time which are probably contested in various books! I understand there are more new translations to English in the pipeline from many hitherto untranslated manuscripts

byjove said:

An interesting note on sign aspects:
"Signs are whole divine energies and should be treated as such. In Hellenistic astrology, the sign was more important than the planet. It created or adopted the planet for its own paticular expression. If a planet was destroyed or removed, another would take its place. Planets are expendable. Signs are not."
http://www.librarising.com/astrology/misc/wholesignaspects.html

Click to expand...

Makes sense byjove and very interesting

Re: Hellenistic deliniations

dr. farr said:

Regarding my understanding of the issue of sect based on my insights into the old literature PLUS Hand's take on it:

-in the question of sect there is sect and period
-first, the period: its either Day (Sun above the horizon) or Night (Sun below the horizon)
-in a diurnal chart the Sun and the diurnal planets are in their period, ie, they are the "party in power"
-in a night chart, the Moon and the nocturnal planets are in their period, ie they are the "party in power"
-now, the question is, are the members of the party in power where they are supposed to be, ie, are they in the appropriate SECTION (Day or Night SECTION) of their power?
-if they ARE then they are in their period (in their power) AND in sect
-if they are NOT, then while their period is in power they are NOT where they should be to wield that power, ie, they are not in sect.

Click to expand...

dr. farr, without arguing the point but instead to simply examine the historical data you have kindly provided, it is clear to me that the subtle difference between Paulus and Valens could well be stated as follows:

(a) for Paulus et al, in sect planets ("members of the party in power") are out of sect when those planets are not located where they would be able to wield that sect power EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE "THE PARTY IN POWER"

(b) for Valens et al, when in sect planets ("members of the party in power") are not located where they would be able to wield that sect power EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE "THE PARTY IN POWER" nevertheless, for Valens et al, at least, those planets are considered only slightly out of sect and not completely out of sect: their condition is instead described as being in 'halb'. Thus, planets in 'halb' are described by Valens as being in sect BUT 'situated contrary to their nature'.

the condition of being in 'halb' is described and earlier clarified as follows:

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

1.) In a diurnal chart you'd want the diurnal planets in the upper hemisphere with the Sun (hayz) as that would be more natural for those planets. The diurnal planets are Sun, Jupiter and Saturn.

If any diurnal planets in a diurnal chart are in the lower hemisphere/below the Ascendant/Descendant axis then although they are in sect, nevertheless they are considered slightly out of sect and more nocturnal in nature (halb).

If the nocturnal planets in a diurnal chart are below the horizon, although they are out of sect they are still in hayz and so more natural - but nocturnal planets that are above the horizon in a diurnal chart are situated contrary to their nature (halb).

2.) In a nocturnal chart you'd want the nocturnal planets in the upper hemisphere away from the Sun (hayz).

Any nocturnal planets in the lower hemisphere in a nocturnal chart are still in sect but are considered slightly out of sect and more diurnal in nature (halb).

If the diurnal planets in a nocturnal chart are below the horizon they are also hayz, so a little more natural but if they are above the horizon they are situated contrary to their nature nature (halb).

dr. farr said:

Example:
+ a nocturnal chart
+therefore Moon, Venus and Mars have the power because it is the PERIOD of their power (ie, it is night above the earth)
+now, Moon is below the horizon in the day part of the chart; Venus and Mars are both above the horizon in the night part of the chart (the period of the chart)
+now lets estimate the strength of the 3 nocturnal planets
Moon is in its period (night chart) = +1
Moon is NOT in its proper section (sect) because it is in the day part of the chart, under the earth = -1
Net sect power of Moon = 0

Venus and Mars are both in their period (night chart) = Venus+1, Mars+1
Venus and Mars are also in their proper section(sect) because they are in the night part of the chart (above the earth in a night chart) = Venus+1, Mars+1
So the net sect power of Venus is +2 and of Mars is +2

What about the diurnal planets in the above example? Let's say that Jupiter is above the earth, and the Sun and Saturn are below the earth:
Sun is NOT in its period because it is a night chart therefore Sun = 0
Sun is in its proper section (the day section) of the chart, under the earth = +1
Therefore the sect (related) strength of the Sun = +1

Saturn is not in its period because it is a night chart therefore Saturn = 0
Saturn is in its proper sect (the day section) of the chart, being under the earth = +1
Therefore the sect (related) strength of Saturn = +1

Jupiter is not in its period because it is a night chart, therefore Jupiter = 0
Jupiter is NOT in its proper sect because it is posited in the night section of the chart above the earth, therefore this = -1
The sect (related) strength of Jupiter, then, would be -1

In our hypothetical example, the final (net) sect/strength determinations for the planets in this nocturnal chart would then be:
Moon = 0
Venus = +2
Mars = +2
Sun = +1
Saturn = +1
Jupiter = -1
The sect/strongest planets would be the nocturnals Venus and Mars; the weakest sect planet would be Jupiter.

Now the above is how I understand the sect literature I have read; and this literature is from the older times (Paulus, and the early Islamic-era transitionalists who were still much influenced by the Hellenists, ie, Al-Kindi, Sahl, Abu Mashar) I might have totally misunderstood everything I read, and might be quite incorrect; but I don't think so, I think I have understood the material I have read in this regard.
But I won't argue the point! Especially so because, unlike the Hellenists and neo-Hellenists, I do not give enormous importance in delineation to the sect issue: I regard it merely as one of the determinants of relative planetary strength (like the Vedics do), and, although important, not moreso than the totality of testimonies in determining relative planetary strength.

Click to expand...

thank you for the above exposition of the subtle difference between the sect literature from the older times dr. farr. And I understand that not everyone gives the same great importance in delineation to the sect issue (as Hellenists such as Valens did) in determining relative planetary strength.

Re: Hellenistic deliniations

Just a reminder that my "college libraries" comment was intended to help people who might wish to read the main Hellenistic astrologers (in English translation) if they can't afford to purchase the books. No doubt some people on this board are either university students anyway, or do live close to such a library. I also pointed out that Inter-library loan via one's nearest public library is also an option. Otherwise, on-line book-sellers await, happy to take your credit card information.

Re: Hellenistic deliniations

"It's a good thing" for any planet that is of the sect in favor

If a planet is not of the sect in favor
then
it is the wrong time of day for the planet.

Saturn and Jupiter are not of the sect in favor in NIGHT charts
and Venus and Mars are not of the sect in favor in DAY charts.

Mercury as a morning star makes it a diurnal planet
so Mercury is not of the sect in favor in a NIGHT chart

Mercury as an evening star makes it a nocturnal planet
so Mercury is not of the sect in favor in a DAY chart.


Saturn and Jupiter are of the diurnal sect
whether or not that sect is in favour.
Saturn and Jupiter are the Sun’s co-sectarians.

Venus and Mars are of the nocturnal sect
whether or not that sect is in favour.
Venus and Mars are the Moon’s co-sectarians.


Mercury as a morning star is of the diurnal sect
whether or not that sect is in favour.
Mercury as a morning star is the Sun’s co-sectarian
along with Saturn and Jupiter.

Mercury as an evening star is of the nocturnal sect
whether or not that sect is in favour.
Mercury as an evening star is the Moon’s co-sectarian
along with Venus and Mars.

THUS

If the chart is a day chart

THEN
the diurnal sect is in favour
and the Sun is the sect leader
and Jupiter and Saturn are the planets of the sect in favour:
and IF Mercury is a morning star, then Mercury too is of the sect in favour.

If the chart is a night chart
then the nocturnal sect is in favour
and the Moon is the sect leader
and Venus and Mars are of the sect in favour:
and if Mercury is an evening star, then Mercury too is of the sect in favour


REGARDING THE HORIZON:

The diurnal planets are happier
if they are above the horizon in a day chart
and below it in a night chart.

Likewise, the nocturnal planets are happier
if they are above the horizon in a night chart
and below it in a day chart.

This is not really a condition of sect
—it does not define sect in any way.
This is only a way to further determine the strength
or mood of any particular planet.
And it’s only adding or subtracting mildly from the planet.

So for example:

In a diurnal chart the Sun is the sect light (the leader of the sect),
and Jupiter and Saturn are the planets of the Sect.
If Jupiter and Saturn are above the horizon they are happy.
BUT
If below the horizon in the diurnal chart
Jupiter and Saturn are still of the diurnal sect
—they are still of the sect in favour
—but they are not going to be as happy.

And in the same chart if Venus is below the horizon
although she is not of the sect in favour
Venus is happier, in this diurnal chart
than she would be if she was above the horizon.

Re: Hellenistic deliniations

Regarding "happy planets" in day vs. night charts, it really depends upon whom you read. Some of the Hellenistic astrologers thought the 12th, 8th, and 6th houses were unfavourable regardless of your birth time, although there were mitigating circumstances if other chart bytes looked favourable.

Dorotheus of Sidon (Carmen Astrologicum, I:5, 1st century AD) ranked the houses in order of favourability: 1, 10, 11, 5, 7, 4, 9 are the best houses. The "not as good" houses in order are 3 and 8. The "worst of the worst" houses are 6 and 12.

Saturn in one of its own signs might actually do OK in the 12th in a day birth in terms of real estate but the native's health would be poor, he would be mediocre in life, his marriage would be unprofitable, and he would "leave his parents." (Not a good thing.) II:23.

Firmicus Maternus (Matheseos Libri VIII, 2: xvi-xx, 4th cent. AD) gave preference to the angular houses, followed by the 3rd, 9th, 5th, and 11th. Then, "The remaining four houses are all feeble and debilitated because of the fact that they are not aspected to the ascendant." He then ranked the houses within each pair of opposites, giving preference to the 1st, 11th, 9th, 2nd and 6th. He states that the 12th is the house of Saturn, who was a nasty character in Hellenistic astrology. The 6th is the house of Mars, who was also malefic. "Through these names and houses the character of the entire nativity can be found."

Maternus goes on to say, however, that you have to look at nocturnal (below horizon) and dirunal (above horizon) planets, and whether the planets are benefic or malefic or in aspect to benefic or malefic planets. If benefic planets conjunct, sextile, or trine a planet of interest, the affairs of the house should turn out well. But without a conjunction, trine, or sextile from a benefic planet, or if only malefics aspect the house, notably in conjunction, square, or opposition, "there is danger of frequent disaster and misfortune." If both a malefic and benefic are in aspect, they cancel each other out.

One interesting thing about Firmicus Maternus, is that he works with house cusp lords, or accidental rulers. This technique is used by modern astrologers today. Basically you look at the planetary ruler of the sign on the house cusp in question, and see whether it is "well located" or "dejected." If the lord is "well located" a planet will "share in its host's joy." If the ruler of a planet's sign is in a bad way, however, that planet will be "hindered" even if it is in a good house.

It gets more complicated than this. In a day-time nativity, the planets that "rejoice by day" and are located in an angular (favourable) house, then good things should follow. But the night-time rejoicers in important or cardinal houses in a day chart will bring about "undending misfortune and constant catastrophe." The situation reverses in night-time charts.

Oh, and BTW, if you have several planets in their own signs, you will be fortunate and blessed. If you don't have any, you will "forever be unknown, of low-born family, and doomed to a miserable life." (XXI)

That is just the way the celestial cookie crumbles.

Re: Hellenistic deliniations

I wonder what these guys would've said about a freaking complicated chart like mine. I've heard that the strongest planet is the Moon (which has nothing but bad aspects, including both malefics) and then the Sun (which is in detriment but has no bad aspects, unlike everything else on my chart) but I decided on Saturn (even though I have a night chart.) So... yeah. Getting famous sounds miserable enough, so I'll plan on that.

Re: Hellenistic deliniations

unsurprisingly, two thousand plus years ago opinions differed - and continue to

JUPITERASC said:

Although the 9th house is a Cadent House it is configured to the Ascendant and thus my understanding is that any planets located in 9th are therefore potentially able to do business: the 3rd is also Cadent yet configured to the Ascendant although the extent to which planets are fit to do business when located therein requires more research as it seems likely to be yet another of those areas where, for excellent and interesting reasons, opinions tend to differ

Click to expand...

Re: Hellenistic deliniations

I don't see what the issue with the 3rd house is. It sextiles the Ascendant. The 7th house is also overrated.

Re: Hellenistic deliniations

Rebel Uranian said:

I wonder what these guys would've said about a freaking complicated chart like mine. I've heard that the strongest planet is the Moon (which has nothing but bad aspects, including both malefics) and then the Sun (which is in detriment but has no bad aspects, unlike everything else on my chart) but I decided on Saturn (even though I have a night chart.) So... yeah. Getting famous sounds miserable enough, so I'll plan on that.

Click to expand...

I think, though as indicated I have lots more reading to do, that whether or not the Sun or Moon are the strongest will depend on a number of factors...the most important of which (as we are currently learning) is if the chart is nocturnal or diurnal, and then how sect will play a part. I find it curious, and gratifying, to see that byjove has indicated that the Hellenists gave more meaning to the signs than to the planets. And if we are using whole sign, making the signs themselves the houses, astrology is starting to make a lot more sense to me.