Trigons ("Triplicities") and their Lords

[Robert_Schmidt]

The important subject of trigon (“triplicity”) lords deserves a special topic devoted to it, so I am starting one in response to a question from Ms. Hamilton on the Miscellaneous Questions topic.

First some historical considerations. If my suspicions are correct about the dating of Antiochus’ lost introductory writing are correct, he may be one of the first to report them. The first thing of interest is that they are not associated with the elements in that text, but rather with “winds”, which in turn are correlated with the four cardinal directions; such an association persists up to the time of Ptolemy. To the best of my knowledge, Valens is the first surviving source that associates them with the elements, although he does not do this as if he were innovating.

The second thing of note in that text is that the author does not give the trigons planetary rulerships at all. We do find the rulership scheme that became common in medieval astrology in Dorotheus and Valens. This consists of two principal rulers and a cooperating one. As far as the trigon consisting of the Crab, the Scorpion, and the Fishes is concerned, the diurnal ruler is Aphroditē, the nocturnal one Arēs, and the cooperating one Selēnē. Ptolemy, of course, ignores the cooperating trigon lord altogether for the other three trigons, but in the case of this particular trigon has Arēs as the principal trigon lord both by day and by night, with Aphroditē cooperating by day and Selēnē by night. I believe I know the reason for this apparent deviation from tradition by Ptolemy, but that will have to wait until a future post.

(If anyone does not know the three traditional trigon lords of the other three trigons, or the manner in which their order reverses depending on the sect of the chart, please ask. At the moment I am writing in some haste.)

In lieu of trigon lords of this type, Antiochus had a very different scheme in which the planets do not so much have authority over the trigon qua trigon, but rather the domicile lords of the trigonal images of a given image are understood to be “joint domicile masters” along with the domicile lord of that image itself. For example, Hermēs (for the Virgin) and Kronos (for the Goat-Horned) are joint domicile masters of the Bull along with Aphroditē. Some carry-over of this concept may be found in Book II of the Tetrabiblos. At the 2006 PHASE Conclave, Ken Johnson saw in them the probable origin of the Vedic classification of planets into friends and enemies.

Other points of importance. Valens makes great use of the trigon lords of the sect light in determining the rank or “magnitude” of the nativity. He does not extend the use of trigon lords to any other planets or places in the chart. In fact, no surviving source independent of Dorotheus does this. Dorotheus seems to be “trigon happy”, as he himself reveals at the very beginning of his book.

In particular, I question Dorotheus’ taking of trigon lords of the Lot of Fortune or topical places such as the rising image and the fourth topical place. This seems to me a conceptual faux pas. In several Hellenistic texts, three planets are singled out for special importance in a delineation of the chart. These are the domicile lord of the Ascendant, the domicile lord of the Lot of Fortune, and the trigon lord(s) of the sect light. These three planets are so important that they are often collectively called “the planets having a relation to the nativity”. This implies that the trigon lord of the sect light (and possibly of other planets) represents a mode of rulership for planets analogous to that of the planetary rulership of a topical place (“house”). This is clearly different than the function that a domicile lord has to a planet resident in its domicile. Such a relationship is based on a guest/host relation, and it is very different than the manner in which a planet is allotted the responsibility for certain topics in the native’s life by virtue of having authority over the image that is in that topical place. For obvious historical reasons, the medieval astrologers follow Dorotheus in this practice. However, I am of a mind to bracket it as inconsistent with the intentions of the founders of Hellenistic astrology.

It is worth noting that rulership by trigon is considered by early Hellenistic authors to be in a different category from that of rulership by domicile, exaltation, or confines (“bounds” or “terms”. I believe that we can hold Ptolemy IR-responsible for having put trigon rulership under the same general category as the other modes. This is one of the many problems that I have with the medieval treatment of the almuten.

In Book II of Valens, where the technique of taking the trigon lords of the sect light is introduced, it is very clear that the first trigon lord has authority over the first part of the native’s life, the second over the second, and the third cooperates with both the first and the second periods. The cooperating lord has nothing to do with a third portion of the native’s life, as is often said in medieval texts. As a matter of fact, Valens has some interesting rules for timing the change-over from the first to the second trigon lord. I believe that if the medieval astrologers had had Valens at their disposal, they never would have claimed such a thing. Dorotheus is somewhat vague on the topic.

Finally, Valens in various places makes the intriguing statement that in charts of higher rank (according to the technique of examining the trigon lords of the sect light), the malefics function differently. They are actually more benefic for the native, although in the charts of tyrants this is at the expense of suffering for those around them.

I have somewhat feverishly gone beyond Ms. Hamilton’s question, but perhaps this will help stimulate more discussion about this highly important topic.

Robert Schmidt

[Therese_Hamilton]

Just today, March 30, I've discovered this new topic. Thank you, Mr. Schmidt, for a very thought provoking reply, which now raises other question in my mind. But I'll wait to ask further questions until I've had time to carefully consider concepts in your post. I really cannot believe how many "gems of wisdom" are packed into your replies to questions on these forums!

Therese Hamilton

[Robert_Schmidt]

In my last post on this subject, I mentioned, in response to Ms. Hamilton, that there might be a special reason why Ptolemy considered Arēs by day and by night as the principal lord of the trigon consisting of the Crab, the Scorpion, and the Fishes, with Aphroditē participating by day and Selēnē by night. And this in contrast to most other Hellenistic astrologers independent of Ptolemy, who held that Aphroditē was the lord by day, Arēs by night, with Selēnē participating with both. On the Exaltations topic, I have also just made allusion to certain other overriding principles in the thema mundi besides the distribution of domicile and exaltation images. I now want to consider how the lords of the trigons are represented in the thema mundi.

If we look at the “joys” of the planets, we find that they are located around the four pivots (or “angles”) in a manner according with the two principal lords of the four trigons, with the exception of the triad around the seventh. In Hellenistic astrology, the images of an angle and the two flanking images constitute a kind of triad. Thus, the joy of Kronos in the 12th and Hermēs in the 1st (the two principal lords of the air-like element) are located in or around the ASC; Hēlios in the 9th and Zeus in the 11th (the two principal lords of the fire-like element) are around the Hellenistic Midheaven; Aphroditē and Selēnē in the 5th and 3rd (the two lords of the earth-like element) around the subterraneous pivot, or 4th; and Arēs alone in the 6th around the DSC (a lord of the water-like element). Remember that the trigons are also associated with “winds” in the earliest tradition, and later with elements, and the winds correspond to the four cardinal directions.

Note that the joy of the cooperating lord of the air-like element, Zeus, is adjacent to the joy of the cooperating lord of the fire-like element. Kronos (if we follow the pre-Ptolemaic tradition); and Zeus is the nocturnal lord of the fire-like element, while Kronos is the diurnal lord of the air-like element.

Now, the joy of Arēs is alone in the triad of the seventh. Might Ptolemy not have understood this to mean, unlike the other three trigons, that it had authority by both day and night.? And that the joy of Aphroditē, adjacent to it, cooperated with it diurnally, leaving Selēnē to cooperate with it nocturnally?

Before leaving this subject, which has the goal of connecting the trigon lords with the thema mundi, let me note that the seven joys of the planets have the same spatial distribution as the seven exaltations. In other words, if we move the joy of each planet back two images in the thema mundi, we come to an exaltation image. That is, if we move the 1st (the Crab), the joy of Hermēs in the thema mundi, back two images, we come to the 11th, which is the Bull, the exaltation image of Selēnē. Moving the 12th, the joy of Kronos back two images, we come to the Ram, the exaltation image of Hēlios. Rotating the 11th, the joy of Zeus back two images, we come to the Fishes, the exaltation of Aphroditē. Moving the 9th, the joy of Hēlios to the Goat-Horned, we come to the exaltation of Arēs; the 6th, the joy of Arēs, to the Balance, the exaltation of Kronos; the 5th, the joy of Aphroditē, to the Virgin, the exaltation of Hermēs; the 3rd, the joy of Selēnē back to the Crab, the joy of Hermēs.

The trick, then, is to find the principle for the assignment of the joys of the planets in the thema mundi, is it not?

Robert Schmidt

[Patrick Watson]

The trick, then, is to find the principle for the assignment of the joys of the planets in the thema mundi, is it not?

This is a little bizarre, because I just started doing that over in the Exaltations thread.

[Jane Griscti]

Hello Mr. Schmidt

With respect to the trigon rulers, there is an odd comment in Paulus, p69 in the Dorian Greenbaum translation, Greek text p.89, II 1-22. The text is explaining a technique for accurately determining the Asc using the dodekatemorion of the syzygy's at birth and conception, saying "...and in regard to the masters of their sect by trigon, which one of them lies more on a pivot--they say that the degree of the one being more nearly on a pivot marks the hour of delivery...Whenever the trigonal masters of the birth are not lying in their own houses, they have given back the degree of the Horoskopos to the common/participating masters of it by trigon."

The reference implies that the participating trigon master can, at times, usurp the authority of the sect trigon master. I find it odd because (a) Paulus does not give the participating trigon rulers, he lists only the day and night trigon rulers, and, (b) I have not come across a similar reference in other texts.

Is this a possible corruption in the text? Have you come across anything similar in other texts? Are there other source texts with references to favouring the participating trigon ruler over the trigon ruler of the sect?

With regard to your comments on the planet joys. As the 11th house and the Exaltation rulers are connected with achievements and honours; would you infer that a planet in the house of his joy also has a direct bearing on honours and achievements?

In looking at the assignment of the joys, I noticed that, in the thema mundi the planets in their house of joy are also peregrine except for the Moon (nocturnal trigon lord of Virgo) and Saturn (diurnal trigon lord of Gemini). Wondering if these two placements are only to be considered 'joys' if the chart sect is the same. i.e. Moon only joys in 3rd in a nocturnal chart (although I guess you would rarely find her here otherwise) and Saturn joys in the 12th only in diurnal charts.

Many thanks for making yourself available to answer questions

[Therese_Hamilton]

...The second thing of note in that text is that the author [Antiochus] does not give the trigons planetary rulerships at all...

In lieu of trigon lords of this type, Antiochus had a very different scheme in which the planets do not so much have authority over the trigon, but rather the domicile lords of the trigonal images of a given image are understood to be “joint domicile masters” along with the domicile lord of that image itself. For example, Hermēs (for the Virgin) and Kronos (for the Goat-Horned) are joint domicile masters of the Bull along with Aphroditē...

Mr. Schmidt, to recap if I understand correctly: You are saying that Antiochus didn't mention the rulerships that Valens and Dorotheus used, but substituted the trigon domicile lords instead? The scheme of using domicile lords seems to make more sense in some ways, especially for Hermes. It seems odd that Hermes/Mercury isn't a trigon lord for the triplicity of the Virgin in which he finds his domicile and exaltation. (Of course then nocturnal Venus would have to be displaced to the trigon of the Twins. Then the Balance would have to be the key trigon image as the domicile of Venus and exaltation of Saturn.)

Is it possible that the true trigon lords belong to a trigon's domiciles rather than the scheme that (as far as we know) has its origin with Dorotheus and Valens? Or at least that's the first recording we know of. I've often wondered about the source of the traditional trigon lords. Of course they do make sense in terms of nocturnal/diurnal associations. It seems that in practice we might have to test both systems, that of domicile lords and the traditional trigon lords.

Another question is why the trigons lords virtually disappeared by the advent of modern astrology. Is this because they were found to be ineffective in practice?

Therese Hamilton

[Robert_Schmidt]

Welcome to the Hellenistic forum, Ms. Griscti, I am already enjoying your posts.

This is just a place-holder to let you know I have noted your presence on the forum, and that I will perhaps have something to say about your question as soon as I have time.

Robert Schmidt

[Robert_Schmidt]

I am trying to get back to some issues that Ms. Hamilton raised about the “true” scheme of trigons lords. Antiochus discussed a scheme of joint domicile masters in which each of the domicile lords of the two trigonals to a given image was a “joint domicile master” along with the domicile master of that image itself: thus, Hermēs (domicile master of the Virgin) and Kronos (domicile master of the Goat-Horned) are joint domicile masters with Aphroditē in the Bull.

Now, this seems to be conceptually different from having some planets as masters of a trigon insofar as it is a trigon, as if a trigon could be considered to be an independent entity that could have a group of planets “ruling’ it. I have explained earlier the somewhat striking fact that the later scheme of trigon rulership is displayed in the thema mundi in terms of the joys of the planets and the angles they are grouped around. I have an argument, which I will present as soon as I can get it together a little bit better, that shows how the joys of the planets in the thema mundi can be derived from the notion of joint domicile mastership, and thus there is a connection between the earlier conception of joint domicile mastership of a given image and the later notion of trigon mastership of a given trigon.

As to your question about why trigon rulership disappeared after the advent of modern astrology, even though it was a staple of even later Medieval astrology: So did so much of the tradition, much of it jettisoned because astrologers could see no “logical” rationale for these concepts. I do not believe that these concepts were primarily discarded because they were found to be ineffective in practice. But to the extent that that may have been a factor, I would say it was because astrologers no longer understood how to interpret them. Whenever a Hellenistic concept does not seem to work for me, I have come to chalk it up to my own ineptitude, or to the fact that there is some basic interpretive principle I have not yet understood. So far, this attitude has payed off for me.

Robert Schmidt

[Joseph Ledzion]

I am probably not alone in having read that the Moon, while in a nocturnal chart and increasing in light, finds it Joy in the 8th place. I cannot remember the source or author of this, but I felt that I would just mention it. Probably this rule is false, while deceptive speculations to the triad of the seventh can be made, possibly of which may be the source of this distortion

[Robert_Schmidt]

Welcome to the Hellenistic forum, Mr. Ledzion.

The doctrine you report is found in Firmicus Maternus, with something similar in Paul of Alexandria (athough Paul does not use the term rejoicing). Even so, Paul does explicitly say that the third is the place of Selēnē (although Firmicus Maternus does not).

Robert Schmidt