6.0 The Logic of The Triplicity Lords - A Di... Astrological Triads - Le Premier État

2/22/24, 12:44 AM The Logic of the Triplicity Lords: A Dialectical Account of the Astrological Triads – Le Premier État
The Logic of the Triplicity Lords: A Dialectical

Account of the Astrological Triads
June 2, 2022
“Hegel came to connect dialectic with the triad, or with triplicity”—Findlay, Hegel: A Re-
examination.
Triplicity rulership is a form of planetary jurisdiction in ancient astrology. As the name

suggests, instead of a single planet presiding over a given domain (as house and exaltation
rulers do), triplicity rulers come in groups of three, and these three planets together rule over
three signs. For many traditional astrologers, these triplicity rulers were of fundamental
importance. Dortheus, for example, declares near the outset of the Carmen Astrologicum:
“Every thing which is decided and indicated comes from the lords of the triplicities.
And for every thing of tribulation and hardship which af icts people of the world
and the generality of men, the lords of the triplicities decide it—even in an eclipse of
the Sun and Moon, in what they indicate for the things which will come to be, and
until when they will be, and in which types [of things] they will be” (I.I.8-9).
Thus, for Dortheus, the triplicity rulers were crucial to astrological practice. Without a
knowledge of them, we lack knowledge of “everything”—what events will be and for whom and
for how long they will be. Similarly, Valens describes the triplicity lords as constituting the
“general basis” (καθολικός ὑπόστασις) of a nativity (Anthologies II. Preface).
There were a few different schematizations of the triplicity lords in the ancient world, but the
dominant, so called, “Dorthean of model” was articulated along the following lines:
Aries, Leo, and Sagittarius constitute the re triplicity (Dortheus, Carmen Astrologicum, I.1.2).[1]
“Its lords by day are the Sun, then Jupiter, then Saturn; and by night Jupiter, then the Sun, then
Saturn” (Ibid., I.1.4).
Gemini, Libra, and Aquarius form the air triplicity. “Its lords by day are Saturn, then Mercury,
then Jupiter; and by night Mercury, then Saturn, then Jupiter” (Ibid., I.1.6).
https://premieretat.com/the-logic-of-the-triplicity-lords-a-dialectical-account-of-the-astrological-triads/ 1/18
Cancer, Scorpio, and Pisces form the water triplicity. “Its lords by day are Venus, then Mars,
then the Moon, and by night Mars, then Venus, then the moon” (Ibid., I.1.7).
And, nally, Taurus, Virgo, and Capricorn constitute the earth triplicity. “Its lords by day are
Venus, then the Moon, then Mars; and by night the Moon, then Venus, then Mars (and in Virgo
Mercury also has a share)” (Ibid., I.1.5).
Note how the order of the triplicity lords varies according to sect. Day and Night charts differ
in their starting points and in their transitions. For example, the re triplicity in a day chart
would begin with the Sun, and then shift to Jupiter, but, in a night chart, things would proceed
in the opposite direction, beginning with Jupiter and shifting to the Sun.
Sect and Triplicity
There is thus an essential connection between the doctrines of Sect and Triplicity. Indeed, our
extant examples of the justi cations for the triplicity assignments all ground their arguments in
considerations of sect. Valens, for instance, explains sect and triplicity together and appeals to
sect to explain triplicity.[2] In attempting to account for the re triplicity, Valens contends that:
“When the zodiacal circle is subdivided according to similarities and differences, we

nd two sects, solar and lunar, day and night. The sun, being ery, is most related to
Aries, Leo, and Sagittarius, and this triangle of the sun is called “of the day-sect”
because it too is ery by nature. The sun has attached Jupiter and Saturn to this
sect as his co-workers and guardians of the things which he accomplishes: Jupiter
as a re ection of the sun and as his successor to the kingship, a partisan of good,
and the bestower of glory and life, Saturn on the other hand as a servant of evil and
of downfall, and a depriver of years <of life>. Therefore the sun is the lord of this
triangle for day births; for night births Jupiter succeeds to the throne; Saturn works
with both” (Valens, Anthologies, II.1).
Here Valens argues that since the Sun is essentially ery, it is the leader of the diurnal sect, and
is thus also a tting leader for the re triplicity. So, for day charts, it will be the primary triplicity
ruler. In contrast, Jupiter will be the primary ruler for night charts. Saturn is presumably ruled
out as a primary leader in this case, since it “is a servant of evil and downfall, and a depriver of
years”. Saturn is thus instead given the role of working with (συνεργός) both the Sun and
Jupiter.
And Valens makes a similar argument concerning the earth triplicity, when he tries to establish
why the Moon would be its primary ruler by night. He contends:
“Next the moon, being near the earth, is allotted the houserulership of Taurus,
Virgo, and Capricorn, a triangle earthy in nature and the next in order. It has Venus
and Mars as members of the same sect: Venus (as is reasonable) acts as a
benefactor and distributes glory and years; Mars acts as the bane of nativities.
Therefore for night births the moon has preeminence; in the second place is Venus;
in the third is Mars. For day births Venus will lead; the moon will operate second;
Mars, third” (Valens, Anthologies, II.1).
Valens notes that since the Moon is astronomically close to earth, it is most ttingly connected
to the earth element. And since the Moon is also the primary luminary of the nocturnal sect, it
is tting for it to be the primary triplicity Lord as well. In contrast, for diurnal charts, Venus will
be primary. Again, Mars seems to be ruled out as a primary lord since it acts “as the bane of
nativities” and so is given the role of cooperating ruler.
Unfortunately, Valens gives up his attempt to justify the order of the triplicity rulers when he
comes to the air and water signs, and opts instead to simply stipulate the relevant lords and
their order. Moreover, he appears to be puzzled about what to do with Mercury when he
asserts:
“Note that Mercury is common (κοινός) and works with (ἐξυπηρετέω) the two
sects to a special degree to accentuate the good or the bad, and to accentuate the
individual characteristics and con gurations of each star” (Valens, Anthologies II.1).
By saying Mercury works with everything, Valens appears to be admitting that he doesn’t know
how precisely Mercury should function within the triplicity rulership scheme.
In light of the fact that our source texts have not fully developed their sect based justi cations
for the triplicity rulers, contemporary Hellenistic astrologers have tended to ignore them in
favor of Schmidt’s speculations about how triplicity rulers allegedly cluster around the angles
in his preferred planetary joys scheme.[3] I believe that this state of affairs is doubly
unfortunate, since it (i) abandons the only form of justi cation for the triplicity lords explicitly
stated in the textual tradition, yet (ii) markets itself as, unlike modern astrology, grounded in
this same textual tradition which it ignores.
In what follows, I will attempt to offer an alternative account of the triplicity rulers that
addresses both of these concerns. First, the account will attempt to be true to the spirit, if not
the letter, of the source texts by relying on the essential connection between sect and triplicity.
And second, the account will make no claim to being historical. It consists of my own
contemporary re ections on the logic of triplicity rulership.
Triplicity as Dialectic
Trinitarian Clue
Our rst clue to an alternative account of the logic of the triplicity lords can be found in Valens’
identi cation of the lords of the triplicities with what has been translated as the “general basis”
of a nativity. The relevant Greek terms here are καθολικός ὑπόστασις, terms that should
intrigue those acquainted with the history of philosophy. For catholic hypostasis immediately
calls to mind the development of the doctrine of the Trinity in Christian Theology. Though the
Christian ecumenical council of Nicaea did not meet until 325 AD and Vettius Valens probably
wrote his Anthologies about two hundred years earlier (thus ruling out a historical connection
between the two), the synchronicity at play here is too striking to ignore. For the creed
formulated at the council of Nicaea distinguished the catholic faith from heretical sects (think of
the astrological concept of αἵρεσις / sect) through the doctrine of the Trinity, the contention
that there is one divine οὐσία or essence that is nonetheless differentiated into three
ὑποστάσεις or persons. For example, this doctrine is explained in the later so called
“Athanasian Creed” as follows:
“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic
Faith… And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity
in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is
one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But
the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory
Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the
Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate.
The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost
Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal
and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three
Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One
Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the
Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are
not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the
Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are
compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be
God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three
Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The
Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of
the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost,
not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is
greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together,
and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the
Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think
of the Trinity.”[4]
This suggests that one way of understanding Valens’ identi cation of the triplicities with the
catholic hypostases of the chart would be to understand them as the determinate realizations of
a general essence such that the essence is not divided and the determinacies are not
confounded. Furthermore, if we wanted to move from the realm of imaginative speculation to
historical argument, we could point to the fact that the framework for the Christian doctrine of
the trinity was borrowed from Neo-Platonism. Plontinus, for example, spoke of the three
primary hypostases of the One, Nous, and Soul when trying to explain how determinate reality
is grounded in the emanations from the One. And since Plotinus lived around the same time as
Valens, it is not implausible to think they could have been employing a similar conceptual
language.[5] The idea here, then, is that whereas other forms of rulership might give us a
general conceptual structure, the triplicity rulers might allow us to uniquely capture the
internal self-differentiation of a concept.
Hegelian Triplicity
One fruitful way of working out this trinitarian account of the triplicities is through Hegel’s
distinction between the three moments of the logically real. Hegel’s account provides us with a
clear procedure by which to understand the logical differentiation of content. And, since, as I
have argued elsewhere, it also accounts for sect membership, Hegel’s account will allow us to
connect sect and triplicity as the ancient astrologers did.[6] According to Hegel,
“With regard to its form, the logical has three sides: (a) the side of abstraction or of
the understanding, (b) the dialectical or negatively rational side, [and] (c) the
speculative or positively rational one” (Hegel, Encyclopedia Logic, 79).
And Hegel points out that he does not intend to speak of these as three parts of logic, but as
“moments of everything logically real; i.e., of every concept or everything true in general”
(Hegel, EL 79).
Moment 1: The Moment of the Understanding
The rst moment is that of the understanding. According to Hegel, the understanding assumes
a particular content has a determinate character that sets it apart from all other contents. It is
what it is, and because it is what it is, it rules out all that it is not. Hegel explains:
“Thinking as understanding stops short at the xed determinacy and its

distinctness vis-à-vis other determinacies; such a restricted abstraction counts for
he understanding as one that subsists on its own account, and [simply] is” (Hegel,
EL 80).
So, for example, God, might be posited by the understanding as pure Being standing apart from
all creation. God is what He is, and being in nite, He cannot be expressed by any nite concept.
Moment 2: The Dialectical Moment
Hegel claims that the second moment is dialectical, or the negatively rational. “The dialectical
moment is the self-sublation of these nite determinations on their own part, and their passing
into their opposites” (Hegel, EL 81). Hegel claims that in this moment, the initially posited
content transforms into its opposite. This transition is not primarily a matter of epistemology. It
is not a matter of being confused about a series of arguments and not knowing which of them is
true, but the metaphysical and logical concern that a given content has transformed itself into
its contrary. Hegel explains:
“According to its proper determinacy, however, the dialectic is the genuine nature
that properly belongs to the determinations of the understanding, to things, and to
the nite in general… [It] is the immanent transcending, in which the one-sidedness
and restrictedness of the determinations of the understanding displays itself as
what it is, i.e., as their negation. That is what everything nite is: its own sublation”
(Hegel, EL 81).
To continue with our example of the concept of God stipulated as pure Being, we can come to
see that if God is pure Being standing apart from everything nite, then the concept God has no
determinate content. For, to be determinate, a content needs to relate to others. But, if the
concept of God has no determinate content, then we have no basis for distinguishing it from
any other concept. And so, we have no grounds for saying God is pure Being apart from the
nite. So, God cannot be pure Being in isolation from the nite. God cannot stand apart from
creation, since if He did, He would need to have some distinguishing feature, and thus could no
longer be identi ed with pure Being.
Moment 3: The Speculative Moment
And, nally, Hegel claims that the speculative or positively rational moment apprehends the
unity of the previous two moments. He explains: “The speculative or positively rational
apprehends the unity of the determinations in their opposition, the af rmative that is
contained in their dissolution and in their transition” (Hegel, EL 82). Hegel contends that this
moment is positively rational, since it is not a mere abstract negation of a previous content. It is
not simply asserting ~A to the general contention A. Rather, it is the awareness of exactly how
a particular content undermines itself and gives rise to a new one. He elaborates:
“The dialectic has a positive result, because it has a determinate content, or

because its result is not empty, abstract nothing, but the negation of certain
determinations, which are contained in the result precisely because it is not an
immediate nothing, but a result. Hence, the rational [result], although it is
something-thought and something-abstract, is at the same time something-
concrete, because it is not simple, formal unity, but unity of distinct determinations.
For this reason philosophy does not deal with mere abstraction or formal thoughts
at all, but only with concrete thoughts” (Hegel EL 82).
Returning to our previous example, by following the dialectical unfolding of the concept of God
as pure Being, we come to see not just the abstract negation of the concept in the assertion
that it is not the case that God is pure Being, but also precisely how this concept undermines
itself and transforms into its opposite. The problem, in this case, arises from the formulation of
pure Being as something lacking all determinations and of the in nite as something that is
essentially opposed to the nite. By coming to see precisely how our original concept
undermines itself, we are in a position grasp a higher concept that can integrate the previous
two moments that stand in opposition to each other. For example, we might formulate a
concept of God wherein the concept of transcendence does not exclude the possibility of
immanence. Hegel sketches out something like this dialectic in The Phenomenology of Spirit
when discussing the Unhappy Consciousness of medieval Christianity. He observes:
“Thus there exist for consciousness three different ways in which individuality is
linked with the Unchangeable. Firstly, it again appears to itself as opposed to the
Unchangeable, and is thrown back to the beginning of the struggle which is
throughout the element in which the whole relationship subsists. Secondly,
consciousness learns that individuality belongs to the Unchangeable itself, so that it
assumes the form of individuality into which the entire mode of existence passes.
Thirdly, it nds its own self as this particular individual in the Unchangeable. The
rst Unchangeable it knows only as the alien being who passes judgment on the
particular individual; since, secondly, the Unchangeable is a form of individuality
like itself, consciousness becomes, thirdly, Spirit, and experiences the joy of nding
itself therein, and becomes aware of the reconciliation of its individuality with the
universal” (Hegel PhG, 210).
In this roughly trinitarian picture, the rst moment of alien Being would represent the Father,
the second, the moment of the unchangeable taking the form of a particular individual would
represent the Son, and the third moment, that of the reconciliation between the previous two,
would represent the Spirit. I contend that this sort of triadic model can help us understand the
nature and function of the triplicity rulers in astrology.
The Core Interpretation
Using the Hegelian model sketched above, we can understand the structure of triplicity rulers
as follows: The primary ruler corresponds to the moment of the understanding where contents
are posited as having a separate and xed existence, the secondary to the dialectical moment in
which the contents undermine themselves and transform into their opposites, and the
cooperating to the speculative moment that unites the previous two moments in a higher
perspective. Though traditional astrologers tended to understand triplicity rulers temporally,
claiming, for example that the primary ruler governs the rst half of life, and secondary the last
half, the interpretation sketched above need not be understood in terms of temporal
progression. This dialectic may well play out in time, but it need not. The same can be said for
logical structure in general. For example, I might utter the following statement: “Socrates is
mortal, since all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man.” From a temporal perspective, the
words “Socrates is mortal” are uttered rst. But, from a logical perspective, it comes last, as the
conclusion following from the premises of the argument.
If we make a few classical assumptions about the elements and the structure of the cosmos,
this framework allows us to see an interesting phenomenological justi cation for the
assignments of the triplicity lords. Let’s begin by assuming, like Valens and Rhetorius, that the
triplicities correspond to the four classical elements of re, air, water, and earth. Additionally,
with Plato in the Timaeus, let’s also assume that the elements of re and earth are primary and
that air and water are created to harmonize them (Timaeus, 31b-32b). Following this order, we
can commence our examination by investigating the assignments of the triplicity lords of re
and earth.
The Rulers of Fire and Earth
Recall that the Sun rules the re triplicity by day, Jupiter by night, and Saturn cooperates; and
that the Moon rules the earth triplicity by night, Venus by day, and Mars cooperates. Now, if we
use the Aristotelian account of natural motion in which re tends to move upward, and earth
downward (Aristotle, Physics IV.1), we can pair each of these with elements with a
corresponding sect. If, as I have argued elsewhere,[7] the diurnal sect primarily concerns the
representation of Being, and the nocturnal that of Becoming, then there is a sense in which the
Moon more closely corresponds to the earth, the downward tending ground on which we nite
beings live, and the Sun to re, which ascends above us like the realm of eternal Being
transcending our temporal horizons.
And, once these elements are, in this manner, correlated with their corresponding sects, we can
see that the triplicity rulerships of re and earth have an identical structure when considered
abstractly. For both re and earth triplicities are structured as follows: When in sect, the
Luminary of sect is the primary ruler, followed by the Bene c of sect, and the Male c of sect
cooperates. When out of sect, the out of sect Bene c is the primary ruler, followed by the
contrary sect Luminary, and the contrary sect Male c cooperates.
This structure begins to make sense once we consider it from a phenomenological perspective.
Consider rst the element of re. Since the diurnal sect is naturally oriented towards the
representation of Being, when that sect begins to operate within the re element, the element
that moves upwards and is closest to the heavens, it will orient itself to its environment with a
kind of natural familiarity. This ery realm will make sense as a kind of natural organic whole,
an organic unity represented by the Sun (Being-in-and-for-itself). This realm will feel easy,
natural, and familiar. Yet, as re is the closest element to the realm of Being, this organic unity
will come to undermine itself, as one becomes aware of something above the realms of re,
namely Being, something that outstrips the representations of Being posited by empirical
beings. This irruption of the otherness of Being will rst show itself in the form of grace, and
thus, under the auspices of Jupiter (Being-for-itself). Being reaches down to our nite minds,
and elevates them to view what they do not have the power to articulate. But, through this
very grace that pulls us out of our nite horizons, we come to see that those horizons are
nonetheless constitutive of our viewpoint. The realm of Being thus lies outside of us, and
articulates itself as Being-in-itself, i.e. Saturn.
In contrast, when the nocturnal sect enters the domain of re, it does not begin with a sense of
familiarity or natural equilibrium. The nocturnal sect is more comfortable with the
representations of Becoming, and, so, the realm of re and its connection to Being will appear
as something unfamiliar. Yet it is a welcome unfamiliarity, the unfamiliarity of revelation and
grace, a realm of wonders beyond what one could have ever previously imagined. Thus, the
nocturnal sect begins with Jupiter (Being-for-itself) as its rst ruler. But, for this gift to be
accepted as a gift, it needs to be received. And this means that there must be something in us
capable of receiving it. And so, upon re ection, one enters a kind of natural equilibrium within
this realm, an equilibrium represented by the Sun (Being-in-and-for-itself). Yet, this equilibrium
is only adequately grasped from its limits, for the gift presupposes a giver, a giver who
somehow has the power to act in an alien realm. So, the equilibrium itself points to a realm of
Being which transcends that equilibrium, Saturn, Being-in-itself.
A similar case holds for the earth element. Since its natural motion is downward, it is closer to
us nite empirical beings. It is our element and thus more closely approximates the realm of
Becoming. So, in a nocturnal chart, which begins with an orientation towards the
representation of Becoming, we will again commence from a state of natural harmony with this
element. And the Moon, representing Becoming-in-and-for-itself, is indicative of this harmony.
But this harmony will once more be disrupted by a transcendent grace that cannot be made
sense of from within this organic unity. Some beauty, for example, will strike us through the
natural world and call us out of ourselves and into a higher domain. Such beauty is represented
by Venus, Becoming-for-itself. And, again, this transcendence cannot be understood as
transcendence over the realm of Becoming, unless it is represented as something distinct from
that realm. Yet, within the domain of Becoming, the only representation that can adequately
capture this distinction is death. Thus, Mars, Becoming-in-itself, takes up the mediating role as
cooperating lord.
For a diurnal chart oriented towards a representation of Being, the earth element will not be
apprehended at rst as a kind of organic unity. Rather, it will need to be approached with grace,
drawing near to it through its beautiful and delightful aspects. But, those earthly beauties and
delights are nevertheless delights of the realm of Becoming, a realm of nitude and separation,
and so, contain within themselves an element that resists us. Hence, we will have to adapt
ourselves to them in a kind of natural harmony. Thus, the Moon (Becoming-in-and-for-itself) is
the second triplicity lord for diurnal charts. And, nally, the truth of this organic unity comes to
be seen in its very self-sundering. The grace that spoke through Venus, and to which we
accommodated ourselves in the empirical world, calls us beyond the con nes of the empirical
world entirely. And, again, within the realm of Becoming, the only concept that can serve to
signify what is beyond that realm, is death. Hence, Mars, Becoming-in-itself, is the cooperating
lord.
One important upshot of this schematization of air and re is that, for both, the nal synthetic
moment is governed by a male c. This may, perhaps, emphasize the fact that though the sects
initially appear to be in con ict, they in fact depend upon each other for their content. If the
element of re, the element most closely aligned with the representation of Being, concludes in
Saturn, Being-in-itself, this may suggest that the Being sought after by the diurnal sect proves
to be removed from us. It is an empty unknown devoid of all determinacy. So, if Being is to be
more than an empty abstraction, it must concretize itself through a series of nite emanations.
In other words, the truth of Being must rest in Becoming. Likewise, if the element of earth, the
element most closely aligned with the representation of Becoming, concludes in Mars,
Becoming-in-itself, this may suggest that the realm of becoming sought after by the nocturnal
sect concludes in severing and death. Thus, by ending in death, the severing of all connections
with itself, the realm of Becoming opens to a realm beyond itself. The truth of Becoming must
rest in Being. The sects, in this manner, would prove to be interdependent: each unintelligible
without the other.
The Rulers of Water and Air
While earth and re are posited for their own sakes, Plato claims, in the Timaeus, that water
and air were created to mediate between them. And, again, according to the Aristotelian
theory of natural motions, water moves down (like eart) and air up (like re), though with less
force than earth and re do. So, in such a framework, water would be closer to earth, since it
moves downward, and air to re, since it moves upward.
Let’s start by examining the triplicity lords of water. In a nocturnal chart, water will begin
where earth ended, with Mars, the representation of Becoming-in-itself as its rst triplicity
lord. Since water is a mediating element, taking one beyond earth proper, one who is primarily
oriented towards one’s representation of the world of becoming will feel disoriented,
estranged from what is familiar. But things shift with the second triplicity lord, Venus,
Becoming-for-itself. One comes to see that in this mediating element of water, one retains a
relation to Becoming. Indeed, the very idea of Becoming-in-itself, represented by Mars and its
severing, requires a kind of relation. If I, for example, am fundamentally distinct from the realm
of Becoming, then this distinction must be rooted in our determinate natures which are
opposed to each other. But this con ict between natures is itself something that unfolds in
time, and presupposes that these natures are related to each other, since, if they were not, they
would not be able to stand in con ict. Hence, Mars gives way to Venus. And, nally, in grasping
the unity of these two moments, one comes to the nal triplicity lord of water, the Moon,
Becoming-in-and-for-itself.
For a diurnal chart, in contrast, the starting point will be Venus, Becoming-for-itself. Having
been cut off from earth by Mars, and naturally oriented by its representation of Being, one will
be struck by the grace of this mediating element of water. Hence, one will be guided by
Becoming-for-itself, the essentially relational character of becoming. Yet, since water still
resides within the realm of becoming, and not the realm of Being for which one yearns,
Becoming’s essentially ephemeral and elusive character will come to stand out clearly. So, the
secondary ruler for diurnal charts will be Mars, Becoming-in-itself. And the harmony between
these previous two moments is realized by the cooperating lord, the Moon, the representation
of Becoming-in-and-for-itself.
It is interesting to note here that the element of water, standing above the earth, but still
tending downward, is the only element that achieves a kind of internal harmony and self-
composure, since it is the only element which culminates in a Luminary. This may suggest that
water is the most self-contained of all the elements, and also the easiest to get trapped in.
Perhaps this is due to the symbolic association between water and life noted by Agrippa:
“There is so great a necessity of Water, that without it no living thing can live. No
Hearb [herb], nor Plant whatsoever, without the moistening of Water can branch
forth. In it is the Seminary vertue of all things, especially of Animals, whose seed is
manifestly waterish…. Such is the ef cacy of this Element of Water, that Spirituall
regeneration cannot be done without it, as Christ himself testi ed to Nicodemus.
Very great also is the vertue of it in the Religious Worship of God, in expiations, and
puri cations; yea, the necessity of it is no less then that of Fire. In nite are the
bene ts, and divers are the uses thereof, as being that by vertue of which all things
subsist, are generated, nourished and increased.” (Agrippa, Three Books of Occult
Philosophy I.6).
In these waters of life we can achieve a kind of organic equilibrium not attainable in the other
elements.
Above water, and below re, is the further mediating element of air. Water ends with a
synthesis, and so air must begin by shattering that synthesis and upending the direction of
motion from down to up. For a diurnal chart, this shattering can be accomplished by its natural
orientation towards the representation of Being. We sense that even after attaining a kind of
organic unity with the realm of Becoming, we are nonetheless beckoned by a beyond which
eludes our grasp. Hence, diurnal charts will begin with Saturn, Being-in-itself. Yet, in beckoning
us, this other realm, in some sense, also desires to be known by us and to assist us in our
journey. So, the secondary triplicity ruler is Mercury, the quintessentially mediating planet,
who is sent to bridge the gap between sects and between worlds. In Mercury, we are
confronted with not only an awareness of an elusive realm of Being, but also with an invitation
on Being’s behalf and a gracious guide to lead the way. Finally, the two preceding moments will
be grasped in their unity in Jupiter, Being-for-itself. For the whole transition is one of grace as
eternity reaches out to embrace time.
Nocturnal charts, in contrast will begin with Mercury. They will not be caried out of the
harmony of water by a natural sense of the elusiveness of Being, but will require a divine
emissary to deliver the invitation to something higher. But, after heeding this call, we will
confront something foreign to us which we do not understand. Hence, the secondary ruler is
Saturn, Being-in-itself. And, again, these two moments will be grasped in their unity by seeing
them as a movement of grace resolving itself in Jupiter, Being-for-itself.
This interpretation allows us to explain why Mercury appears as a triplicity lord for the
element of air. For air is a mediating element and marks the transition between downward and
upward natural motions, and so is a tting domain for Mercury. Moreover, it also makes sense
that Mercury would be operative in the initial phases of this transition as a primary or
secondary lord, rather than at the conclusion of it with the cooperating lord, since Mercury’s
power is needed in the transitional process itself, not just in its culmination.
Conclusion
Though admittedly speculative, the forgoing account promises to be a fruitful framework for
understanding the triplicity lords. For it can explain not only why the triplicity lords are
introduced (viz., to explain the triadic development of determinate content) but also the
assignments of the triplicity lords to their corresponding elements and their ordering
according to sect. Moreover, it can do so in a way that can avoid some of the objections raised
against the traditional arguments, since it can provide a phenomenological account of why the
Moon is a cooperating ruler in the water triplicity (rather than a primary or secondary ruler)
and why Mercury is a ruler of the air triplicity.[8] Though I’ve sketched a general outline of how
the logic of the triplicity lords would develop, the details of the dialectic will prove be much
more speci c in practice. For, in reading an actual natal chart, we would not discuss a planet in
general, but that planet as it is particularly located within that chart. So, for example, if one
were examining Hegel’s chart, one would not analyze the logic of the triplicity lords of re as
the Sun, Jupiter, and Saturn in the abstract, but as the Sun in Virgo the sixth place (co-present
with Mercury), followed by Jupiter in Sagittarius in the ninth, and culminating in Saturn in Leo
in the fth. As a result, the story of the dialectic development of the triplicity lords will vary for
each client.
Peter Yong, Ph.D.
[The image used in the thumbnail of this essay is “The Trinity” by Masaccio and is in the public
domain. It can be found here:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Masaccio,_trinit%C3%A0.jpg]
[1] Dortheus didn’t himself connect the triplicities to the elements, but I’ll do so here since it
became the standard practice.
[2] Ptolemy is our other extant source for the justi cation for the triplicity rulers. Though he
argues for a different set of triplicity lords, the so called Ptolemaic triplicity scheme in which
there are two triplicity lords which rule over three signs, his justi cation also appeals to the
idea of sect. For example, his justi cation for assigning the Sun and Jupiter as lords of the re
triplicity is as follows. “The rst of these, which passes through Aries, Leo, and Sagittarius, is
composed of three masculine signs and includes the houses of the sun, of Mars, and of Jupiter.
This triangle was assigned to the Sun and Jupiter, since Mars is not of the solar sect. The sun
assumes rst governance of it by day and Jupiter by night.” (Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos I.18). Ptolemy’s
argument here begins with the observation that the re triplicity occurs in so called masculine
signs. He then notes that the house rulers of these signs are Mars, the Sun, and Jupiter, thus
providing us with three candidates for possible triplicity rulers. And, since the diurnal sect is
apparently more masculine, this would rule out the nocturnal sign of Mars. And, furthermore,
since the Sun is the diurnal sect light, it will be the primary ruler of day charts, leaving Jupiter to
be the primary ruler of night ones.
[3] For an account of Schmidt’s view see, for example, see Brennan, 268-271 and George, 204.
[4] Athanasian Creed. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm
[5] See, for example, Plotinus Enneads V.1(10) “On the Three Primary Hypostases”.
[6] https://premieretat.com/the-grounds-of-sect-in-traditional-astrology-a-philosophical-
account/
[7] https://premieretat.com/the-grounds-of-sect-in-traditional-astrology-a-philosophical-
account/
[8] Brennan, for example, makes such an argument in Hellenistic Astrology, 270-271.
One Reply to “The Logic of the Triplicity Lords: A Dialectical Account
of the Astrological Triads”
Jimmy K says:
June 13, 2022 at 2:45 pm
(https://premieretat.com/the-logic-of-the-triplicity-lords-a-dialectical-account-of-the-astrological-triads/#comment-758)
Very well done once again. I’d consider one of these articles the accomplishment of a
lifetime. Constantly teaching me new interesting terminology. It’s always well
sourced and seems to push the envelope. Thanks for speaking so highly of the water
element. I also enjoyed how you brought in the Catholic Hypostasis. I found myself
seamlessly inserting friends, family, and former lovers horoscopes and it rang true. I
often parrot Hegelian Dialect endlessly in attempt to sound smarter than I am. An
article like this makes me revisit the crux of what I am saying and why perhaps I am
saying it. Even though the article seems to speak directly to me I can see how a Pagan
might enjoy it just the same.
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required elds are marked *
Comment *
Name *
Email *
Website
Post Comment

6.0 The Logic of The Triplicity Lords - A Di... Astrological Triads - Le Premier État

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

6.0 The Logic of The Triplicity Lords - A Di... Astrological Triads - Le Premier État

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/22/24, 12:44 AM The Logic of the Triplicity Lords: A Dialectical Account of the Astrological Triads – Le Premier État

The Logic of the Triplicity Lords: A Dialectical

Triplicity rulership is a form of planetary jurisdiction in ancient astrology. As the name

Sect and Triplicity

“When the zodiacal circle is subdivided according to similarities and differences, we

Moment 1: The Moment of the Understanding

“Thinking as understanding stops short at the xed determinacy and its

Moment 2: The Dialectical Moment

Moment 3: The Speculative Moment

“The dialectic has a positive result, because it has a determinate content, or

The Core Interpretation

The Rulers of Fire and Earth

The Rulers of Water and Air

Peter Yong, Ph.D.

[4] Athanasian Creed. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm

One Reply to “The Logic of the Triplicity Lords: A Dialectical Account

of the Astrological Triads”

You might also like