Anthony Louis´ claim that Renaissance triplicity allocation is wrong

Dima Gur

Dima Gur

New member
Hi everyone,

I´ve recently noticed that in a 2020 article by Anthony Louis (whom I respect tremendously), there was this claim.
That William Lilly and his contemporaries misunderstood how the triplicity dignity works, and that it should be allocated, or scored, according to ALL THREE RULERS. That is, instead of just the day ruler or night ruler.

Here´s the article by AL:
https://tonylouis.wordpress.com/202…

Here´s a quote from his article (paragraph 9):
"Dorotheus makes an important point about triplicity rulers, which William Lilly apparently misunderstood. In Book I, chapter 1 of his Carmen Astrologicum , Dorotheus makes clear that all three triplicity rulers act as triplicity lords all the time. The change from day to night simply shifts the emphasis on which matter within a house the particular triplicity lord is likely to signify according to the ordering of the three lords as first, second, and third (participating). Whether it is a day chart or a night chart determines “who’s on first” but does not negate the fact that the second triplicity lord is part of the triumvirate of triplicity governors which all possess the dignity of being triplicity rulers."

Also:
Found this article by Anthony from 7-stars-astrology:
https://sevenstarsastrology.com/tri…
Apparently he reached the same conclusions as did Anthony Louis.

What do you think of this claim?
If this is true, the entire renaissance tradition of scoring/allocating only one triplicity lord according to sect should be replaced by the older Hellenistic tradition of scoring/allocation triplicity rulership for all three.

This interests me personally, as dignity has always peaked my interest, and as I currently teach both methods but am wondering if I should emphasize the Hellenistic method.
 
i would look at what Vedic Astrology says about it or what comes close to your question. Vedic Astrology is as precise as a sharp knife and whatever they use it is proven in depth.
 
Have very little knowledge of Vedic,
But does Vedic even has the concept of triplicity or minor rulerships?
 
Last edited:
Dima Gur said:
Hi everyone,

I´ve recently noticed that in a 2020 article by Anthony Louis (whom I respect tremendously), there was this claim.
That William Lilly and his contemporaries misunderstood how the triplicity dignity works, and that it should be allocated, or scored, according to ALL THREE RULERS. That is, instead of just the day ruler or night ruler.

Here´s the article by AL:
https://tonylouis.wordpress.com/202…

Here´s a quote from his article (paragraph 9):
"Dorotheus makes an important point about triplicity rulers, which William Lilly apparently misunderstood. In Book I, chapter 1 of his Carmen Astrologicum , Dorotheus makes clear that all three triplicity rulers act as triplicity lords all the time. The change from day to night simply shifts the emphasis on which matter within a house the particular triplicity lord is likely to signify according to the ordering of the three lords as first, second, and third (participating). Whether it is a day chart or a night chart determines “who’s on first” but does not negate the fact that the second triplicity lord is part of the triumvirate of triplicity governors which all possess the dignity of being triplicity rulers."

Also:
Found this article by Anthony from 7-stars-astrology:
https://sevenstarsastrology.com/tri…
Apparently he reached the same conclusions as did Anthony Louis.

What do you think of this claim?
If this is true, the entire renaissance tradition of scoring/allocating only one triplicity lord according to sect should be replaced by the older Hellenistic tradition of scoring/allocation triplicity rulership for all three.

This interests me personally, as dignity has always peaked my interest, and as I currently teach both methods but am wondering if I should emphasize the Hellenistic method.
Click to expand...



Benjamin Dyke's book lists sources and applications of the 3 triplicities.


Book:
Introduction to Traditional Astrology:
Abu Ma'shar & al-Qabisi



W.Lilly adopted Ptolemy's system
Ptolemy was not a practicing astrologer at the time.

I use in horary astrology and in natal astrology all 3 triplicity lords
Day and night and the 3 is participle..


Best regards
Momo
 
Momo,
Thanks for your input.

You mean that the 'Introduction to Traditional Astrology: Abu Ma'shar & al-Qabisi', by Dykes, contains sources for triplicity usage?
May I ask which page?
 
Dima Gur said:
Momo,
Thanks for your input.

You mean that the 'Introduction to Traditional Astrology: Abu Ma'shar & al-Qabisi', by Dykes, contains sources for triplicity usage?
May I ask which page?
Click to expand...







The PDF contains an excerpt from the Robert Zoller course for use:


Robert Zoller, pioneer in translating Bonatti from Latin into English, says
in his Lesson Eight of the Diploma Course in Medieval Astrology, page 25:




The page numbers are given at the back of the index.
If I find the time I'll have a look later.
 
book:
Introductions to Traditional Astrology:
Abu Ma'shar & al-Qabisi

Translated & edited by Benjamin N.Dykes , PhD



Page numbers 46-48 Triplicities
Page numbers 71-76 Triplicity's Lords


In classic traditional astrology,
all three triplicity lords are used.


A planet in its own triplicity, is just like one among its own relatives.
 
Momo thanks.
Just browsed through Abu Ma'shar & al-Qabisi by Dykes.
It supports the threefold scheme, but this also makes sense as it's a medieval source, not a renaissance one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top