Hi Minderwiz! Thanks again for your great insights
I've been researching and trying to learn more about sign and triplicity rulership, but found mixed information online. This link (
http://www.auxmaillesgodefroy.com/triplicity_and_rulers) shows different element rulers for day and night charts based on different techniques. It got me little confused and not sure which one to follow.
So based on what you mentioned, the order of rulership would be sign, exaltion, triplicity, terms and face. And because of that, we can conclude that while my quesited has feelings for me he still puts himself as his top priority correct?
As for planetary aspects, I wonder if we should only consider aspects between main signicators in the chart? My chart shows that my main significator of Venus is not able to perfect the square to quesited's main significator of Mars because Mars will partially conjunct Saturn in the same sign of Scorpio first. I remember reading from somewhere that planets in the same sign with the main signifactor should be taken as the person's co significator, so I see Saturn as my quesited's co significator. Since Venus is the faster planet and at a smaller degree, it will square Saturn at a later time. Does that square have any importance in analyzing the chart or we should ignore it because it's not an aspect between two main signifators?
The triplicity rulers, attributed to Dorotheus in the website you quote were the triplicity rulers that were common in Hellenistic Astrology. , viz:
Aries/Leo/Sagittarius - Sun Jupiter Saturn (diurnal - Sun and Jupiter change places for nocturnal charts)
Capricorn/Taurus/Virgo/ - Venus Moon Mars (diurnal again reverse Moon and Venus for nocturnal charts)
Libra/Aquarius/Gemini - Saturn Mercury Jupiter (diurnal again reverse Mercury and Saturn for nocturnal charts)
Cancer/Scorpio/Pisces - Venus Mars Moon (diurnal again reverse Venus and Moon for nocturnal charts.
Indeed this appear to be the very earliest system, being even earlier than the assignment of the elements to the triplicities (which is why I've left out the words Fire, Earth, Air and Water). This system is dependent on the division of the horoscopic into diurnal and nocturnal charts and the planets into dirunal and nocturnal sects. That's the reason that Mars has no rulership in the 'Fire' triplicity because Aries/Leo/Sagittarius is a diurnal triplicity and Mars is a nocturnal planet.
It's by no means clear that Ptolemy's version was widely used or even used at all until the late medieval/Seventeenth Century periods by which time the participating rulerships had been dropped. Lilly was in a real sense a 'back to Ptolemy' Astrologer, throwing out much of the Arabic sources because he believed that their differences from Ptolemy were their own invention and was unaware that actually much of their content was pre-Ptolemy and hence 'more original'.
Ptolemy tried to reform Astrology, as did Morin so what you have is the personal opinions of two great Astrologers but not backed up by much in the way of proof. Ptolemy's version survived more because of historical accident than because it was recognised as superior. That is, Ptolemy was 'lucky' in that his work was translated into Latin and remained as virtually the only complete text on Astrology that was available in the West.
Much of the revived teaching on horary has based itself on William Lilly, that's the way I came to it and I took up Lilly's view of essential dignities and Lilly's house system (Regiomontanus). I've since learned that there were horary Astrologers before Lilly (indeed 600 years before) and that Regiomontanus has no special nature which makes it 'special' for horary. Any house system will do. The original horary system was Whole Sign Houses, just as that was the original system for topical Astrology.
In that context, which should you use? For triplicity rulerships I use the original system as quoted by Dorotheus. It has a rationale, within the context of chart interpretations used at the time which makes more sense than Ptolemy's revisionist version. This is not really a sufficient proof, as horary developed after the Hellenistic period - it's probably Persian in origin, though based on the original Hellenistic methods. The medieval period saw the dropping of the participating rulers, even in the Dorotheus system.
Lilly's system clearly worked for Lilly. So if you decided to keep to it, that is fine. My own experience is that the Dorothean triplicity rulerships work better but then I'm sure you'll find an Astrologer who will argue the opposite. I think it now comes down to which system you fell more comfortable with.
On your questited - as I said he has feelings and that alone justifies the consideration of a relationship as a possibility in the future. A horary is a snap shot in time. That he has feelings is a good sign. Those feelings may grow in the future (or the may diminish). The time may not be right now but in the words of the great Astrologer, Scarlett O' Hara, 'Tomorrow is another day'
The querent's usual significators are the Ascendant, The Ascendant ruler and the Moon. I have only ever once used a different significator and that was when the querent and quesited were both ruled by the same planet and there was no exaltation ruler or planets in the questited's house.
The quesited is usually signified by the ruler of the relevant house cusp, it might be signified by the moon in certain circumstances and you might use a planet from that house if the first two are not available and there's no suitable exaltation ruler. If you're using a quadrant house system and there's a sign intercepted in the quesited's house then you could use the ruler of that sign as a co-significator. Personally that's not something I would do, but Dunn and others argue the case for it quite strongly. I'd fall back on Whole Sign Houses and use the sole planet that that produces. Again that's a personal take and should not be treated as binding in any way.
But you can't play around with significators in the sense of changing them to make things fit or the first two did not give you the result you wanted. There are times with the quesited, especially when two or more related things are asked about when your first or even second preference is no longer available because it's in use. In such circumstances, I would prefer to go for a 'natural' significator than simply a planet in the house. So if the question referred to the 'father' and the fourth house ruler were unavailable and there was an issue with the exaltation ruler, then I'd use the Sun, no matter where it was in the chart - the Sun is the natural significator of fathers. If the father is elderly, then Saturn would be the next choice.
In short, planet in house would be right at the end of my search (unless it happened to be the exaltation ruler or a natural significator, in which case it would jump out at you).
