If you think about triplicity as a natural conclusion to where planets feel allright to their nature, that would be an easier aproach in my opinion.

First of all, Saturn and Mars are put into triplicity when they are actually out of sect in the tradition (Mars being diurnal and Saturn noturnal) with Saturn being "nicer" in a day chart and Mars in a night one (and that is intended to actually weaken then). The thing is, the very nature of the planets would tell us why they would feel slight better here or there, but there is controversy on even that, and this arise from the necessity to give this or that planet two qualities at the same time, when I think we should look to only one at a time.

For example, what we know about each planet for itself?

Jupiter is always moderate hot and moist.
Mars is always exceeding hot and dry.
Saturn is alway exceeding cold and dry.
Luna is always moderate cold and moist.
Venus is always moderate moist and can be moderate hot or cold.
Sol is always moderate hot and dry.
Mercury is a mess, but some would say moderate cold and dry.

Now, even on that there is no absolute certainty, but it is a guideline to work with.

Now, the sun gets too cold in Libra. Saturn for instance would do better with a little bit of heat or moisture, and Mars with a little bit of coldness or moisture. If you look at the cardinal/mutable/fixed nature of signs, we could get a glimpse of what could be the key to this. Mercury does not do well in water and fire signs for example, hence I would never consider triplicity for mercury in those. The Sun also does not go well with Water/Air signs, showing a rejection to moisture (Libra, Aquarius) and the water and earth passives signs being controlled by Luna... the way I see, triplicity is more about considering how harmonic is the placement of a planet in a sign, and if does not go too much against it's naturality. One thing to look at is why does Mars do so well in Scorpio but not so in Cancer (the cardinality of Cancer has to have something to do with this, no?). We also have to separate what is related to life philosofy of the period, for once why Moon in Capricorn was so good for marriage if it's detrimental (well, everyone would like an enslaved, obedient, weak woman in the past, no?). Venus can not stand cardinal fire or fixed water, that must reveal something about her nature that explains triplicity better than just accepting this or that classical author. Now, anyone with astronomical knowledge could also lead the way to understanding this. Some would insist that Luna still could do something in Scorpio, and that is maybe because the sign is not totally contrary to her nature (and so is not Capricorn, although Luna can understand itself well with fixed earth, but not so much with it's cardinal variant). Any thoughts on this?

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3863

Have a look at this previous thread and see if it is relevant to you

Matt

I have one great article but on croatian about term rulers. It is so great thing. There are various arabic and greec authors.

As example, ill try to translate (Valens):

When Saturn is found in terms of Venus the person is born from mother s belly, and mother dies before father. My ASC ruler is Saturn and that is true for me !

Second example (my asc Capricorn):

People borned in these Mercury terms eat little, they have many problems with health in their youth, they are often studying law !

That is all truth. I would be happy if i could translate these i don t know exact source of text but i think it can be useful to lot of you.

Domagoj

The article you are referring to is actually the translation of excerpts from "Matheseos libri VIII"(Firmicus Maternus) and "Liber Hermetis"(Hermes Trismegistos? ) into Croatian.
Both are using the Egyptian terms in their descriptions and delineations.

By the way, we are leaving the theme: Terms are not triplicities . . .

The only problem as to terms is, that there is a second system, that of Ptolemy (and yet another third). Lilly and his time followed that of Ptolemy after it had been only quoted for more than thousand years. And everyone swears, that 'his' system works. This contradiction and the fact, that neither system is based on nature, was the reason for Morin, to refuse the terms.

Judging horaries, I prefer 'blindly' those of Ptolemy, following Lilly - and of course: It works!

Jonny