planets that were thereby configurated, and that the distinction was only a means of
determining which end of the aspect was the more powerful. of course, the elevated planet is
the stronger by virtue of House position - which has naught to do with Sign position. That the
presence of the Sun in a Commanding Sign made it longer, hence conferred upon the Sign a
right to be considered a Commanding Sign, seems particularly naive; and one wonders what
would happen if the Sun chanced to be in a Sign of rapid ascension below the horizon.
Naturally it would make it smaller, but what privileges would that confer or deny? Since the
Signs are of equal size, what he really meant was a House, for only a House could be "longer."
He classifies Sextiles and Trines as harmonious because they join Signs that are either both
male or both female. The square is inharmonious because it joins Signs "of different natures
and sexes." The oriental quadrants are masculine; the occidental, feminine. He overlooks the
fact that the explanation he gives for his pairs of Commanding and Obeying sextiles and
trines would with better logic describe the opposition polarities which in modern practice are
found to possess such validity. The 144 so-called polarities between Sun and Moon, the
importance of which was given emphasis by Alan Leo, found no place in his system. Truly
astrology has made great advances since he gave it the initial impetus that has projected it so
powerfully into our modern world.
It seems that Ptolemy, finding a lot of scattered truths and sundry devices for applying them,
devoted his ingenuity to an effort to hook them all together into a unified system. In this it
appears that in a sense he was a precursor of Freud, in that he seemed bent on reducing
everything to terms of sex. of course, this may not be literally true, for his eternal harping on
masculine and feminine had to do not so much with sex as with the polarity of positive and
negative and the reciprocal action that presumably takes places between adjacent Signs,
whereby each even-numbered Sign complements the preceding odd-numbered Sign. That he
called them masculine and feminine instead of positive and negative, or active and passive,
was a matter of terminology in keeping with the symbolism of his epoch. Even the positive-
negative terminology is not ideal, for it still supports his concept that the even-numbered Sign
is the underdog who helps the preceding odd-numbered Sign to make good on his
positiveness, hence is in an unfortunate position. Nevertheless, since Fortunate and
Unfortunate is a classification that exactly parallels what today we prefer to speak of as
positive and negative, these and many similarly unnecessary terms that only serve to create
confusion might well be discarded.
There is some doubt today as in his day, as to whether this basic distinction is a valid one, for
Ptolemy himself reports that many of the astrological savants of his time rejected the
distinction. Nevertheless, it was essential to his thesis, so he persisted, for only by this could
he justify and explain his system of essential dignities, whereby to arrive at a delineation of
untenanted Signs and Houses. These Signs are not wholly untenanted, for from time to time
they are actuated by transits, and these concern themselves not at all with the presumed ruler