Hi Rene,

I just want to point out that I *don't adhere* to the comment I made in the quoted remark of mine at the start of your post. To avoid any further confusion I have put a notice into that post to say that it is not the position I hold, as explained by subsequent posts in this thread. This is not a change of heart, but a position I have been teaching for some time - unfortunately last week (rushed and stressed) I made some quick, unthinking remarks, which I have since tried to correct. I do realise that most modern astrologers write about the inferior conjunction as the start of the cycle, but I disagree with this position because it contradicts the symbolic application of the cycle as I have seen it used in several traditional techniques. You will see that Margherita takes the same stance as I do on this, following her own independent assessment ? our commonality is that we are both exploring the use of the phenomena as explained by traditional authors.

Also, thanks for your very detailed explanation of the visible appearance. I am personally aware of these and if you felt my quoted comment was incorrect or overly simplified, it could have been because you didn't include my remark in my earlier post that the 'supposed' distance is affected by the latitude of the planet and the observer! (and obviously atmospheric conditions and clouds). But the thread is definitely better for your more careful explanation and the diagrams. My own diagrams - which are very different - are almost complete and I?ll probably add a link later today.

Regards
Deb

Now I managed to post what I had written.

Here are a few handy tips to understand Venus' orbit.

Earth's distance to the Sun is 1 Astronomical Unit. Venus' distance then globally is 0.72 AU. (perhaps a bit technical but here http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/fa ... notes.html are some lists of facts of the (orbits of) the planets (compared to Earth)). This is an interesting number for as we will see. If we would be on an interior planet at greatest elongation (as seen from Earth) then we would see Sun and Earth in square aspect. Further if we say that at greatest elongation Venus is ca. 45? from the Sun, it will turn out that from a heliocentric point of view Earth and Venus will be in 45? too. (According to the rule that the edges of a triangle on a plane add up to 180?). The Pythagoras formula A?+B?=C?, and with A= Venus-Sun (=0.72 AU) and C is Earth-Sun (=1 AU), turns out that B (Venus-Earth) is also about 0.7... It follows that the greatest elongation does not occur half way between superior and inferior conjunction. If we divide by four then 584 : 4 = 146, every 146 days later the Venus Earth position is 0?,90?,180?,270? etc. But the greatest elongations occur ca. 2.5 months before and after inferior conjunction.

Venus' orbit is less eccentric than that of the Earth, 0.0067 vs. 0.0167 so in Venus' case the aphelion/perihelion issue is less affecting the regularity of phenomena. Mars and especially Mercury for example have 0.095 and 0.205 eccentricity.

When you look in the ephemeris from the start of the superior conjunction in 2008 june 9 the speed of Venus is about 1?15' per day only to slow down somewhere in autumn to 1?10' early december. By the way note that 146days after superior conjunction (the 'waxing' Venus square to Earth as seen from the Sun) Venus is still only some 37? from the Sun but the distance is still increasing. Venus' speed (as seen in the ephemeris) through the zodiac is slowing down and reaches the same speed of the Sun. If you don't have a list of greatest elongations then an easy way to see this in the ephemeris is to note the date when Venus has exactly the same speed as the Sun, for when their speed is the same the elongation is the greatest. This occurred half january (ca. 14th) 2009. After this date Venus' speed is slower than the Sun's. This means that the Sun will catch up with here in a while. Venus' speed is still positive till her 'standstill' March 7 2009 when she starts to move backwards.

Seen through a telescope Venus is totally lit or 'full' at the moment of superior conjunction, the phase wanes as her elongation increases. Around the date of greatest elongation Venus is half in phase. Being furthest from the Earth at superior conjunction her diameter increases to with the months. After greatest elongation Venus wanes to a crescent which still increases in size. A very nice view through the telescope, it is as we saw a few days old lunar crescent with the naked eye. It all looks like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phases_Venus.jpg

Here are some pictures of orbits etc. Quite a lot but they resemble. I hope they make a few things clearer.
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-424/p3a.jpg
http://www.astro.ufl.edu/%7Ecohen/ast10 ... _orbit.gif
http://transientsky.files.wordpress.com ... =414&h=238
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/ ... l&edu=high
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/%7Ejs/images/c ... ations.gif
http://www.curtrenz.com/VenusOrbit.JPG
http://www.eg.bucknell.edu/physics/astr ... s7p3.2.jpg
http://lasp.colorado.edu/%7Ebagenal/101 ... _venus.gif
http://lasp.colorado.edu/%7Ebagenal/101 ... tances.gif
http://cdn1.libsyn.com/astronomy/Retrog ... 288e4b2710

If this doesn't really explain your questions or if you have more questions, please ask. Maybe I can explain more.



Interesting thing about the "Arcus Visionis" Ren?. I know that this occurs but I didn't know it is significant to astrologers.

I too feel the most for the superior conjunction as start. I'm afraid I added to the confusion for having understood that the inferior conjunction was considered the starting point.

Eddy wrote:
Interesting thing about the "Arcus Visionis" Ren?. I know that this occurs but I didn't know it is significant to astrologers.

For what I understand it is very important because we should compare the the arcus visionis in certain given moments (it seems to understand that Bezza uses the same data as Kolev, Schock's ones)with the arcus visionis of the moment, this is the way to say if the planet is visible or not.

Margherita

Hi Deb,

You wrote
I just want to point out that I *don't adhere* to the comment I made in the quoted remark of mine at the start of your post. To avoid any further confusion I have put a notice into that post to say that it is not the position I hold, as explained by subsequent posts in this thread.

I?m very sorry Deb for not reading your previous posts carefully enough!

and
I do realise that most modern astrologers write about the inferior conjunction as the start of the cycle, but I disagree with this position because it contradicts the symbolic application of the cycle as I have seen it used in several traditional techniques.

I haven?t studied that, I just took Kolev?s list which starts with the Inferior conjunction. I?m sure you and Margherita are right.

I wonder though what you think about my conclusion about this new Venus cycle.

Ren?

Rene, the embarrassment is all mine, and none of it is yours! Of course you shouldn?t have to read every post carefully to make sure I?m not saying one thing in one place, and the complete opposite later on. I only wanted to point out my mistake to stop the confusion I have set in motion gathering pace. I find your interpretation of the cycle interesting, and I applaud your approach to making use of this cycle in a mundane sense. I feel certain that those of us contributing to this thread, and no doubt many others, consider these heliacal cycles to be pivotal mundane events. In fact this Venus event is probably ?the? oldest and the most significantly recorded of all planetary cycles, since it would have formed the basis of the omens in the ?Venus Tablets of Ammisaduqa?. I would really like to make the opportunity (and time) to study those omens; but so far I haven?t seen more than a few example extracts.

Eddy ? your post is excellent, thank you so much! It is just what I needed. I have read it through once but I need to give myself time to read the points and the links more carefully. Unfortunately I was dragged out to the shops today by my 21 year old daughter who is back home for the Easter holidays and who doesn't realise the importance of the little diagrams I am trying so hard to get finished So now I am zapped of energy and too tired to think conceptually. Tonight I shall honour Venus by having a girlie night in watching rom-com DVDs and painting fingernails. Tomorrow I will try to use my brain again. Hopefully the rest will do it some good

Thanks Deb, I'm glad that it's what you needed. Just take the time to let this interesting matter sink in. Knowing the astronomy adds so much to astrology. Yesterday I was thinking about how to schematize the orbit to clarify it a bit. I found something nice .

Even though the orbit is not very eccentric there are some differences and the following is not exactly according to reality. The same is the case with the greatest elongations taken as 45?, but it serves the visualisation of what happens in the sky.

If the period from superior conjunction to superior conjunction is 584 days then (if we imagine the orbits of Earth and Venus perfect circles) in half a period after superior conjunction, after 292 days there is the inferior conjunction. Further there is the Earth-Venus square from heliocentric view at the 146th and 438th day but this is less interesting for observers on Earth. The greatest elongations occur roughly when Earth and Venus are in 45? aspect, this is 73 days before and after inferior conjunction or at the 219th and 365th day. (365 days is one earth year, compare for example june 2008 and 2009).

Now if we would draw this in a circle then we would get a line cutting the circle in two, and two other lines 45? to that line and in 90? with eachother. In short this is the peace symbol of the nuclear disarmament movement . The origin of this now 51 year old symbol is interesting,
http://www.odemagazine.com/blogs/reader ... l_turns_50

Easter is a good period to honour Venus, since the name Easter is derived from Oster, Ostara, Ishtar, Astarte all kinds of goddesses related to spring and Venus. By the way retrograde Venus is about to enter Pisces at 12:45 UT.

Hi Eddy
Wow - the comparison with the peace symbol is beautifully meaningful ? I really like that. Can I ask if you made that connection yourself or whether you?ve seen it reported elsewhere? If it is OK with you I would like to make a reference to it in the piece of work that I am currently working on, and if I can acknowledge you and this thread that would be wonderful. In the meantime, (despite all the Easter interruptions), I have my first collection of diagrams completed, so if anyone is interested I?ve put a PDF file on this link.

http://skyscript.co.uk/pdf/VenusPhaseCycle.pdf (Note the file size: 7.5 MB)

The diagrams? show how the Venus-Sun relationship appears in charts for the next cycle which begins with the superior conjunction of January next year. The point I wanted to illustrate was the way that Venus and the Sun apply and separate, and which planet applies or separates to the other, depending on the way that the motion of Venus speeds up and slows down throughout the cycle. This is to illustrate a horary principle that I am currently exploring ? it is co-incidental to me that this thread developed as I was working on this issue (or maybe not ). Having your explanation to show how the maximum elongations did not divide the inferior and superior halves of the Venus-Sun cycle into two equal halves was extremely valuable for this, and especially in driving home the reason why Venus covers so much more longitude whilst near its superior conjunction.

BTW, in case anyone wonders why I refer to a ?visible? rising or setting at 15? separation, it is because the diagrams are illustrating a passage from Paulus which talks about the standard definition of a rising being 15? but which explains that the true rising is the exact conjunction. I do explain that this is a simplification as discussed above.

I have now found a reference from an ancient source which clearly states that the phase cycle should start with the superior conjunction for Mercury and Venus. What follows is from Dorian Greenbaum?s translation: Late Classical Astrology: Paulus Alexandrinus and Olympiodorus, p.90 (from the Olympiodorus section):

(Greek Text p. 22, ll. 5-21)
[After talking about Mars, Jupiter and Saturn]
However, the other two, Hermes and Aphrodite, not only make stations unlike these, according to how much distance [they are from the Sun], but also according to their manner? according to their manner, since those [Mars, Jupiter and Saturn] make the first station when they are morning rising, that is to say, the subtractive [station], but when they come to be evening rising they make the second station from the triangle, that is the additive. But these [ie., Mercury and Venus] [do] the opposite: when they are morning rising they make the second station, but evening setting the first, that is, the subtractive.

So the ?first station? (what we call maximum elongation) occurs in the occidental phase as I have it in my diagrams. The diagrams also show why the maximum elongation degrees are the places where the planet was considered to ?turn around?, which is described as ?stationing? in the text, although this is very different from our modern idea of stationing as a planet turns retrograde.

Deb wrote: I have my first collection of diagrams completed, so if anyone is interested I?ve put a PDF file on this link.

http://skyscript.co.uk/pdf/VenusPhaseCycle.pdf

Very nice diagrams, thanks very much, I was waiting you finished painting your nails, in fact
Margherita

Well that didn't take sooo long - but then I had the chocolate Easter egg to eat

Deb wrote:So the ?first station? (what we call maximum elongation) occurs in the occidental phase as I have it in my diagrams. The diagrams also show why the maximum elongation degrees are the places where the planet was considered to ?turn around?, which is described as ?stationing? in the text, although this is very different from our modern idea of stationing as a planet turns retrograde.

I must have got you wrong here, Deb, which probably serves me right for not participating more in this lively discussion. Correct me if I have got my lines in a tangle, but there is no coinherence between either of the stations of the inferior planets and maximum elongation. Maximum elongation occurs when the planets is neither fast nor slow, but equal in motion as in comparison to the Sun.

Venus' first station will occur after maximum elongation, and when she is occidental, as Venus looses speed in relation to both the Sun and the starry background before she comes to her stationary stand still. But Venus' second station will occur prior to maximum elongation, and when she is oriental, since she picks up speed after turning direct but still slips further away from the plodding Sun until their apparent motions are equalled. Until this point Venus is slow but increasing in motion.

The interpretation of Venus motion and appearance is a bit tricky in my opinion. She is fortunate when either increasing in speed, or swift and direct, and increasing in light, although these things do not occur at the same time. The brightness of a star may have to do with the magnitude of the event or fortune, but the motion of the planet may have to do with its ability to deliver.

Thanks Deb. When I 'visualised' how the things I described would look like from a heliocentric point of view I suddenly saw the peace symbol. To be sure I didn't re-invent the wheel I googled for these words but the only thing I found is a link in which someone relates the peace symbol with Venus rulership signs ( http://sphinx.planetwaves.net/blog/?p=124 this is a somewhat vague article though) . I only looked from the orbital point of view. So I don't think someone had 'discovered' this yet. By the way, note that the peace symbol is only 51 years old and derived from the letters N and D in military flag signs. So it isn't something traditional.

The diagrams look good, that's what it look like in relation to the horizon. By the way, what is that 'horary principle' that you mention in relation to the interior planets? I don't know much about horary.

Deb wrote:BTW, in case anyone wonders why I refer to a ?visible? rising or setting at 15? separation, it is because the diagrams are illustrating a passage from Paulus which talks about the standard definition of a rising being 15?.

Perhaps Paulus didn't like to get up early either . This morning I woke up at six and finally managed to almost immediately get up. I cycled to a bridge over a railroad near where I live but although it was good weather, the moist in the air (that has been there since almost the entire period that the weather has been good) prevented a good view on the horizon. With real bright weather I should have seen her (at over 20? elongation now).

Andrew Bevan wrote:

Deb wrote:
So the ?first station? (what we call maximum elongation) occurs in the occidental phase as I have it in my diagrams. The diagrams also show why the maximum elongation degrees are the places where the planet was considered to ?turn around?, which is described as ?stationing? in the text, although this is very different from our modern idea of stationing as a planet turns retrograde.

I must have got you wrong here, Deb, which probably serves me right for not participating more in this lively discussion. Correct me if I have got my lines in a tangle, but there is no coinherence between either of the stations of the inferior planets and maximum elongation. Maximum elongation occurs when the planets is neither fast nor slow, but equal in motion as in comparison to the Sun.

But insofar I can see, Deb's diagrams does discern between these two. Pictures 3 and 9, greatest elongation and similar speed of Venus and Sun.

Andrew Bevan wrote:The interpretation of Venus motion and appearance is a bit tricky in my opinion. She is fortunate when either increasing in speed, or swift and direct, and increasing in light, although these things do not occur at the same time.

The orbit is a bit strange indeed. As Venus approaches the phase gets smaller. At the beginning of the cycle (superior conjunction) the phase is 'full' like the Moon. In the middle of the cycle the phase would be 'new' in terms of reflecting light.

Or applied to Deb's diagrams:
1-Venus fully lit as seen from Earth;
2-Waning gibbous Venus;
3-Waning half lit Venus;
4&5-Waning crescent Venus;
6-Invisible/non lit Venus;
7&8-Waxing crescent Venus;
9-Waxing half lit Venus;
10-Waxing gibbous Venus.
From 1 - 6 the apparent diameter of Venus as seen from Earth increases to maximum at 6 (almost 0?1' in size) yet invisible (with the naked eye) From 6-10 the diameter decreases to I believe ca. 0?0'10".

So there seems to be some contradiction with the Moon regarding 'phase'.