Hello,

Eddy wrote: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.

At the superior conjunction Venus (and Mercury) are like the new Moon. i.e. it's cold, after the vespertine rising is moist, then when the planet starts to slow is hot, and then it becomes dry.
From the vespertine setting starts the cold again.

The trick here is we have two cycles instead of one.

Margherita

Hello Margherita,

Sorry if I add some confusion in the discussion. I meant that last phase issue purely from an astronomical/observational view of Venus.

These phases that I applied in my last post to Debs diagrams were intended to show what Venus would look like through a telescope.
The following pictures show what Venus looks like.
http://www.curtrenz.com/VenusOrbit.JPG
http://transientsky.files.wordpress.com ... =414&h=238
http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/eduo ... 1-stka.jpg

And astrologically should it then be seen like this? (picture 2)
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/mercuryorbit.html

Gjiada wrote:At the superior conjunction Venus (and Mercury) are like the new Moon. i.e. it's cold, after the vespertine rising is moist, then when the planet starts to slow is hot, and then it becomes dry.
From the vespertine setting starts the cold again.

The trick here is we have two cycles instead of one.

If the temperaments are applied to Deb's diagrams would it then look like this?
1-cold
2-moist
3-hot
4/5-dry
6-cold
7-moist
8-hot
9/10-dry

Or the second part reversed order of the first?

Eddy wrote:
Or the second part reversed order of the first?

Absolutely not

Margherita

Gjiada wrote:

Eddy wrote:
Or the second part reversed order of the first?

Absolutely not

Margherita

....so it thus is how I had written it down applied to Deb's diagrams..?

Eddy wrote:
....so it thus is how I had written it down applied to Deb's diagrams..?

It seems so, but she could say better, they are her diagrams, I can talk just for what I have in my notes.

Sorry that these are brief answers for now. I?ve been away from my desk so I am trying to catch up with a few things at once.

Hi Andrew, I think my last post on the previous page has left you confused. In that post I was pointing out that what Paulus referred to as a ?station? was what we would refer to as the point of maximum elongation. You can understand why he does this by reference to my diagrams, because it is at the points of maximum elongations that the planets make changes from having a daily motion that moves them towards or away from each other. Sso in this sense there is a change of the planetary relationship in these places (it is all to do with the fact that their motion is exactly the same at max. elongation, but changes directly afterwards ? so if they were moving together before, they start to separate themselves from each other after, and vice versa.).

Hope this answers your question
Deb

Hi Eddy,
I?ll try to come back to your point a little more fully later, but briefly, I think it is a mistake to talk about the superior conjunction as if it signifies a phase that is ?full like the Moon?. This way of thinking is generated by assuming an astrological perspective of the planets as if we were viewing them from the Sun, so it is not attached to the traditional perspective at all. The full moon is full because it is full of light (as WE see it), and all the symbolic meaning that is traditionally attached to the ?direct conjunction? of the Venus phase cycle comes out of the fact that (as WE see it) it has no light. It is much more comparable to the New Moon stage than the Full Moon stage.
This is relevant because, when applying temperaments to planets, there are four main stages within any planetary phase cycle where the temperamental balance shifts. For the Moon we have:

New Moon
First Quarter Moon
Full Moon
Last Quarter Moon

? and then the cycle ends and begins again with the next Old/New Moon. The same principle is applied to all the superior planets in just the way that Margherita describes. It is also applied with Mercury and Venus, but because they have the ?double loop?, each loop represents one half of the cycle - which is what they are: two parts of one cycle, rather than two cycles. Therefore it matches up like this:

Direct (superior) conjunction = New Phase
Max. Elong. East = First Quarter Phase
Retrograde (inferior) conjunction = Half Phase
Max Elong. West = Last Quarter Phase

- and then the cycle begins and ends again with the next direct/superior conjunction. I can illustrate this by repeating a comment I made on p.2 of this thread, where the cycle is used to try to determine the age of , say, an unknown thief:

To give an example using a technique that is described in various places CA, and which agrees with the writings of earlier authors such as Ibn Ezra, Lilly starts this judgement using an average presumed life cycle of 72 years, which begins ? in the case of Venus or Mercury as the significator ? with the superior direct conjunction. The maximum elongation, being mid-way between [this and] the retrograde conjunction, suggests an age of about 18, and the retrograde conjunction ? which represents half the complete cycle *where we are now* ? suggests an age of around 36. The next elongation signifies someone around the age of around 54, moving closer to the age of 72 as the planet completes its cycle with the Sun.

Hope this makes sense of this point, and I will try to come back to your other points soon. (Thanks for coming back to me to answer my questions too!)

Deb

Peculiarities of Venus

Out of convenience I fetched the following information out of an astronomical almanac together with an ephemeris for 1996:

31/3 Greatest Eastern elongation 46 degrees, occidental
4/5 Greatest brilliancy, 40 degrees occidental
20/5 Venus first station, going retrograde, 28 degrees occidental
10/6 Venus inferior conjunction
2/7 Venus second station, going direct, 29 degrees orienetal
17/7 Greatest brilliancy, 40 degrees oriental
19/8 Greatest Western elongation, oriental 46 degrees

Venus superior conjunction then occured on April 2. 1997

Now I do think that when reflecting upon these figures that it is interesting that Venus uses longer time to move from it's greatest western elongation and to its greatest eastern elongation than the other way round. It is not the first thing I think of when I see Venus in a chart.

However, Venus is swift and increasing in both brilliancy and motion in 1996 until 31/3. At this point her potential and strength is greatest. Then she may actually have delivered her best, however she increases in fame until 4/5 when she is at her brightest. But the period from when she is brightest and until when she turns retrograde on 20/5 must be a period of instability, prior to a period of potential catastrophy.

When Venus moves out from her inferior conjunction with the Sun it is like trying to escape from something. Venus is retrograde and on the 'Run', but then we do have to consider that she is greatly increasing in brilliance. Well, miracles do happen - don't they!

Hi Deb,

Now there seems to be some difference with what Margherita says about two cycles. I'm sorry but I get a bit confused about the differences I see between the posts.

The cycle you mention and in the example of the ages clearly show one cycle, superior to superior conjunction is one cycle and 72 years according to Ibn Ezra. Follows that inferior conjunction is the 'middle' of the cycle like the 36 years of the ages example. The comparison with the Moon seems clear. I'll avoid the terminology of phase for a moment.
Moon conjunct Sun equals Superior conjunction of Venus-Sun;
Moon 90? Sun (waxing) equals Venus' greatest evening elongation;
Moon opposite Sun equals Venus' Inferior conjunction;
Moon 270? Sun (waning) equals Venus' greatest morning elongation;
Moon 0? Sun is again Venus' Superior conjunction.

However on p.1 (below) of this thread there seems to be something different, at least from the point of view from assigning the temperaments.

Gjiada wrote:

Eddy wrote:
I've always found it attractive to compare the superior conjunction with 'new moon' and inferior conjunction with 'full moon'.

This is not exactly traditional
If you write like that this means that Venus at inferior conjunction should be hot in temperament and this is not what traditional astrologers wrote.
Venus with the Sun is moist and cold, no?

and

Gjiada wrote:

Eddy wrote:
I can understand the reasoning of attributing 'moist' to morning and spring. Ptolemy attributes 'moist' to the new moon to first quarter period. Here I have some other thoughts. As new moon can be considered a 'minimum' wouldn't it be more reasonable to attribute 'cold' to new moon to first quarter? Then 'moist' could be attributed to first quarter to full moon.

Moon is a little tricky: Della Porta thinks and writes like you and in CieloeTerra site they give both the possibilities. Anyway the important point is that after the New Moon, she is MOIST and at Full Moon, she is HOT, because Moon follows the outer planets epycycle.

So if I've understood well (please correct me if I interpreted you wrong Margherita) from a point of view of the temperaments there are 'two' cycles, while there is 'one' cycle when it is compared with the Moon. However these two comparisons must collide at some points.

The phase thing I described is entirely astronomically, however I try to apply it to astrology. I'm sorry Deb but I have to correct you on some points. What I described of the phases is also from geocentrical point of view. The pictures (of reply of Wednesday 6:56) of the 'phases' of Venus are all taken from Earth. These are even the 'proof' that Venus orbits the Sun and are proof against the Epicycle model. In the latter Venus would show a crescent short after the superior conjuntion and the 'direct conjunction' indeed would have no light. From a heliocentric point of view there are no phases in the sense of crescent, full, waxing/waning, gibbous planets. After all the Sun is the source of light, so seen from the every planet is allways fully lit.

The astronomical facts about phases make the cycles of the interior planets different from the Moon. However attractive in my personal view I now and then doubt if these cycles can be compared like this.

Andrew Bevan wrote:Now I do think that when reflecting upon these figures that it is interesting that Venus uses longer time to move from it's greatest western elongation and to its greatest eastern elongation than the other way round. It is not the first thing I think of when I see Venus in a chart.

This is caused by the heliocentricity of the planets. Some of the pictures on p.3 of the thread or this one http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/configurations.gif for example shows how this looks like.

Andrew Bevan wrote:Venus is retrograde and on the 'Run', but then we do have to consider that she is greatly increasing in brilliance. Well, miracles do happen - don't they!

This is even more noticeable with Mercury. Short after (and before) inferior conjunction Mercury is of ca. magnitude 1 or 2 while after greatest morning elongation it's magnitude increases to values of ca. -1*. I'll have a look in my astronomy yearbook for some values.

*(In astronomy brilliance of onjects is expressed in magnitude in which the negative values are the most brilliant, Venus varies from -3 to -4.)

I had some remarks/questions on the Arcus Visionis mentioned by Ren? but the library is closing. I hope to continue tomorrow or this weekend.

I'm sorry Deb but I have to correct you on some points. What I described of the phases is also from geocentrical point of view. The pictures (of reply of Wednesday 6:56) of the 'phases' of Venus are all taken from Earth. These are even the 'proof' that Venus orbits the Sun and are proof against the Epicycle model. In the latter Venus would show a crescent short after the superior conjuntion and the 'direct conjunction' indeed would have no light. From a heliocentric point of view there are no phases in the sense of crescent, full, waxing/waning, gibbous planets. After all the Sun is the source of light, so seen from the every planet is allways fully lit.

That?s a very good point, to which I agree. Sorry, I assumed you were taking this view when you referred to the superior conjunction as being ??full? like the Moon?, because I thought you were following the logic of Rudhyar where he wrote (see http://www.khaldea.com/rudhyar/aspc/aspc_c8.shtml):

In the usual kind of geocentric astrology no distinction is made between the two kinds of conjunction of Mercury and the Sun, except that at "inferior" conjunction Mercury is retrograde, while at "superior" conjunction Mercury is direct. In heliocentric astrology the situation is quite different, because an inferior geocentric conjunction of Mercury and the Sun means that the Earth is conjunct Mercury, while a superior geocentric conjunction indicates that the Earth is in opposition to Mercury. Thus when Mercury is retrograde geocentrically, Mercury is heliocentrically near the Earth; and at the heliocentric conjunction of Mercury and the earth, a line is formed by Sun, Mercury and Earth, with Mercury and Earth, with Mercury between the Sun and the Earth ? thus as near to the Earth as it can ever be.
The situation at such a heliocentric conjunction of Mercury and the Earth (i.e. Mercury retrograde in inferior conjunction to the Sun, in geocentric astrology) is thus analogical to that met at the new Moon, when the Moon passes between the Earth and the Sun, thus is in geocentric conjunction with the Sun?. [ergo, superior conjunction = Full Moon?]

I had that in my mind when I read your comment, but now realise that was not the case. However, what you describe is not the traditional geocentric view either, because as 'actually' seen from the Earth Venus loses its light at the superior conjunction, it doesn't become full of light as the telescopic images of phases suggest. (Remember that the Moon-like phases were unknown before Galileo).

As to the other point, the comments I made on the use of this in defining age do refer to one cycle split into two halves as you have concluded. I?m not sure whether Margherita sees this differently but one thing I am aware of, is how easy it is to slip between referring to two cycles (or two loops) ? and then going back to the concept of one cycle split into two halves. Technically, the passage from superior through inferior back to superior is just one cycle, where the whole occidental phase is the first half (which compares with the waxing Moon) and the oriental phase is the other (which compares with the waning Moon). There are more elements built into this, of course, and this is where you will notice more detail in the use of temperament - because the two halves are not based on linear progression like the Moon and superior planets, but fan out and then fan in again.

However, the four quarters I mentioned earlier are still the framework for the cycle as a whole and my main point was that the superior conjunction acts like the New Moon, not the Full Moon within this cycle. (So it looks like I did all this writing just to agree with a point you made on p.1!) This is the reason why the point scoring systems give Mercury and Venus extra or less dignity for being anywhere within the occidental or oriental halves; and in the build up of physical profiles, these planets anywhere in the occidental half of the cycle will describe more youth, vigour and curve, and in the oriental half they decribe more age, dryness and tempered behaviour and features. But this is a very broad outline against which we add extra definition by the exact phase of the planet within its current half. The whole of the occidental phase is more moist than the oriental phase, but within this half there is also a mini phase effect taking place too. The result is a little like talking about the phase in which Saturn is determined as warm - Saturn is never a warming planet: the term only has meaning by comparison to its own natural state. Or it is like saying that after the Sun has set the western horizon is brighter than the eastern horizon - which it may be, but the whole sky is still dark, and that area of brightness is only comparatively bright when seen against a darkened sky. Hence I don't think I do have any disagreement with Margherita but I think we have focussed on different details and I am only talking about the overview against which the other details are sketched. Do you agree Margherita?

Deb

PS - I made amendments to this post this morning because I know there is a better way to explain this, but I think I am in danger of rushing comments here with a mind full of other things, so I will leave it like this for now and come back later when I can be more focussed. I am currently working on an interesting diagram by Andreas Cellarius which I think makes a nice analogy to the Peace symbol, and I will post a copy when I get it finished today.

Eddy wrote:So if I've understood well (please correct me if I interpreted you wrong Margherita) from a point of view of the temperaments there are 'two' cycles, while there is 'one' cycle when it is compared with the Moon. However these two comparisons must collide at some points.

Hello Eddy, I never wrote that "there is one cycle when compared to the Moon."
I checked my notes to reply to you- they say that just outer planets can be compared with Moon cycle, but this is not possible for inner ones, because obviously they don't have the opposition to the Sun.
Maybe I was not clear in my English very sorry, forgive me.

About Deborah, I believe we mean the same thing, the two cycles are inside a greater one, so for example the vespertine rising has not the same meaning of matutine one.

And I agree too about the fact that a moist Saturn could never be moist as Venus.
Margherita

Thanks for the response Margherita. What follows is based on Eddy's discovery and is, I think, really lovely.

The diagram below presents a detail from plate number 21 of Dutch cosmographer Andreas Cellarius? Harmonia Macrocosmica, published in 1660. The actual plate is much more elaborate and is intended to show the different measurements of the inferior cycles compared with the Sun at apogee and perigee, but I?ve removed those details so that the Venus epicycle is clear to see. The diagram assumes that the Earth is in the centre, and that the thick gold ring in the middle is the Sun?s circuit around the Earth during the year.
The reason I like this diagram is because it gives a more traditional demonstration of why the points of maximum elongation don?t occur half way between superior and inferior conjunction. It is also this diagram which brought home (for me) Eddy?s association with the peace symbol. I followed the instructions that Eddy gave earlier (towards the end of page 3 of this thread) and adapted this diagram to show just how amazing that correspondence is. He has noticed something quite staggering because, as he has explained, there was no conscious attempt to align the peace symbol with the Venus phase cycle during its design (see quotes below). However, symbols are a little more magical than we sometimes realise them to be, as you can see from my next diagram where I show the alignment between the maximum elongation points and the corresponding longitude readings. I have overlapped (in green) an enlarged peace symbol which I simply copied from the web, and then resized into place, keeping the proportions restrained. Look how perfectly the diagrams fit ?
What I have shown specifically in this diagram corresponds to the third diagram on my previous sheet, which demonstrates the maximum elongation east of Venus
during her evening rising (superior) phase in August 2010. At that time the Sun is at 27 Leo, (note that the line which runs from the Earth through the middle of the Sun hits 27 Leo in the outside rim of the zodiac). The maximum elongation of Venus at that time is 46 degrees away from the Sun (at the exact moment of max. elong. Venus is at 12.35 Libra). You can see in the diagram how viewing Venus in this position of max. elong., whilst the Sun is at 27 Leo, would show Venus to be in the 13th degree of Libra. If the background zodiac were able to rotate, it would be possible to use the diagram to reveal the zodiac position of Venus at the other points in her cycle too.

Finding these kinds of correspondence is the reason why my fascination with astrology is constantly regenerated, so I didn?t want Eddy?s wonderful observation to go unnoticed. As he mentioned earlier, there is a really nice little article about the history of the Peace Symbol at http://www.odemagazine.com/blogs/reader ... l_turns_50

Because the first is so informative, and the second is so lovely, (and I want to make sure they are seen), I am going to quote below a couple of the comments from that page:

• "The symbol itself is a combination of the semaphoric signals for the letters "N" and "D," standing for Nuclear Disarmament. In semaphore the letter "N" is formed by a person holding two flags in an upside-down "V," and the letter "D" is formed by holding one flag pointed straight up and the other pointed straight down. These two signals imposed over each other form the shape of the peace symbol.
  ?
  Symbols perform a marvelous function in our world. They act as shorthand for meaning. My own experience of the Peace Symbol comes from the Scandinavian spiritual discipline of the Runes. It is the reversed position of the tenth Rune, called Algiz, which means protection.
  Ralph Blum calls it ?a mirror for the Spiritual Warrior.? How apt. His interpretation of this Rune reversed includes, ?You may not win, but you will never lose, for you will always learn from what takes place. Temperance and courtesy are the sinews of this Rune?s protective powers.
  
  Isn?t it delightful that such a ?new? symbol comes from such an ?old? one? Wisdom is the same the world over. It?s knowledge that comes from experience.
  
  Peace, too, dear one. It?s the action that comes from love."