Deb wrote:....I thought you were following the logic of Rudhyar where he wrote.... (......)

I had that in my mind when I read your comment, but now realise that was not the case.

Ah, now I see . "Full" can indeed be interpreted in different ways.

However, what you describe is not the traditional geocentric view either,

Perhaps this is why I'm afraid I perhaps cannot be a 'true' traditionalist, if that exists. The heliocentric model gives slight changes that in my opinion could alter some astrological views. That's probably one of the reasons I like Johannes Kepler's views. However on the other side I'm not so modern as the post-Leo astrologers. Being neither a traditionalist nor a modern traditionalist nor a modernist would this make me a traditional modernist ?

.....because as 'actually' seen from the Earth Venus loses its light at the superior conjunction,...

Well yes and no. In my last post, in the reply to Andrew I referred to 'magnitude', the brightness of a celestial object. I had a look in my 2009 astronomy guide. Here are some data on the magnitude of Venus:
From January to February increasing in brilliance to magn -4.3, thus after the greatest elongation.
Then decreasing to magn -3.3 end of March, inferior conjunction. Increasing to -4.2 end of April, thus before greatest elongation.
Then slowly decreasing to -3.4, however in the few weeks surrounding superior conjunction a slight increase to -3.5. (note that negative numbers signify a high brilliance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_magnitude

Mercury however has a very interesting and unexpected change of brilliance cycle. Mercury was in superior conjunction March 31st. I'll write down some data the astronomy guide mentions:
April 6, elongation 6? magnitude -1.5
April 16 elongation 16? magnitude -0.8
April 26 elongation 20? (date of greatest elongation) magnitude +0.4
May 6 elongation 16? magn +1.6
May 11 elongation 11 magn +2.3

Note that the best chance to see Mercury is next week short after sunset.

As Mercury approaches the brilliance decreases strongly. This is because Mercury is a relatively 'dark' planet. He relatively reflects less light than Venus and even is the darkest of the solar system. Venus, or better her thick cloud layer, is even the brightest of the solar system. The astronomers express this as the '(Bond) Albedo', Mercury has 5.6, Venus has 76. Mercury's visibility therefore depends largely on the part that is illuminated by the Sun.

(Remember that the Moon-like phases were unknown before Galileo).

I wouldn't be too sure about that. A keen eye may see Venus as a crescent sometimes and perhaps the babylonians knew that Venus could appear as a crescent, http://books.google.nl/books?id=O7D9AyU ... t&resnum=9

http://www.goines.net/Writing/venus.html

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.

Yesterday night I was thinking about the ages attributed by Ibn Ezra and your mentioning of determining (in horary?) the age of a thief (by the way wouldn't it be more appropriate to use Mercury for that?). If these ages are the rule then combined with the fact that about 10 weeks before and 10 weeks after inferior conjunction the greatest elongations occur, it follows that the chance that the age of a thief is between 18 and 54 is only 1 in 4 while in the other ages 0-18 and 54-72 together is 3 in 4. Isn't this a bit 'unfair'? I'm sorry for sometimes being the-annoying-pupil-in-class-with-an-endless-number-of questions-type .

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.

So the cycle cannot totally be compared with the Moon's as Margherita mentions in the post just after this one.

Gjiada wrote: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

The mistake was mine, I misinterpreted your words. I started the comparison with the Moon. However as I mentioned earlier I had my doubts about this myself. Yet not only with the interior planets but also with the outer planets. The orbits of Mars, Jupiter and Saturn appear to behave like the Moon with their 0?-180?-0? cycles but there are some differences.

Since the Moon's cycle is almost fully dependent on the increase and decrease of the light reflected and this is said to have their effect on nature, the concept of increase/decrease may perhaps not be attributed to the outer planets. Jupiter and Saturn reflect almost always exactly 100% of the light, in terms of phase (I mean illumination of the planet's disc) they are always 'full' while Mars' smallest phase still reflects some 88% of its disc. So strictly spoken the Moon (due to it's geocentricity and beinb closer than the Sun) is unique among the heavenly bodies and probably cannot be compared with any planet('s orbit).

However the cycle of the outer planets is still one of increase/decrease. In the first place the distance in degrees of the Sun and in the second place(related to the first) the brilliance of the planet (especially Mars) shows a coinciding increase/decrease cycle.

Deb I just saw your new post popping up when I was writing this one. First I'll post this one. It's already long enough .

Wow, this illustrates exactly what I meant Deb. And you used a plate of a fellow Dutchman . Is it difficult to learn to draw such diagrams with the computer and adapting pictures etc?

It seems that Cellarius illustrated the model of Tycho Brahe. Brahe believed that the planets orbit the Sun except the Earth. Instead, he thought the Sun orbits the Earth. Ptolemy's epycycles of Mercury and Venus are always within the Sun's 'sphaera', http://pallisgaard.com/blog/wp-content/ ... cycles.jpg that's why I believe this one to be Brahe's model.

Anyhow, this is how we experience heliocentricity as seen from Earth. But it can also be done with the Ptolemaic model. Just by putting the Sun's orbit outside the furthest point of Venus' epycycle. The peace symbol then is still retained.

Deb wrote: What follows is based on Eddy's discovery and is, I think, really lovely.

What a beautiful pictures! And yes, Eddy wrote many interesting things, I like this thread
margherita

.....because as 'actually' seen from the Earth Venus loses its light at the superior conjunction,...

Well yes and no. In my last post, in the reply to Andrew I referred to 'magnitude', the brightness of a celestial object. I had a look in my 2009 astronomy guide. Here are some data on the magnitude of Venus ?

Well yes and no? This is where we seem to have the different perspectives, because you are speaking astronomically, and I am speaking astrologically ? so neither of us is wrong, (but I?m the only one that?s right ).

All of the ancient symbolic meaning of the planetary phase cycles comes out of the fact that when planets and stars are conjunct the Sun ? and regardless whether it is the inferior or superior conjunction for Mercury and Venus - their own light is overwhelmed by the Sun?s light and they become invisible to us. This loss of light represents the loss of life-force for the planet and what it stands for. So Venus can have whatever brilliance, but right now ? where is she? Have you seen her yet? I fear we may never see her in Britain again because all the early mornings are so cloudy, or seem to be at my house. We have lost Venus and until we see her again she?s invisible. That?s what I mean when I say that the diagram where Venus is fully illuminated at the superior conjunction doesn?t apply in a traditional astrological sense, because it doesn?t relate to anything that the human senses can comprehend and interpret. The points in the cycle where Venus becomes visibly most brilliant are, of course, very important too.

the chance that the age of a thief is between 18 and 54 is only 1 in 4 while in the other ages 0-18 and 54-72 together is 3 in 4. Isn't this a bit 'unfair'? I'm sorry for sometimes being the-annoying-pupil-in-class-with-an-endless-number-of questions-type.

Ah, but this has to be set against a framework too. It is part of a technique that builds the profile up and it?s not the simple answer in itself. Life is never that simple, unfortunately. Neither is it always fair. Especially when you?ve just been robbed by a young girl or an old spinster.

I?m not sure about that picture being from the Brahe system. At that time the Copernican system was well established and Cellarius published illustrations on the many different systems of antiquity and his day, but when they were not based on the Copernican view it seems to have been his standard to point that out. Also he is not trying to depict a system in itself, only how the distances between the epicycles of Mercury and Venus and the Earth differ between apogee and perigee. Or maybe ? you could be right - but it seems a very natural perspective to take for how the cycles appear as see from Earth. Good point though, about it working just as well with the Sun behind the circle. The strange thing is that I saw the Peace symbol when I looked at this picture, because of the Sun's circle in the middle - yet like you say, we don't actually need it to be like that for the effect to work. It's not an exact technical drawing, of course - but then what does Venus care for such things?

Is it difficult to learn to draw such diagrams with the computer and adapting pictures etc?

Oh no - that's such a hard question to answer! Part of me wants to say "you bet", but compared to maths, astronomy, and things like primary directions it is not difficult at all. The main problem is that it takes a lot of time, so it really helps if you enjoy it.

Deb wrote:Well yes and no? This is where we seem to have the different perspectives, because you are speaking astronomically, and I am speaking astrologically ? so neither of us is wrong, (but I?m the only one that?s right ).

Different opinions can coexist and sometimes even complement each other. Furthermore I welcome any kind of criticism, as long as you agree with me .

...So Venus can have whatever brilliance, but right now ? where is she? Have you seen her yet? I fear we may never see her in Britain again because all the early mornings are so cloudy,...

She's back, I saw Venus this morning. I was woken up at ca. 3h am UT, either by that car-arlarm far away or by telepathically noticing that you were writing your post . Your post is an early one 3:37. As the sky was bright and cleaned by some rains of thursday I took my chance and cycled a few minutes to search her. And there she was, brilliant as always. So easily visible that I absolutely would have seen her two weeks ago, hadn't I been that lazy.

Ah, but this has to be set against a framework too. It is part of a technique that builds the profile up and it?s not the simple answer in itself. Life is never that simple, unfortunately. Neither is it always fair. Especially when you?ve just been robbed by a young girl or an old spinster.

The high chances that people of those ages were suspect can also be seen in the light of the cultural circumstances. Juvenile crime probably is of every era and in ancient times there was no pension or care for the elderly. Old people (over 54 was quite old in the past) were at the mercy of family if they had some, or had to rely on churches.

I?m not sure about that picture being from the Brahe system.

Perhaps not, that system never was really popular. The picture then probably shows how we see the heliocentric system what occurs from a 'fixed' earth. Just like heliocentricity didn't alter the way we set up our horoscope charts.

That plate is interesting to study in detail though. Note the point "centrvm eccentrici solis" close to "terra" in the center. The eccentricity of the Sun, that had also been studied by Hipparchus.


The Arcus Visionis mentioned by Ren? raises some questions:

Was it classically based on the real visibility of planets or rather from the theoretical point of view to be calculated with the ephemeris? If the real visibility is the thing then I believe this can only be applied to Venus, the other planets aren't bright enough to see this.

Is there something like an Arcus Non Visionis? The situation of Venus of a few weeks ago would be reversed in Australia with Venus setting before sunset and rising after sunrise.

If the Arcus Visionis is based upon the theory it can be remarked that at high latitudes this situation can occur during quite a long time. Especially with slow planets. In Spitsbergen Venus' Arcus Visionis might have lasted many weeks and in case of Saturn the Arcus Visionis can even last over half a year.

The Arcus Visionis mentioned by Ren? raises some questions:

Was it classically based on the real visibility of planets or rather from the theoretical point of view to be calculated with the ephemeris? If the real visibility is the thing then I believe this can only be applied to Venus, the other planets aren't bright enough to see this.

Arcus visionis is for all planets and stars - at least I understood like that. Bezza gives the example of Saturn. And from what I understand it is physical, it's not like a given orb.
Maybe Ren? could give more details, I don't want to copy much from Giuseppe Bezza

The high chances that people of those ages were suspect can also be seen in the light of the cultural circumstances. Juvenile crime probably is of every era and in ancient times there was no pension or care for the elderly. Old people (over 54 was quite old in the past) were at the mercy of family if they had some, or had to rely on churches.

I should strongly disagree. A thief is a thief, without any justification for his/her behaviour. Many people have a low income still they not spend their time to steal to others

Margherita

Gjiada wrote:

The high chances that people of those ages were suspect can also be seen in the light of the cultural circumstances. Juvenile crime probably is of every era and in ancient times there was no pension or care for the elderly. Old people (over 54 was quite old in the past) were at the mercy of family if they had some, or had to rely on churches.

I should strongly disagree. A thief is a thief, without any justification for his/her behaviour. Many people have a low income still they not spend their time to steal to others

Margherita

That's true and I do have my questions about the fairness of the method in which the chances of Venus' positions related to age 0-18 and 54-72 (and 72-90?). Furthermore one can question the choice of 72 for the cycle.

However (modern) statistics show that the peak age for male criminals is 18 and for females 15. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=442
I don't know if this Venus' age determination system was used around the 1600's but as witch-hunting was at full height in those days and poor and old people often were the victims, I can imagine that some could have abused this age measuring instrument to 'prove' that older people were thieves too. If this (has) occured in reality I would certainly disapprove but it explains the use of it.

Eddy wrote: However (modern) statistics show that the peak age for male criminals is 18 and for females 15. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=442
I don't know if this Venus' age determination system was used around the 1600....

But Venus is not a significator for thieves. Generally it's Mercury, no?

In my recent translation about planets and physiognomy

http://heavenastrolabe.net/physiognomy-and-planets/

Della Porta mentions Mercury and he is writing in XVII century. So it was the standard...

In every case it seems to me he mentions the Moon cycle as you mentioned: he gives two variants, in the first book Sulla fisionomia dell'uomo the first one (I believe you mentioned something like that), in Della Celeste fisonomia, the most known. I remember you talked about this, so I translated both.

Margherita

Gjiada wrote:But Venus is not a significator for thieves. Generally it's Mercury, no?

It wouldn't be the first time Venus had stuck a finger in the honey pot. How about Venus and embezzelment? I also think Venus could be accused of negligence.

Andrew Bevan wrote:

Gjiada wrote:But Venus is not a significator for thieves. Generally it's Mercury, no?

It wouldn't be the first time Venus had stuck a finger in the honey pot..

See here http://www.billyandcharlie.com/planets/venus.html please ......

Margherita

Ah, but this has to be set against a framework too. It is part of a technique that builds the profile up and it?s not the simple answer in itself. Life is never that simple, unfortunately. Neither is it always fair. Especially when you?ve just been robbed by a young girl or an old spinster.

Well this thread seems to have gone off at a tangent! I was being flippant you know, ... and I never said that Venus is a natural significator for a thief! The technique for building up a physical description can be used to describe any kind of person (I ?m sure I said something like ?if we want to describe, say, a thief ??). If Venus is the significator we are looking at then this technique is one of the factors that is taken into consideration, but of course it is only a contributor to the judgement. I only mentioned it at all because it shows that the ageing cycle starts with the superior conjunction, not the inferior conjunction !

Deb wrote:
Well this thread seems to have gone off at a tangent!

It's my fault, sorry. But I adore pictures of children of planets...
Margherita