Gjiada wrote:

Eddy wrote: Is the traditional rule then the same ecliptical degree of Sun and Moon or the time of greatest eclipse, which is the moment that the centers of Sun and Moon are at closest distance?

Hello Eddy, but you were not studying for your exam? And on the contrary you spend time with astrology...


I don't take the conjunction of Lights because the traditional rule is "the middle of the eclipse."

Generally I take the point of maxim obscuration (from Nasa site).
In fact eclipses does not last the same time everywhere, but this you know more than me, I generally struggle with astronomy

margherita

The exam was last thursday at 19:00, now the several days after I took some relaxing days off. By the way, this is a part time study, and I work part time, I consider this as my second life . However after the weekend I'll have to concentrate on the studies again. Which can be quite difficult when there are these interesting subjects on the forum. I'm a person who is very easily distracted. Perhaps we could ask Deb to close the website on weekdays .

What about this passage then? Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos II.8 (last sentence)

tetrabiblos wrote:Usually, however, those men are affected by the more universal ills who in their own genitures happen to have the most essential places, by which I mean those of the luminaries or of the angles, the same as those that furnish the cause of the general misfortunes, that is, the places of the eclipses or the places directly opposite. Of these the positions most dangerous and hardest to avoid are those in which either of their luminaries is in possession of the very degree of the place of the eclipse, or the degree opposite.

I'd believe the ecliptical degree is meant here.

Eddy wrote:I'd believe the ecliptical degree is meant here.

But see after in the same book, chapter 7

It must however be premised, that as an eclipse, occurring at any particular season, cannot happen in all climates at the same temporal or solar hour, so neither will the magnitude of the obscuration, nor the time of its continuance, be equal in all parts of the world. First, therefore (as is done in a nativity), the angles are to be arranged, in every country connected with the eclipse, according to the hour at which the eclipse, takes place and the elevation of the pole in that country.

If you consider that according Ptolemy the effect depends on the material phenomenon, and it depends on the real duration of the eclipse, it is obvious that it will be maxim when the obscuration is maxim.

margherita

Gjiada wrote:But see after in the same book, chapter 7

I had to search for a while, since I usually use this Tetrabiblos
http://www.geocities.com/astrologysourc ... htm#side30 The text you mention is here in II.6.
I believe this one is Robbins

Do you use this one? http://www.sacred-texts.com/astro/ptb/index.htm
Ashmand

The text I quoted is in II.9 in this translation.

Tetrabiblos-Ashmand wrote:And all these general affections, of whatever kind, whether good or evil, will be principally felt by those persons in whose individual nativities there may be found the same disposition of the luminaries (which are the most essential significators), or the same angles, as those existing during the eclipse which operates the general affection. The same remark equally applies to other persons, in whose nativities the disposition of the luminaries and of the angles may be in opposition to that existing during the eclipse. With respect to these coincidences, the partile agreement, or opposition, of the ecliptical place of the luminaries to the place of either luminary in a nativity, produces an effect at least capable of being guarded against. 1

Here it is different, while in the other text the degree of the eclipse is written, here it is less clear to me what is meant, the positions of both luminaries in the ecliptic, which can be different. And the text doesn't say they should be in the same degree. Perhaps I now should have a look at the angles of the location of the earthquake charts according to the time of maximum magnitude of the eclipse. I will look at both later.

This is really difficult material. I don't have a particular reason why I use the other translation, it's the first one I ever found and I simply always look in that one.

Do I remember well that you once wrote that you had a teacher for learning to understand the Tetrabiblos? Now I understand why.

Eddy wrote:
This is really difficult material. I don't have a particular reason why I use the other translation, it's the first one I ever found and I simply always look in that one.

Do I remember well that you once wrote that you had a teacher for learning to understand the Tetrabiblos? Now I understand why.

Well, generally I don't use any English version.

But yes, I followed a course with Giancarlo Ufficiale who is a friend and a pupil of Giuseppe Bezza and I'm between members of CieloeTerra.

Anyway I don't think I'm the only one to take the maximum obscuration; Steven Birchfield does the same I believe, at least he wrote like that in Interpres_stellarum list.

Anyway maybe I found something even more traditional

Girolamo Cardano, Comment to the II book of Tetrabiblos, par. 26 (I know that Anglosaxons prefer Seven Segments because Lily quotes it, but that is just a juvenile work):

If it is necessary that the eclipse is seen, so its strength does not depend on the fact that both Lights are exactly on the same line, which is called ecliptic.......In fact Ptolemy judges the magnitude of an eclipse according the extension of the places interested and the intensity of the effects: but in solar eclipses, because of the distance of the aspect, often happens that the Sun is more obscured when the Moon is leaving the ecliptic, and it would be lesser if the Moon would be on the same line. So the strength of the eclipse is in the lacking of light, and not from the proximity of the Moon to the ecliptic, even if I don't deny that this distance too is important for the magnitude of the effect.

margherita

Gjiada wrote:Anyway maybe I found something even more traditional

Girolamo Cardano, Comment to the II book of Tetrabiblos, par. 26 (I know that Anglosaxons prefer Seven Segments because Lily quotes it, but that is just a juvenile work):

If it is necessary that the eclipse is seen, so its strength does not depend on the fact that both Lights are exactly on the same line, which is called ecliptic.......In fact Ptolemy judges the magnitude of an eclipse according the extension of the places interested and the intensity of the effects: but in solar eclipses, because of the distance of the aspect, often happens that the Sun is more obscured when the Moon is leaving the ecliptic, and it would be lesser if the Moon would be on the same line. So the strength of the eclipse is in the lacking of light, and not from the proximity of the Moon to the ecliptic, even if I don't deny that this distance too is important for the magnitude of the effect.

margherita

Thanks for Cardano's quotation. This discusses what I meant. However it also gives me more to think about. Knowing the mathematics/astronomy is not always a blessing .

Eddy wrote:Knowing the mathematics/astronomy is not always a blessing .

Well, there is in Italy a very envious girl......

margherita