Talking about essential planetary nature, I began to work with the samples I studied to my article on the angular malefics. I was trying to consider if the longevity charts had malefics in sect or not. In the same way, I was looking at the charts of people who died before 30 years of age, to see if they had the malefics out of sect.

Maybe this is another topic, but my first concern was about Mars: is he masculine or feminine? If I?ll work with sects it will be necessary to be sure about that.

Mars characteristics are more related to the masculine, but there is an edition of an Ibn Ezra book, translated from the Latin to Spanish by Editorial Biblioteca de Sirventa, Spain, named Los Judicios de Las Estrellas, The judgement On the Stars, in which Ibn Ezra says: Book l page 76 ( the translation is mine):
"Mars is feminine, hot and dry, it burns, is bad and harmful. Represents destruction, famine, fire that burns by accident, battles, lawsuits and discussions ... "

All the ancient authors that I know have considered Mars as masculine. But I?m not sure, because astrology is harmony, cosmos is harmony, and we have 4 masculine planets, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars and Sun, against only two feminine planets: Moon and Venus. Mercury is variable.

This does not work well, because a nocturnal nativity will have more chance of having planets out of sect, since it?s easy that 4 of the 6 planets be above the earth!

Another argument in favor of Mars being feminine is that he is nocturnal, and the nocturnal planets are feminine. More: he exalts in a feminine sign: Capricorn, and is considered as working better in Scorpio than in Aries.

So, what will be, masculine or feminine?

Clelia

Frawley did change his mind and his current position is that Saturn oriental is cold and dry. I think he suspended work on his natal book and is working on one on fixed stars. The information that he is in the cold and dry camp came from the woman who runs a Yahoo Group dedicated to John's methods and she got it directly from him. That was over a year ago.

I don't know if Morin discards all the rest, or just the conjunction with the Sun, but this is obviously out of whatever astrological tradition.

This is correct; he is not in the traditional mainstream and he knew it. Morin came along very late in the traditional astrology period. So late that he never lived to see his book Astrologia Gallica published. And when it was published it was ignored.

He spends a great deal of space criticizing Ptolemy and Cardan and others for their various positions. He spells out the reason why he thinks they were wrong. Prior to Morin much of astrology was dedicated to either "restoring" Ptolemy or correcting others who presented Ptolemy this way or that. I don't know of anyone who criticized Ptolemy and said that here and there he was flat out wrong. I know, that even if anyone did criticize him, no one attacked Ptolemy like Morin did. So strictly speaking he is not part of the mainstream tradition. He was a reformer. In my opinion a reform was long overdue. Morin may or may not have been the best person to do it, but someone needed to.

My idea is Morin was living when cosmos already worked in another way and and epicycles were at his back.

Keep in mind Morin was a Roman Catholic living in a Roman Catholic country and was at his intellectual peak when Galileo was being tried. He surely knew about it and he went to his grave believing the Sun moved around the Earth. However he did not accept Ptolemy's cosmos. Instead he accepted Tycho Brahae's system where the planets orbited the Sun, with the planets i tow and the Moon orbited the Earth. This did away with some of the intense calculations required to predict the planet's positions with epicycles and kept the Earth in the middle of the solar system and kept him out of trouble with the Church.

Morin just does not consider the phases of planets to the Sun

I don't know if he does or if he doesn't. Book 18 Chapter VIII discusses the strengths of the planets in relation to the Sun and Moon, but he seems to be disagreeing with Ptolemy on the grounds that Ptolemy was using the wrong organization of the Cosmos! So was Morin. I'll have to check into that.

Tom

Frawley did change his mind and his current position is that Saturn oriental is cold and dry.

Saturn is cold and dry in its basic, essential temperament - more precisely, it is chiefly cooling, but also moderately drying (Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos I.4). However, as Margherita mentioned earlier, the temperaments of all the planets alter according to their synodic phases. They all have more moisture when the phase is new - for Saturn this is when he is oriental. So Saturn is least drying when oriental and most drying when occidental. (The tem 'oriental' refers to the solar phase and not the placement of the planet near to the ascendant or descendant, etc).


Hi Clelia

I think the Ezra reference must include a mistranslation or confusion with the nocturnal assignment of Mars, because there has never been any doubt about its definition as a masculine planet. The masculine principle is tied to the production of heat and dryness - the only reason Mars is aligned to the nocturnal sect is to 'moderate its extreme', not because of a similarity of principle.

Regards
Deb

Saturn is cold and dry in its basic, essential temperament - more precisely, it is chiefly cooling, but also moderately drying (Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos I.4).

Tetrabiblos 1:4 (Robbins) is not Ptolemy at his best.

It is Saturn's quality chiefly to cool and moderately to dry, probably because he is furthest removed from the sun's heat and the moist exhalations of the earth. Both in Saturn's case and in that of the other planets there are powers, too, which arise through the observation of their aspects to the sun and to the moon, for some appear to modify conditions in the ambient in one way, some in another, by increase or decrease

I love the word "probably." It does not inspire confidence in the reader. But where is the moisture that is said to be part of his influence when oriental of the Sun? He then goes not to Jupiter but to Mars.

The nature of Mars is chiefly to dry and to burn in conformity with fiery color and by reason of his nearness to the sun, for the Sun's sphere lies just below him.

Putting the color remark aside Mars is hot and dry because he is close to the Sun. Now we go back to Jupiter:

Jupiter has a temperate active force because his movement takes place between the cooling influence of Saturn and the burning power of Mars. He both heats and humidifies; and because his heating power is greater by reason of the underlying spheres, he produces fertilizing winds.

But where does the humidity come from? Saturn and Mars are both dry. He is too far from the earth and moon to have any moisture. I don't have a lot of confidence in his explanations in this section, and I get the impression he is groping a bit in order to make them understandable. I wonder if he understands what is writing or if he is just repeating something handed down to him, and is as uncomfortable with this as I am.

Tom

At this point I believe Frawley is right.

Not just because I am not such a fan of Ptolemy (although somethings are spot on, like the ruler of manners) and his scheme of dry-wet and proximity to the sun, moon. As Tom pointed out, this simply doesn?t fit in.

But, as Deb noted above, there is a huge difference between a planet to become less dry and a planet to become wet!

Tom wrote: But where does the humidity come from? Saturn and Mars are both dry. He is too far from the earth and moon to have any moisture. I don't have a lot of confidence in his explanations in this section, and I get the impression he is groping a bit in order to make them understandable. I wonder if he understands what is writing or if he is just repeating something handed down to him, and is as uncomfortable with this as I am.

Tom

This is the chapter of Tetrabiblos about the planetary phases

http://www.sacred-texts.com/astro/ptb/ptb11.htm

THE respective powers of the Moon and of the three superior planets are either augmented or diminished by their several positions with regard to the Sun.

The Moon, during her increase, from her first emerging to her first quarter, produces chiefly moisture; on continuing her increase from her first quarter to her full state of illumination, she causes heat; from her full state to her third quarter she causes dryness; and from her third quarter to her occultation she causes cold.

The planets, when matutine, and from their first emerging until they arrive at their first station, are chiefly productive of moisture; from their first station until they rise at night, of heat; from their rising at night until their second station, of dryness; and from their second station until their occultation, they produce cold

If Ptolemy is wrong, thEn it's wrong even Lilly and all the other authors when they talk about temperament.

If Frawley say Saturn is dry when in its heliacal rising surely this is not TRADITIONAL.

margherita

Hi Tom

Tetrabiblos 1:4 (Robbins) is not Ptolemy at his best.

I have no problem with the passage. However, this is not Ptolemy?s invention, it is merely his explanation of something that was commonly understood in his era. Ptolemy is just a convenient reference for demonstrating that Saturn is essentially more cooling than drying.

But where is the moisture that is said to be part of his influence when oriental of the Sun? He then goes not to Jupiter but to Mars.

Ptolemy moves on to Mars because he moves from the destructive quality of cooling to the destructive quality of drying (cooling and drying are destructive/malefic whereas warming -Jupiter- and moistening -Venus- are creative/benefic).
The moisture comes from the fact that all new cycles abound in moisture in their first quarter (as Margherita has shown). This is implicit in Ptolemy?s work, and across a wide variety of ancient and traditional sources.

I don?t have a lot of confidence in his explanations in this section, and I get the impression he is groping a bit in order to make them understandable. I wonder if he understands what is writing or if he is just repeating something handed down to him, and is as uncomfortable with this as I am.

But I don?t think Ptolemy is uncomfortable with the principle at all. I understand it, and it seems to me that Ptolemy didn?t ?over explain? this because probably it was such a basic and widely accepted principle in his day and age. Unfortunately, it is more likely to be modern astrologers who grope with this, and explain it without truly understanding it. (And, unfortunately, students are too willing to switch their acceptance of whether Saturn is cold and moist when oriental, or cold or dry when oriental, simply because another astrologer says so).

I also think that Morin failed to understand the arguments that he was arguing against, but you explained some of the reasons for this yourself - the world view was shifting in his day and age, and so neither he (nor Lilly, I would say*) seem to fully appreciate the philosophy built into the synodic cycles.

Regards
Deb

* The point about Lilly is that he incorporates the older view, but just doesn't explain it very well.

Good Afternoon Deb,

(And, unfortunately, students are too willing to switch their acceptance of whether Saturn is cold and moist when oriental, or cold or dry when oriental, simply because another astrologer says so).

Instead we are taking Ptolemy's word for it, a man who may have never cast a horoscope in his life. We have to believe somebody.

Understanding his words isn't difficult, but understanding how and why he or his predecessors gets there is another matter. As you say Deb, it was handed down to him, but to me it sounds like one grand rationalization.

The moisture comes from the fact that all new cycles abound in moisture in their first quarter.

But he is not describing cycles in this section. He is describing the natures of the planets and how they get that way from their proximity to other planets. If Jupiter's moisture comes from a new cycle, all planets should be moist unless they are burned up by the Sun unless they're like Mercury who gets moisture from Venus who gets it from the earth or maybe the Moon etc. Even if those things he is saying were literally true (e.g. the earth and Moon give off moisture that is absorbed by nearby planets), his explanation is a confused stretch.

The way I see it is if Ptolemy is right about Saturn he is wrong about Jupiter and vice versa. This is not comforting.

* The point about Lilly is that he incorporates the older view, but just doesn't explain it very well.

And I can guess why. He scratched his head over this section, too.

Hi Margherita. I hope this finds you well

If Frawley say Saturn is dry when in its heliacal rising surely this is not TRADITIONAL.

Surely there is some room in the tradition to wiggle a bit. Like modern astrology, we can find traditional authorities that disagree on this or that. Why can't we do the same?

I sincerely hope the ashes stay away from all the Europeans on Skyscript.

Tom

Instead we are taking Ptolemy's word for it, a man who may have never cast a horoscope in his life. We have to believe somebody. ... it is merely his explanation of something that was commonly understood in his era.

Well I am not simply taking Ptolemy's word for this, as I said, because the principle is consistent across a number of traditional authors, and I understand it. I only mentioned Ptolemy at all for the reference on Saturn being chiefly cooling. However, it happens to be the case that Ptolemy gives a reliable explanation according to the traditional philosophy upon which these things are based. I simply do not understand why you think this is a matter of taking 'Ptolemy's opinion' or that of someone else.

The way I see it is if Ptolemy is right about Saturn he is wrong about Jupiter and vice versa.

I don't understand the reason for this comment. It is necessary to read more than that one chapter of Ptolemy to understand the philosophy of planetary temperaments and phases.

Surely there is some room in the tradition to wiggle a bit. Like modern astrology, we can find traditional authorities that disagree on this or that. Why can't we do the same?

A disagreement would fail to explain the traditional philosophy that lies behind the principle, and without that, everything we are working with is meaningless and pointless. But I will leave this discussion now because I don't have the time to go into more detail here, and didn't realise what I was saying would be considered so controversial. It is something that I expain fully to my students and upon which I will publish fully referenced explanations when time permits.

Best wishes
Deb

Hi Deb!

Hi Clelia

I think the Ezra reference must include a mistranslation or confusion with the nocturnal assignment of Mars, because there has never been any doubt about its definition as a masculine planet. The masculine principle is tied to the production of heat and dryness - the only reason Mars is aligned to the nocturnal sect is to 'moderate its extreme', not because of a similarity of principle.

I don?t think so, since the translator presented the fac simile( in Latin and not Arabic, though). Ibn Ezra, as Morin, sometimes presented different points of view from most ancient astrologers, as when he admited( I don?t have the source just now, sorry) that planets can be in conjunction even in different signs.
Also in The Beginning of Wisdom pag 37, translated by Shlomo Sela ediction Brill, Ezra says, page 37:
"They concluded that Saturn is masculine and one of of the diurnal stars, because its nature is tempered in the heat of the day, and that Mars is the opposite: they therefore concluded that it is feminine and one of the nocturnal stars"

I don?t know who were the astrologers called " They"

I found out that Ben Ragel also thought that Mars was feminine:

Ali Ben Ragel, El Libro Complido de Los Judicios de las estrellas? The Long Book on the Judgements of the Stars, translated in the court of king Affonso the Sage, published by La Real Academia Espa?ola , 1954
These books ( he wrote 5 books in a roll, this is why they are named the Long Book on the Judgement of the Stars) are currently in Spanish.
I?ll provide a translation of the sentence where Ben Ragel says:
Page 11 B, Book I:
?Mars is hot and dry, fiery, of natural maleficence, nocturnal, female, wasterer, bad, pettish, winner, cruel, loves to kill and bloodshed ??etc.

and

Al Biruni says in ?Book of Instruction in the Elements of the Art of Astrology? Published by Antioch Gate 2007, page 237
? Mars is extremely hot and dry. The lesser malefic. Male (some say female). Nocturnal. Bitter. Dark red.?


The majority of astrologers considered Mars as a male planet, and his nocturnal quality is considerad an exception.

best regards

Clelia

I?m not the only one. From Book 13 Chapter 1 of Astrologia Gallica, James Holden translator.

?This moreover, must be begun with that prince of astrologers, Ptolemy, who indeed in assigning the individual qualities of the individual planets did not deviate much from the truth, but with regard to their causes he lapses into the absurd and contradictory, namely since he expounds the arrangement of the planets their distance from the Earth, the Sun, and from each other for causes in Book 1, Chapter 4 of the Quadripartite. For if (as he will have it) Saturn is cold and dry because it is very greatly distant from the Sun and the vapors of the Earth; therefore by that same reasoning Mars will be colder than Venus, because it is indeed more distant from the Sun. Moreover Jupiter, will be drier than Mars, because it is further from the Earth. Besides if Jupiter is consequently of a temperate nature because it moves in the middle between Saturn and the burning Mars, therefore Mars, which is in the middle of Jupiter and Venus will be the most temperate of all the planets.?

In this last sentence I think Morin refers to Tycho Brahe?s system. In Ptolemy?s system the Sun would be between Mars and Venus. I?m not that familiar with Tycho?s system, so this just may be an error on Morin?s part. I just know that he preferred Tycho?s arrangement of the solar system. However his observations are otherwise valid and he goes on and on and on in the same vein. In terms of the nature of the planets Morin taught that Jupiter was hot and dry not hot and moist, which in Ptolemy?s system makes more sense since neither Mars nor Saturn are moist. He discusses the reasons for this (and presumably the reasons for the nature of the other planets) in Book 9, which has not been translated into English. I?m not sure why he says that Mars is farther from the Sun than Venus, but his point is still valid. The logic behind Ptolemy?s reasoning is difficult to follow.