I believe neither me or Deborah are people who venerate someone, Frawley or Ptolemy or Bezza or Schmidt

I was speaking in general terms and in fact had the old astrologers in mind when I made those comments. I did not have anyone specific in mind much less anyone here.

Tom

I knew that

Hello Tom, Deb, Magherita and everyone

I've intedend to post some considerations in this thread about the concern that Ptolemy explanation of temperaments raises, cause when Tom brought the subject to the fore, I myself already felt uncomfortable with it. The doubt raised by Morin is (partially) valid in my opinion, if we just follow the model Ptolemy presented us, Jupiter would be hot and dry. But after some thinking I believe that as any philosopher from his time, Ptolemy was trying to deviate from a simple mytical explanation to how astrology works (it was considered a science in his time after all, although the concept of science was very different during his age, and a degree of conflict was already present that would blow in Al-Biruni and Kepler's time). The theory of elements and the opposites like hot/cold, dry/wet is actually very old, probably originated from Babylon/Egypt and the chaldeans, and the first to touch the subject in a way that distance itself from myth was Tales (using the portuguese adaptation of names here), who said that all begins with water (any reminiscence to the Thema Mundi is probably not co-incidental). After him, his disciple Anaximenes already changed the theory to satisfy a concept of physis, in which this principle was actually air. Between them, there was Anaximaro, that talked about ?-peiron, as the absence of limits of quantitative and qualitative value explaining the principle of existence. Others would follow, stating it was actually fire, and so on...

So, there was disagreement on elements and their function, but I believe that the astrological model is very neat indeed, and there is justification in it for the planetary essential temperaments being traditionaly as they are. One thing we should accept first is, since the Sun is hot and dry, as we perceive fire like that, the Moon (and hence the night) can only be the opposite, cold and wet, dealing with the ocean and the winds. I did an scheme to make my point:

-----Saturn-----Jupiter---Mars---Sun----Venus---Mercury--Moon
--cold-----------hot--------hot---<hot>----hot------hot-------cold--
-----dry---------dry--------dry-----dry------wet-----wet------<wet>

Capricorn------Sagitarius--Aries----Leo---Libra----Gemini--Cancer

The arrows represent how the qualities spread, heat from the Sun in the center, and moisture from the Moon at the end. It's interesting to observe that in this scheme, all signs under the rays of the Sun show their diurnal quality. As the Moon is the essential nocturnal planet, reigning only when he sets, it is her nocturnal (and only) domicile that appears. For Saturn, as he is at the extreme opposite, far from the Sun's influence, as the Moon, it is also his nocturnal domicile which appears. This scheme is very interesting as it shows a hypothesis for the construction of domiciles. It shows as well how Mercury can relate to the concept of children and brothers, being nearer the sphere of the Moon and being touched by the Sun's it creates in Gemini an analogy for brothers as presented by Al-Biruni in a lot from one of his books (imho). Also is shown how the material genesis is processed on the inferior sphere, where the Moon reigns (being the other side of the Sun) through the casting of light onto darkness and uniting the principle of moisture to that of heat. I should point that ice is probably not a cold and moist thing, it's cold and dry, hence, the absence of light shows that water's moisture becomes dry (falling under Saturn alongside) as this concept is important to understand the point of how heat produces life/animation possible through moisture. Now, I will present the same scheme in a reversed way to make another point:

Moon-----Mercury----Venus------Sun----Mars----Jupiter---Saturn
--cold---------hot---------hot----<hot>---hot------hot----cold----
<wet>---wet----------wet---------dry------dry------dry----dry----

Cancer-----Gemini------Libra------Leo-----Aries---Sagitarius--Capricorn

When you reverse the chaldaic order of speed of the planets, it's clear which star opposes to which by principle, there is an in-built symmetry. Mercury opposes Jupiter, Venus opposes Mars, and the Moon (genesis) opposes Saturn (decay). Now, each other domicile a planet may have just reverses the quality of the first in the following scheme:

Saturn > cold/dry Capricorn shifts to wet/hot Aquarius
Jupiter > hot/dry Sagitarius shifts to wet/cold Pisces
Mars > hot/dry Aries shifts to cold/wet Scorpio
Sun > only diurnal
Venus > hot/wet Libra shifts to cold/dry Taurus
Mercury > hot/wet Gemini shifts to cold/dry Virgo
Moon > only nocturnal

The principle each of the planets had at day becomes the exact opposite at night. Now, although this scheme could explain the essential temperament of 5 of the 7 planets, Jupiter and Mercury still would pose a problem. At first I was ready to say that was because of the changeable nature of Mercury, but then, I acknoledged there were other factors at play in this. We would suppose that the planets essential meaning is the form/enviroment they should have in order to perform it's best. Each domicile represents this philosophy to a certain extent, but there is also distance and interplay of elements, the inner philoshophy in which they simbolically operate to our eyes and the influence of other bodies near them, alongside the qualities of another place where the planet is supposedly very strong, and that is exaltation. So let's look at how is the sum of temperaments from a planet's domicile with that of his exaltation:

Saturn - hot/wet + cold/dry + hot/wet
Jupiter - cold/wet + cold/wet + hot/dryMars - hot/dry + cold/wet + cold/dry
Sun - hot/dry + hot/dry
Venus - hot/wet + cold/dry + cold/wet
Mercury - hot/wet + cold/dry + cold/dry
Moon - cold/wet + cold/dry

Above I've highlited Saturn, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and the Moon because here they all could pose a problem. First the malefics: Saturn would have to be hot/wet and Mars cold/dry according to this. But are we not told that the malefics receive their domiciles because essentially they are too extreme in their qualities? So in the case of the malefics, hot/wet and cold/dry are places where they behave better cause there their extreme heat, coldness, and dryness are somewhat mitigated. In the case of Mars, where you see cold/wet, you should see hot/dry, and of Saturn, where you see hot/wet you should see cold/dry. Now, I think that this scheme also reveals a little more about the why to some Mars behaves better in his nocturnal domicile of Scorpio than his "natural" one of Aries and why Saturn is better in his diurnal one of Aquarius than his "natural" one of Capricorn. In Scorpio Mars is less dry and in Aquarius Saturn is less cold.

About Venus, I should point that she is the planet alongside Mercury that have been most questioned as to which is her true nature in the history of astrology. Some say she is hot/wet and others say cold/wet. I do think that all the inferior planets tend more to coldness than to heat essentially (hence they are always near the Sun ^_^), but I'm not to assertive on this. Venus is moderate cold following this scheme although in a diurnal chart she would be (obviously) hotter.

Now, just to close this, some comments on the remaining planets. Jupiter appears here as leaning more to cold and wet than to hot and wet. Still, no source ever considered it cold, they said it was moderate hot. Also, the scheme taking exaltation into account already crumbles in the case of Mars, that if received the reversing treatment like did to Saturn (cold means hot and wet means dry) we would fail at the final result. Still, it's not a 2 + 2 = 4 type of calculation. But at the very least, showing some value to it, the diurnal domiciles of the planets are perfectly arranged in this (revealing a truth about the domiciles, rather than to the planetary natures). Also, we should not be too strict, the principle of water + fire gives air, and Jupiter is indeed a lord of rains, so his moderation exists still even if it has too much moisture here opposed to his dryness in the first scheme, making it... moderate after all.

About the Moon, I think it is downright scary how perfectly this scheme describes her. Although the Sun gets two hot/dry, the Moon is cold/wet in Cancer and cold/dry in Taurus. There is a face of the Moon that is always turned to us, and the Earth is, after all in agreement to this, a body of water, so cold/wet. As the ancients sensed/knew the Moon had a side always turned to us, they concluded that another side, a cold/dry one, never receiving sunlight to our eyes, in fact existed (her exaltation, that also could relate to how it's her far-side covering the Sun in a eclipse).

Hi Paulo
Unfortunately I can only make this quick post as I am preparing for a weekend workshop, and I don?t want to make a thoughtless response to something you have given a lot of attention to. I can tell you that one of the major problems I have with your proposal is that it defines Jupiter as essentially hot and dry, but as you admit, no traditional authority records this and I would not be able to accept it ? it breaks down too many other traditional schemes that utilise the humoral qualities of the planets. For example, in decumbiture, Jupiter governs the element of air, signifies blood and is seated in the liver because its effect upon the humours is temperately warm and moist. So for me, any scheme that makes Jupiter a dry planet by default, has no value.

With regard to Morin?s criticism of Ptolemy?s account of Jupiter, his problem was that he had lost understanding of the ancient worldview. Like we do, he assumed that all heat must come from the Sun, and all moisture must come from the oceans or clouds around the Earth. But ancient philosophers appeared to have viewed the cosmos as internally moist, right up to the crystalline spheres; so that the element of moisture was diffused throughout all the areas where there was enough warmth to absorb moisture into the air (like a cloud), but not too much heat to drive the moisture away. This allowed for concentrated ?hot spots? or ?moist/dry spots?, and the point Ptolemy makes about Jupiter is that it is a healthily warming planet which is moderate and temperate in effect (and so creative and fertile) because it is between the sphere of Mars (which is destructive because it has too much heat) and Saturn (which is destructive because it lacks heat). Jupiter is not an overly moist planet because its main principle is warming; but it is moist enough to signify the principle of activity and creativity.

I think Ptolemy's explanation is important, because the natural humoral influence of Jupiter is not 'hot' or 'wet'; it is just naturally warming, and a little moist.

Most importantly, I think we should remember that these are philosophical realities, not technical realities - hence to me it only makes sense to perpetuate this philosophy according to its own tradition. Personally speaking, I have no interest in a new approach to the humoral teachings, (not even a ?new, improved approach? because I see them as a route to understanding the traditional principles and not something that is a provable or a practical technique in its own right.
I really hope that doesn?t seem dismissive after such a thoughtful post.
Deb

Hello Deb, that was not dimissive at all, it was helpfull as a matter of fact. Supposing I understand your point, the point in my post is exactly to show that which you explain (alongside some other things regarding the astrological symmetry ). When I used the cold/dry analogy to ice, and the fact that Mars is actually closer to the Sun, Saturn farther, and Jupiter right in the middle, it points that moisture is present in a not so hot enviroment (the fact that in the absence of light is where we find dryness that thouched by light can be heated and becomes water, and that water when heated to a certain point, becomes air).

I used Tales to point that the world begun in water (Cancer) precisely for this reason. What I'm trying here (and forgive me if I did not put it in a comprehensible way) is to validate the essential temperaments according to the way they were presented by the majority of authors, not the contrary.

About Jupiter, I'm not presenting it as a hot/dry planet in the scheme, I'm trying to show the nature of the domiciles they rule, and how these relate to the planet (as it is common that people think that essential temperament = domicile temperament) but also that the essential temperament is to be derived from other factors as well. I believe I do understand the moisture/dryness "spots" theory and agree with it - but we may consider that Venus is hot/moist because of her proximity to the Sun as one factor, and I should point that not even the acients fully agreed on her, and these doubts probably arised from some debate over their own philosophy and it's application in astrology - so for simplicitie's sake I was using the perspective of elements with the Sun and Moon as key points (since these two are the main source for us) so that then I would further go on the explanation of other factors in the second half of the post (where I did fail since I did not write all that I had in mind). Still, in the scheme the arrows are there to try and show that although planets are far from the Sun's heat, as Saturn, or from the Moon's moisture, these elements still are present, diminishing or augmenting as they go farther and I actually tried to point these as implicit in the scheme, but I think all this was only in my brain after all

Also, since the Sun is not the only source of heat as there is, i.e, the fixed stars (with their own light, although I'm not sure the ancients would accept this example, since they "do not move" and appear proportional to the planets) and since the principle here is that a very brilliant star sharing light would be hot and dry (at least the sun fits this) it is only natural to agree that what is not illuminating belongs to the opposite nature which is cold and wet, and can be driven away by excessive heat or made into life/animated, but still prone to corruption, by a infusion of this same heat. In the same way, it can be made too cold and dry without any source of light, making life unbearable because of the lack of spirit, getting rigid the more it goes away from light untill dissolving into oblivion.

Ps: I did some edits in the post to see if it gets clearer/more correct. If not, all I can say is that I fully agree that Jupiter is warming and moist.

Hi Clelia

Meira Epstein has taken a look at the thread and sends the following as her comment on the point you raised earlier, about the gender of Mars:

===Quoting Meira ===============

I do not think that Ibn Ezra refers to Mars as female gender in the usual way, meaning ? representing a female person the way the Moon or Venus do. In all cases where Mars? action is described, it is malefic male imagery (robbers, assassins, destroyers), and the language supports it: All Hebrew verbs, objects and adjectives have gender, and Mars always comes up as male.

The ?female? quality is actually the ?passive? quality that is attributed to the water and earth signs, both of which are ?cold?. The night also cools down and tames Mars? fiery nature, and the night is the domain of the Moon ? the female luminary. Thus, Mars by night in Scorpio or in Capricorn, in the nocturnal sect, is the optimal placement for it.

The male-female classification also follows a pattern of symmetry:
Sun-Moon (the two lights)
Jupiter-Venus (the two benefics)
Saturn-Mars (the two malefics)

Quotes:

The Book of Reasons (p.31)

The statement below looks like a contradiction to the above, but can be interpreted as: Mars can be taken as male at night, because the excessive aggression or damage are tempered by the cooling effect.

Mars is hot and dry as his image is hot, and do not heed the author of the book ?Four Chapters? who said that he is hot because he is higher than the Sun. He signifies brothers, as I have mentioned in connection with Jupiter, and [because of] the great heat and dryness, he indicates dispute and war, and fevers and the increase of the blood, and the red bile. His is the right nostril for he is higher than Venus, and right is more dignified than left. He is the planet of anger because of the great heat, and courage and strength, because of his nature. He is male by night for then he is moderate. (from text footnote: Mars is the only masculine and nocturnal planet.)

The Book of Reasons ? long version (Fleischer edition, p.32):

For they judged Saturn to be male and of the diurnal planets, for its nature (cold) is tempered by the heat of the day. It is the opposite for Mars (as its hot nature is tempered by the cool of the night), and therefore they judged it to be female and of the nocturnal planets.

The Book of Nativities (on the 3rd House)

Mars is a Universal Indicator of Siblings:

If the Lot [of Brothers] is in a male sign, and the ruler of the lot is oriental of the Sun or in one of the quadrants of the wheel which are male and in a male sign, and the third house is in a male sign and the ruler [of the third house] and Mars are in male places, [then] the native will not have sisters but brothers [only]. If it is the reverse, [meaning] that they are all [in] female [places], [then] it will be the opposite;

The Book of Nativities (on the 10th House)

Mars - Tempered ?By Night?:

If Saturn is in the tenth house in a diurnal nativity, especially if it has dominion over the nativity, or it is in one of the pivots, it indicates the high rank to which the native will come after 30 years have passed. If the nativity is by night he will always have fear and harm because of kings. If Mars is in the tenth house by day, great fear and terror will befall him from military commanders, and if by night, he will have rank with the military commanders; he will get into dangers, and will escape.

The Judgment of the Signs (Mishpatei haMazalot):

Recognition of contradiction, because a male planet naturally belongs with the sect of the Sun, not the Moon.

About Mars:

??its power is at night, even though it is a male planet.?

Regards
Deb

PS - Paulo, sorry about misunderstanding your point before. I was doing too too much rushing about between different things!

I will again use Deb as an opening inspiration (if she doesn't mind):

. . . I do agree that Sun conjunct Mars results in destructive Mars-type effects. I see this as the Sun destroying them, and they being able to harm the Sun to a diminishing effect, dependent upon the limit of combustion. Hence a planet 'under the rays' at 15? is still able to put up a good fight, but as the meeting gets closer, the planet loses its strength dramatically in the last few degrees.

Dryness has been discussed but I'm not sure if anyone directly suggested that this is possibly a matter of dryness gone wild. Maybe the malefics retaining power to harm as they head into combustion is due to the fact that Mars and Saturn are both dry. Dryness divides & separates, but as the Sun approaches they are being forced into union, into joining with something other than themselves. They are being forced to do something against their nature, so they resist until the Sun overwhelms them. Which, of course, brings us to popcorn: When I dump the seeds into the air popper the tension mounts as they spin around and begin to swell with pressure. Dryness, activated by heat, forces a separative action and the seeds shoot out as popcorn kernels (and onto the floor or behind the refrigerator. I'll find them eventually). The seeds have been forced into a new state and, after the initial resistance, now just lie there waiting for the butter and salt.

Jupiter, Venus and the Moon, however are moist, and are therefore more at ease with joining and coming together ? so they don't produce divisive or harmful actions. Being by nature moist joiners and connectors they have an idea what it's all about, even if they aren't particularly wild about being swallowed and consumed by the Sun. Mercury probably doesn't care much. As a shifty insider he knows how to work the system.




On page 3 Margherita wrote:

Here, as Clelia pointed out, are in front about two different threads, one about Mars and the other about the Sun.
. . .
But what about the Sun? The Sun is giver of life.

This relates to a point I made on page 2 of the 'Career in natal astrology' thread. Something is usually missing in combustion discussions ? regarding natal charts, especially. I'll quote myself here (sorry), as this is the thread that inspired me to post this to the career thread. There might be something of interest here to some people (taken from 2 separate posts):

How about switching viewpoints from the combust planet to the Sun regarding the chart native? So, regarding qualities of the native himself or herself, rather than questioning whether combust Mercury is weakened we can see how the Sun is increased ? takes on qualities and capabilities ? through Mercury.

. . .

The relationship is synodic, but these discussions seem to center on the combust planet with little about the Sun itself. If light and vitality is given to the planets from the Sun it seems that understanding the rest of the relationship would require consideration of what the Sun gets from the planets. I could imagine the possibility of ancient thought seeing the Sun as taking back its changed light and vitality from the planets by way of combustion, and thereby taking in the experience of each planet during its recent cycle. The planets are sent out, they return back and inform the Sun ? the Sun is strengthened and increased through receiving the experience of the planets.

It is said that a god dies when there is no one left to worship him. Similarly, we have in the Old Testament ?I the Lord your God am a jealous God?. The Sun/God has its needs. A king needs ministers and subjects who bow and scrape. Maybe the Sun needs to periodically consume the planets in order to take in the now altered vitality that it had sent outwards. Likewise, a person with a combust natal Mercury possibly needs to enter a Mercury-oriented vocation in order to give the Sun what it needs, reflecting what the person needs in order to develop, strengthen and expand.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... c&start=15

After posting that I thought of the theological idea (and Hermetic?) that Man (Ladies too) co-creates the world daily with God. It's not a matter of merely passive Man being under the control of an all-powerful God. Likewise, such a view can give us a more co-existent astrological Sun. God working with Man; the Sun working with the Planets. This makes for a more complex concept of combustion that can add much to natal delineation, with the Sun as the will, drive and development of the person.

Hi Kirk

I liked your opening paragraphs. Last Friday I started a post that was relevant to this issue that I was going to place in the career thread, but I got interrupted with a phone call whilst writing it, and since then I haven't had the time to dig it out and finish it. I'm hoping I can get back to that post soon, but in case I don't, the main point I wanted to make is that references to the meaning of 'combustion' all seem a bit pointless and half-hearted to me if the meaning isn't built upon the recognition of phase within the cycle. That is really the crux of the issue.

Regards
Deb