Mark wrote: Night Sky mentioned Lilly's standard orb for the Sun. He didn't explicitly mention heliacal rising or setting in his post but rather planets being 'under the beams' using Lilly's approach.

Mark

I believed that "under the Sun beams" implies the planet is invisible because it is with the Sun

http://www.cieloeterra.it/glossario4.ht ... 0i%20raggi

Evidently in English means something else,

margherita

I believed that "under the Sun beams" implies the planet is invisible because it is with the Sun

Evidently in English means something else,

Its not an issue of what language you are using. The original post explicitly mentioned William Lilly's approach based on fixed orbs. As I understand it Lilly like most of his medieval predecessors used the concept of 'under the beams' with fixed orbs rather than with precise astronomical calculation of visibility or invisibility.

I dont know what you are taught through CieloeTerra but it seems undeniable that many traditional authorities used fixed orbs. Most of the hellenistic astrologers for example used a fixed orb of 15 degrees for the Sun. Paulus Alexandrinus seems to be something of an exception. His approach seems more sophisticated with greater awareness of planetary phases than many later medieval astrologers.

Mark

Hello Mark,

Mark wrote:
I dont know what you are taught through CieloeTerra but it seems undeniable that many traditional authorities used fixed orbs. Most of the hellenistic astrologers for example used a fixed orb of 15 degrees for the Sun. Paulus Alexandrinus seems to be something of an exception. His approach seems more sophisticated with greater awareness of planetary phases than many later medieval astrologers.

but I agree with you.

I just meant something else, obviously I was not clear enough.

I know that Cieloeterra method is different, being more based on Ptolemy, and I use it just for natal astrology. For an horary for myself would be difficult don't take into consideration fixed orbs, so I use both.

The point I desired to highlighting in the the original question from NightSky:

I want to open up this point to discussion. That if a planet applies to the Sun it is far worse than if a planet is separating from the Sun. And therefore to give a planet which is oriental and almost out of Sun's beams the same misfortune as it would were it at 9 or 10 degrees and applying...

my point of view is:
1) a planet leaving the Sun (which in other terms is doing its heliacal rising) is NOT like a planet which is applying to it;

2) a planet which is almost out of the Sun is not like a planet which just left it (here see Paulus of Alexandria).

Here is not important in my opinion, if we use astronomical or fixed orbs, the criteria should be same, because fixed orbs are just a quick way to describe the phenomen.

margherita

my point of view is:
1) a planet leaving the Sun (which in other terms is doing its heliacal rising) is NOT like a planet which is applying to it;

2) a planet which is almost out of the Sun is not like a planet which just left it (here see Paulus of Alexandria).

Here is not important in my opinion, if we use astronomical or fixed orbs, the criteria should be same, because fixed orbs are just a quick way to describe the phenomen.

Ok looks like we agree! Thie principle you have described is well understood and commonly utilised in horary.

I'm afraid I'm a point scorer. Though my question was on the particulars... whether one might grade the orb or not. Now, that there is doubt in this 15-17 degrees orb is welcome to me.

To me the question is important because, living close to the equator, one is aware of the tremendous power of the Sun, an enormous orb of 17 degrees or more would be perfectly understandable.

These questions are on the particulars, on little details. It's like with the question on whether a planet is beseiged even though it is placed between Saturn and Mars yet makes a harmonious sextile to Jupiter before applying to the malefic. That question was answered, and I am thankful to Skyscript for answering it.