Mark wrote: I was merely highlighting what Ptolemy said on the qualities relating to signs not necessarily advocating them! Ptolemy seems more interested in linking the quality of signs to their domicile rulers rather than by triplicity...

There are various references in hellenistic astrology that seem to demonstrate that the original organization of the zodiac into four astrological triplicities came from the four winds or directions in Babylonian omen astrology.
(....)
These ideas are referenced to by Ptolemy in the Tetrabiblos...

The actual directional associations seem to have changed in hellenistic astrology from the original Babylonian/ Geminus description but there is no doubt that the principle of triplicities linked to directions remained.

Mark, this was a great post summarizing winds, triplicities and directions. I have nothing to add except to say that Pingree also has made extensive notes on this topic. I do have the Geocosmic Journal with Maria Mateus' article. It's the article I read first before all the others in the Journal. Anyhow, thanks for the summary!

Therese

Mark, before I reply to parts of your post I'd like to return to the planets for a moment. Do we have general agreement as to the qualities assigned to each of the planets? Such as Saturn is cold and dry...etc....

Could you list the generally accepted qualities associations for the planets? I've been steeped in Jyotish symbolism where one element is given to each planet, which isn't the way of western astrology. I just want to have a reference we can agree on for the planets because I'll need it for discussion.

Thanks,
Therese

Hello Therese,

There is controversy on the essential nature of the planets. In particular regarding the Moon, Venus and Mercury. Ptolemy assigned the Moon as mildly benefic and life supporting due to its moist and warming nature. Although this depends on its solar phase and the light ie warmth it has collected from the Sun. However, the Moon has generally been regarded as cold and moist in medieval and renaissance astrology. We can obviously have too little warmth from the Sun (New Moon) or too much (Full Moon).

Regarding Venus the ancient astrologers mostly described Venus as moist and warm while the Persian/Arabs and later medievals described it as cold and moist. All are agreed it is moist but not whether hot or cold. As an inner planet whose nature was altered by solar phase so much Dorian Greenbaum proposes regarding it as broadly warm and moist when oriental of the Sun and cool and moist when occiedental of the Sun. Of course solar phase is much more complicated than this but Greenbaum was proposing a pragmatic rule of thumb for astrologers in temperament analysis.

Mercury is variously described in texts as dry, moist, cold and warm! However, astrological literature seems unified in agreeing that the nature of Mercury is common or changeable. Following the lead provided by Ptolemy on the nature of Mercury changing due to solar phase Greenbaum suggests it can be regarded as broadly warm and moist if oriental ie rising before the Sun and cold and dry when occidental of the Sun.

Getting back to your basic question since I am principally discussing Ptolemy's system of qualities assigned to zodiacal signs I think it is probably best to offer a quote from Tetrabiblos. Ptolemy refers to the basic nature of the planets in Book I, Chapter 4:

The active power of the sun's essential nature is found to be heating and, to a certain degree, drying. This is made more easily perceptible in the case of the sun than any other heavenly body by its size and by the obviousness of its seasonal changes, for the closer it approaches to the zenith the more it affects us in this way.

Most of the moon's power consists of humidifying, clearly because it is close to the earth and because of the moist exhalations therefrom. Its action therefore is precisely this, to soften and cause putrefaction in bodies for the most part, but it shares moderately also in heating power because of the light which it receives from the sun.

It is Saturn's quality chiefly to cool and, moderately, to dry, probably because he is furthest removed both from the sun's heat and the moist exhalations about 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 moon, for some of them appear to modify conditions in the ambient in one way, some in another, by increase or by decrease.

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

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 the greater by reason of the underlying spheres, he produces fertilizing winds.

Venus has the same powers and tempered nature as Jupiter, but acts in the opposite way; for she warms moderately because of her nearness to the sun, but chiefly humidifies, like the moon, because of the amount of her own light and because she appropriates the exhalations from the moist atmosphere surrounding the earth.

Mercury in general is found at certain times alike to be drying and absorptive of moisture, because he never is far removed in longitude from the heat of the sun; and again humidifying, because he is next above the sphere of the moon, which is closest to the earth; and to change quickly from one to the other, inspired as it were by the speed of his motion in the neighbourhood of the sun itself. Tetrabiblos, Book I, IV, translated by FE Robbins.

A key point about the quality of the planets is how the benefics and malefics vary. Jupiter and Venus are naturally benefic and have a moderating, fertilising, life supporting nature. For Ptolemy, the Moon is moist and warm and therefore a mild benefic too when in an appropriate solar phase. Moisture and warmth are seen as life supporting qualities. However, an excess of any quality can be destructive. The malefics -Saturn and Mars are naturally destructive because of their excessive qualities. In certain phases to the Sun their destructive potential is increased. Hence Mars after opposition to the Sun is excessively dry. Equally, Saturn after solar opposition is excessively cold. Hence these planets are generally preferable in their oriental phase ie rising before the Sun. The Sun itself can operate either in a malefic or benefic way depending on a planets phase to it. Hence a planet can form a trine to the Sun or have its power totally removed during combustion. Looking at Jupiter we can see the difference between the traditional and moderns outlook. For moderns Jupiter often indicates excess while for traditionalists it is the planet of moderation. Traditionalists would only see more excessive qualities likely with a debilitated Jupiter.

To summarise Ptolemy's position outlined in the Tetrabiblos I have put the primary quality in bold

Sun-Hot and dry

Moon-Moist and Warm (heat derived entirely from phase to Sun).

Saturn -Cold and moderately dry

Mars -Dry and burns (dryness is the major quality according to Ptolemy)

Jupiter-Warm and moist

Venus-Moist and warm

Mercury-Changeable! Moist and Dry. It totally depends on solar phase

I accept my attribution of the dry quality to Gemini and Virgo is oversimplistic. I think one can make a case that since Gemini is a diurnal sign its nature is warmer while Virgo as a night sign is cooler. Gemini forms a sextile to the Sun while Virgo is in the neighbouring sign to the solar sign Leo. Virgo forms a sextile to the Lunar , nocturnal sign Cancer. Jupiter which is warming and moist is in detriment in Virgo and in Gemini. Moreover, Venus is in fall in Virgo. This would seem to support a cool dry nature to the sign of Virgo. As Venus has no major debility in Gemini this makes me think Gemini a moister nature than Virgo and its diurnal nature would incline to more warmth. A support to this position is Greenbaum's point about Mercury and solar phase. To recap she suggests an oriental Mercury is warm and moist while an occidental mercury is cold and dry. The oriental phase is generally seen as the more masculine/diurnal and the occiental more feminine /nocturnal. Hence it seems logical to link Gemini to the oriental phase of Mercury and Virgo to its occidental phase.

While these are the basic definition of the planets Ptolemy later indicates how the quality of the planets is modified by their solar phase. Ptolemy's approach is therefore dynamic not static. We are required to look at the solar phase of planets in each chart.

Mark

Mark, an extensive reply! And a reminder that my memory wasn't fooling me when I recalled (vaguely) that the traditions varied. I cannot recall everything I've read, and have to go pull my books from the bookcase for re-reading. Then I have to juggle the Jyotish tradition along with western authors and keep them separate in my mind.

After a little review I realize that I prefer the Arabic view on the planets and their qualities. It seems that the Arab assignments of qualities to the planets were well settled in place, and may not have much relationship to Ptolemy. There is also much mention of temperament attributes in the literature.

Therese

The wonderful thing about internet forums is that in the process of discussion we can chart our understanding of concepts and note changes in our thinking. For the time being I've reached several conclusions:

Valens: I believe we can make a fairly solid case for Valens introducing Stoic philosophy and principles into his astrology, including the Stoic elements. However, this does not seem to have gone very far and basically seems to have died out with Valens. So, no, I don't believe the Stoic elements as they were understood correlate well with astrological triplicities today. But they do explain Valens' approach to the zodiac and perhaps other parts of his astrology.

Aristotle's Elements: fire, earth, air and water: At this time I cannot see how these can easily be correlated with the triplicities in either zodiac because they conflict in too many ways with the ruling and exalted planets associated with the signs. So I reject them in both zodiacs.

A Third Way---Aristotle's Qualities of hot, cold, wet and dry: I'm surprised that these haven't been given more attention by astrologers. They seem to present the best correlation with triplicities when ruling and exalted planets are taken into consideration. These qualities are the basic components that combine to make up the elements, and each has its own distinct personality, so to speak.

The problem that Ptolemy presents is that he has made the qualities seasonal, related to climate, temperature and weather. This wasn't the primary meaning of Aristotle's qualities. So I believe we have been left with a jumbled understanding of the four qualities according to Aristotle. I'm not a scholar of Aristotle's principles and philosophy, but it's possible to obtain something of a student's understanding of his four qualities of hot, cold, wet and dry. I will try to put together a post on that topic in relation to the zodiac.

Therese

A Third Way---Aristotle's Qualities of hot, cold, wet and dry: I'm surprised that these haven't been given more attention by astrologers. They seem to present the best correlation with triplicities when ruling and exalted planets are taken into consideration. These qualities are the basic components that combine to make up the elements, and each has its own distinct personality, so to speak.

They are exceptions.
It is necessary to study the Morin. Work eastern authors. Attention to the axis of the old rulers.

Morin - Astrologia Gallica Book Thirteen
F.Schwickert and Adolf Weis - Cornerstones of Astrology
?????? ??? ????? - ???????? ?? ???????? ?????????????? ????????(????????? ?????? ?????)

Therese wrote:

Valens: I believe we can make a fairly solid case for Valens introducing Stoic philosophy and principles into his astrology, including the Stoic elements. However, this does not seem to have gone very far and basically seems to have died out with Valens. So, no, I don't believe the Stoic elements as they were understood correlate well with astrological triplicities today. But they do explain Valens' approach to the zodiac and perhaps other parts of his astrology.

Its an interesting historical topic but not a very practical one I feel. A so called Stoic approach to the signs simply doesn't work that well. Not unless we want to change the essential nature of the planets. Look at the planetary domicile rulers, detriments, exaltations and fall in the signs of Taurus and Scorpio. The Stoics said Earth is dry and Water wet. In this system we find 'moist' Venus ruling a 'dry' sign. Mars the 'dry' planet finds its detriment there. The 'moist' Moon is exalted in this sign. Scorpio rulerships and debilities pose the same kind of problem.

Aristotle's Elements: fire, earth, air and water: At this time I cannot see how these can easily be correlated with the triplicities in either zodiac because they conflict in too many ways with the ruling and exalted planets associated with the signs. So I reject them in both zodiacs.

I agree they create real problem. Trying to combine elemental division of the triplicities with an Aristotelian attribution of the qualities is an impossible balancing act. Look at Galen's system which became the mainstream in medieval and renaissance. It is even less successful than the Stoic system cited above in matching the planetary rulers of similar quality to the nature of the signs.

A Third Way---Aristotle's Qualities of hot, cold, wet and dry: I'm surprised that these haven't been given more attention by astrologers. They seem to present the best correlation with triplicities when ruling and exalted planets are taken into consideration. These qualities are the basic components that combine to make up the elements, and each has its own distinct personality, so to speak.

Well we do have a system presented by Ptolemy.

The problem that Ptolemy presents is that he has made the qualities seasonal, related to climate, temperature and weather. This wasn't the primary meaning of Aristotle's qualities. So I believe we have been left with a jumbled understanding of the four qualities according to Aristotle. I'm not a scholar of Aristotle's principles and philosophy, but it's possible to obtain something of a student's understanding of his four qualities of hot, cold, wet and dry. I will try to put together a post on that topic in relation to the zodiac.

The 'problem' you identify with Ptolemy has another description...the tropical zodiac! As you are a committed siderealist I didn't really expect you to come round to Ptolemy's way of thinking. Moreover, lets not forget Aristotle was not an astrologer so one shouldn't necessarily expect an exact match with any astrological system.

Ptolemy's system is broadly influenced by Aristotle but doesn't adopt a simplistic approach of trying to pidgeon hole each sign into a hot, cold, wet and dry perspective. In Ptolemy's system there is more of a continuum within these. Hence while the sign of Leo is hot, Sagittarius is warm. I have been working on a two quality description of all the signs using Ptolemy's system which is extremely successful in matching the quality of the planetary rulers and the nature of the signs.

Mark

Assigning qualities planets has not been uniform for all astrologers.

The status is in the table:

Sun Moon Mercury Venus Mars Jupiter Saturn

Ptolemaios hot+dry hot+wet cold+dry hot+wet hot+dry hot+wet cold+dry

Abu Ma?shar hot+dry cold+wet cold+dry cold+wet hot+dry hot+wet cold+dry

equally Abu Ma'shar: Al-Biruni, Ibn Ezra, Lilly...

Kusyar hot+dry cold+wet cold+dry hot+wet hot+dry hot+wet cold+dry
Morin hot+dry cold+wet cold+dry hot+wet hot+dry hot+dry cold+dry

equally Morin: Wronski, Yelow, Kefer...

Petr wrote:

Ptolemaios hot+cold hot+wet cold+dry hot+wet hot+dry hot+wet cold+dry

Hi Petr,

I feel this description is too much of an over simplification of what Ptolemy actually said and misses all his subtleties. As I have already stated his position on Mercury depends on planetary phase. Moreover, in Ptolemy's system Jupiter is not essentially 'hot and wet' as you state. Jupiter as the great benefic is warm (not hot) and moist. The benefics avoid the extremes characteristic of the malefics. Saturn is not simply cold + dry. According to Ptolemy the essential characteristic of Saturn is its coldness and its dryness is secondary. Similarly, for Ptolemy Mars is primarily dry and its hotness secondary. That is why a straighforward imposition of Aristotelian qualities on to Ptolemy's system is too unsophisticated to properly capture his ideas.

Mark

Hi Mark,

We are not in conflict.
The values ??given are medium. Essential qualities are continuously variable.
The value depends on the position of the planets. Planets have a primary or complementary basic quality.Therefore, I'm talking about the axis of the old rulers.
My view is based on the ratio of basic qualities.The elements are a combination of basic qualities.I see the use of Aristotle's logic here.

Petr

Hi Petr,

I see you cite the Sun as hot and cold under Ptolemy. But surely its hot and dry?

Interesting that Kusyar and Morin had Venus as hot and wet. I had assumed that idea totally disappeared in the medieval period. Thanks for those references.

I am intrigued how Morin works out Jupiter is hot and dry!
He was no respector of tradition and was clearly quite willing to sweep out out the old ideas where he disagreed with them. Still, Jupiter dry?

Mark

Mark wrote:

Therese wrote: A Third Way---Aristotle's Qualities of hot, cold, wet and dry: I'm surprised that these haven't been given more attention by astrologers. They seem to present the best correlation with triplicities when ruling and exalted planets are taken into consideration. These qualities are the basic components that combine to make up the elements, and each has its own distinct personality, so to speak.

Well we do have a system presented by Ptolemy.

Ptolemy doesn't give any characteristics to his qualities. He merely names them and then uses them in his own way.

The 'problem' you identify with Ptolemy has another description...the tropical zodiac! As you are a committed siderealist I didn't really expect you to come round to Ptolemy's way of thinking.

Let's not forget that I used the Tropical zodiac for ten years, and was trained by Jeff Mayo at the very well regarded London Faculty of Astrological Studies. I have nothing but the highest regard for British education. I've also attended many seminars and classes by well known Tropical astrologers. So I can do a type of "double think" in relation to the signs in the two zodiacs. I have a fairly complete library of books by Tropical authors, Rob Hand being my favorite.

Ptolemy's system is broadly influenced by Aristotle but doesn't adopt a simplistic approach of trying to pidgeon hole each sign into a hot, cold, wet and dry perspective. In Ptolemy's system there is more of a continuum within these.

Yes, you've explained that very well, and I understand what Ptolemy does. But this is an entirerly different use of Aristotle's qualities. I'll try to explain in a new topic: "Traditional Techniqes in the Sidereal"

As an added note, I've been reviewing some of Ben Dykes' wonderful articles and translations, and I see that Valens did make his way into the Arabic astrological literature. That must be the source of the extensive descriptions of planetary traits that we don't see in Hellenistic writers after Ptolemy. Velens seems to have been mainly discarded in favor of Ptolemy in the Hellenistic tradition.

Therese

what is astrological about the elements?

it seems to me that they are a philosophical construct that someone tried to attach to astrology. while the planets have characteristics, and some would say the signs, whether tropical or sidereal have characteristics, it mostly seems to me someone wanted to latch something onto astrology that wasn't astrological way back when... now it looks astrological, as it is a part of the history..