Margherita wrote:

which would be these conventional norms? Ptolemy talks about the effects of phases in nativities, and Paulus Alexandrinus and whatever commentator to Ptolemy and Ibn Ezra I'm sure whoever talks about .... where is the news in Schmidt words? I never heard to talk Schmidt, but it does not seem a secret to me...

Anyway...

"In general the mode of domination is considered as falling under these five forms: trine, house, exaltation, term, and PHASE or aspect" Tetr, III, 2

Maybe I was being lazy but I couldn't recall any detailed delineations in terms of what retrograde or stationary planets actually implied. Phase is a generic term that could include under the beams, heliacal rising and setting and things like oriental and occidental state. I was simply referring to retrograde or stationary part of overall planetary phase.

I do recall Paulus has a lot to say on this so I will check his work out again.

Mark

lihin wrote:

Ms Margherita's comment is pertinent in my humble opinion. Not only Hellenistic authors but Mediaeval ones (see for example Introductions to Traditional Astrology: Abu Ma'shar & al-Qabisi, translated, edited and commented by Dr. phil. Benjamin Dykes) state clear delineations of planetary phases.

Same point as I made to Margherita. are you referring to specific + detailed delineations of stationary and retrograde planets or are you justr referring to phase in general?

Why should the basic delineations of the planetary phases essentially differ in natal from mundane astrology? One perhaps tends to forget that the latter came first in astrological history, is, according to Claudius Ptolemy Tetrabiblos Book 2, 'stronger' than the former, 'universal' rather than 'particular' according to Aristotle's definitions.

I think you misunderstood my point here. I wasn't suggesting they were different at all. I was simply saying that any quotes from either mundane, natal or horary would be useful.

However, we may be drifting off topic.

Well considering the thread is about retrograde planets it is not too wildly off. However, as I would like to get into discussion of more traditional sources I will probably open a new thread on this on the traditional forum.

Thanks for your input

Mark

Mark wrote:
Well considering the thread is about retrograde planets it is not too wildly off. However, as I would like to get into discussion of more traditional sources I will probably open a new thread on this on the traditional forum.

Bezza is very focused on planetary phases, it's the first thing his students see in a chart. so for me it's evident that when a planet is doing a phase, whatever is, is VERY important in that chart, each one with its characters (ie an heliacal rising is different from a station).

So I'm not so surprised by Schmidt thought. Ptolemy is absolutely based on planetary phases (it is a real dignity as in the text mentioned above). and Ptolemy does not say "heliacal rising", says "phase"....

margherita

Good evening,

Basic Mediaeval delineations of stations and retrogradations are for example found on page 107 of the book mentioned in my last post in this thread.

For those who may have thus far only read about it, i cannot overly recommend really reading Claudius Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos. Granted, his approach may be considered 'scientific' and 'rational'. In many respects, however, this is a great advantage. The Prologue and the first three chapters of Book I, for example, include much that many modern astrological authors apparently often think they have invented.

Problems of understanding arise due for example to the meanwhile frequently changed names and borders of countries. To me it seems surprising that, apparently, no fully illustrated and competently, copiously commented translation of the Tetrabiblos exists to date in English. Recently i have ordered an additional recent, illustrated translation directly from the ancient Greek original (instead of from Latin translations) into French and hope to report in a separate thread on it.

Dr. phil. Giuseppe Bezza, founder of Cielo e Terra as far as i know has published a commented Italian translation of Book I. Perhaps Ms Margherita can inform us if he has perhaps meanwhile published an English edition and / or translations of Books II - IV.

Some contemporary mundane astrological authors expressed the opinion that Ptolemy's basic structures of countries' signs and planetary rulerships based on the elemental trigons whilst placing the reference centre of the world in Asia minor are unfounded, arbitrary. Have they a better model to propose and can they conclusively demonstrate that it works more reliably in practice?

Best regards,

lihin

lihin wrote: The Prologue and the first three chapters of Book I, for example, include much that many modern astrological authors apparently often think they have invented.

Very true. It's something modern astrologers should read before talking about traditional astrology's determinism.

Dr. phil. Giuseppe Bezza, founder of Cielo e Terra as far as i know has published a commented Italian translation of Book I. Perhaps Ms Margherita can inform us if he has perhaps meanwhile published an English edition and / or translations of Books II - IV.

Bezza scarcely writes in Italian and almost never in English.
He translated Tetrabiblos books 2,3,4 in Italian without publishing them, and published the first book with his translation in Italian and a very long comment. This is the reference: http://www.hoepli.it/libro/commento-al- ... 75276.html