Skyscript Astrology Forum

Greenbaum writes that "there is no one universally agreed-upon technique for determining temperament," with "7 techniques ... in or out of fashion." But Ribeiro notes in his paper, "The method is coherent throughout all authors regarding its theory and significators. There is only one method; the differences appear only in the collection of testimonies ... This is the lead the modern practitioner of the Tradition must follow to obtain reliable results."

It seems to me that Ribiero is pointing out differences while claiming there is no distinction. "The method is the same, but we don't all do it the same way," does not make a lot of sense. Furthermore if it were true that there was one method that collects testimonies differently, shouldn't the results always be the same? Perhaps something is lost here in translation or we're needlessly spitting hypothesis as Occam might point out.

Lilly was not at his best in the section of CA that deals with temperament. He knows, from experience and observation what the result ought to be, but he can't get there doing it the way he thinks it should be done. So he fudged a bit. Lilly does not determine temperament the same way Gadbury did. And I'm going to stick out my neck a bit and say Culpepper did it differently than both. These three are rough contemporaries from the same country and they don't go about it the same way.

Perhaps Riberieo is haggling over the meaning of the word "method." The goal is an accurate assessment of temperament. That is universal. How we get there is by various methods, and not everyone did it the same way. Greenbaum's observation, therefore, is accurate. It's all she meant to say. Not everyone does this the same way. I'm afraid that is irrefutable. If Ribiero wants to find a common thread running through the various methods and work with it, fine. Who knows, that may be the way to find the most accurate assessment.

Tom

In the second place, which outer planets should we use? Solar system planets, which include Uranus and Neptune? Dwarf planets, which include Ceres and Pluto? It seems to me that since temperament analysis is a traditional technique, and since there is no consensus of opinion on either the nature or the number of outer planets, it would be folly to use any of them in temperament assessment

.
Hello Andrew,
You have rather taken the line of reductio ad absurdum to the suggestion of outer planets. I can understand your concern. Still like it or not many excellent traditional astrologers do use outer planets in their work. I should state I was only personally, considering Uranus and Neptune here not all the astro debris in the solar system. Your entitled to reject this approach yourself but I do not think you have the same right to suggest outer planets must be excluded from astrology involving traditional techniques. It seems to me there is much more consensus now about the influence of Neptune and Uranus than at the time of the 19th century sources you quoted. Moreover if we based any ambiguity about a planets essential nature as a reason for its rejection shouldn't we in all fairness take out Venus and Mercury too?

I am not trying to convert you to an approach that clearly holds zero appeal for you. Still, if I decide to include Uranus on the ascendant in temperament analysis and you do not cannot we just agree to differ in our choice of approach?

Anyway , I am probably getting way ahead of myself. As we are still trying to decipher the traditional approach itself perhaps such discussions need to wait until the tradition itself is much less ambiguous.

You have rather taken the line of reductio ad absurdum to the suggestion of outer planets. I can understand your concern. Still like it or not many excellent traditional astrologers do use outer planets in their work. I should state I was only personally, considering Uranus and Neptune here not all the astro debris in the solar system. Your entitled to reject this approach yourself but I do not think you have the same right to suggest outer planets must be excluded from astrology involving traditional techniques. It seems to me there is much more consensus now about the influence of Neptune and Uranus than at the time of the 19th century sources you quoted. Moreover if we based any ambiguity about a planets essential nature as a reason for its rejection shouldn't we in all fairness take out Venus and Mercury too?

Reductio ad absurdum is a logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument and derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original claim must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result. The outcome of my argument is neither absurd nor ridiculous; it is one upon which there is general agreement among many practitioners of traditional astrology. I am completely entitled to suggest that outer planets be exluded from traditional temperament assessment. It is, after all, only one opinion among many, and the last time I checked, a person's opinion is still free. You don't have to agree with it, and you are free to ridicule or take issue with it, but in a secular democracy, one is entirely entitled to one's opinion, however informed or misinformed one might believe it to be.

Shouldn't we in all fairness take out Venus and Mercury too? No, I don't think so, because Venus and Mercury are part of the original Septener, and intrinsic to the system. Uranus and Neptune and (fill in the blank) are extrinsic to it. They fall into another category altogether. In my opinion, which you're more than welcome to reject.

I am not trying to convert you to an approach that clearly holds zero appeal for you. Still, if I decide to include Uranus on the ascendant in temperament analysis and you do not cannot we just agree to differ in our choice of approach?

Sure. Absolutely. I've never argued otherwise. You are free, radically free, to hold whichever opinion you wish, and we are certainly free to agree to disagree in our choice of approach. I wouldn't have it any other way.

I am completely entitled to suggest that outer planets be exluded from traditional temperament assessment. It is, after all, only one opinion among many, and the last time I checked, a person's opinion is still free. You don't have to agree with it, and you are free to ridicule or take issue with it, but in a secular democracy, one is entirely entitled to one's opinion, however informed or misinformed one might believe it to be.

Absolutely. I thought you were trying to suggest that had to be the universal line for all people using traditional techniques. I clearly misunderstood you. Similarly, I have no expectation that an army of traditional astrologers will be joining in such 'folly' here on skyscript.

Its just something I may be inclined to have a look at in my own analysis. For example, Hitler's Uranus in the first house (whole sign).

The outcome of my argument is neither absurd nor ridiculous; it is one upon which there is general agreement among many practitioners of traditional astrology

I am sure you could find many traditionalists that agree with you. However, the words 'general agreement' implies a wider consensus. I know for a fact traditional astrologers such Joseph Crane, Lee Lehman and our own Deborah Houlding are known to include the outer planets in their work. In any case I was not trying to suggest your position was in any sense ridiculous. Rather I felt you were trying to imply exactly that regarding the idea of outer planets in traditional astrology.

My point on Venus and Mercury was simply that you used ambiguity regarding the meaning of the outer planets as one reason (of many) for rejecting them. I think this discussion has shown the tradition is not free of its own ambiguities. However, it was hardly a serious proposition!

Hi Mark

We are coming at this discussion from different angles, so I?m not sure if I?m merely stating the obvious here, but you did ask me to explain my reason for favouring Ptolemy?s view in the earlier thread ? so this should make it that clear.

He states for example that Saturn oriental should be considered cold and moist. I accept in relation to the Sun Saturn will be slighly less dry but will it change its nature so fundamentally?

The point that myself, Sasha and Gjiada have been stressing is that Saturn never changes its essential nature. The over-riding quality of Saturn is that it mainly cools (or more accurately it ?chills? because it is intemperate), and to a lesser degree it dries. This is the normal state of Saturn, and if we were to describe Saturn as a person, then at the end of his life we would say ?overall, despite his ups and downs, we can all agree that he lived his life in a cooling and drying fashion?.

But when any planet is rising out of a new cycle with the Sun, they are at their ?young? (?opening up?) phase, and their energy and expression is different to what it is at the ?closing down phase?. If you read the physical descriptions given to the planets, and note how they alter according to whether a planet is ?opening up? or ?closing down? from the Sun, you will see that there is a constant association between heliacal rising and youth, uncontrolled or untempered energy, high vitality, high colouring, much curl in the hair, rashness, and more flesh and substance to the physique. We get the opposite as the planet closes its cycle with the Sun ? here everything is more tempered and the personality, disposition and appearance is ?drier?, giving the sense of receding. This suits Saturn anyway, because it is a planet that causes recession ? so at this stage of the cycle, it is like Saturn comes into its own

Whether we realise it or not, traditional astrologers are constantly using techniques that associate the planets with the cycles that Ptolemy describes. We can?t avoid it because the planetary cycles around the Sun are a fundamental basis of astrological philosophy. We get the moisture of childhood (think about the young, plump flesh of babies and toddlers), the heat, activity and passion of youth; the calming and drying effect of maturity, and the coldness of the decline towards death. Although the full-phase effect is not so obviously mentioned for the other planets as it is for the Moon, it is just as valid and we see its presence in techniques such as deriving age by looking at the planet?s phase from the Sun (opposition denotes mid-life).

So I have no problem with the concept of Saturn being more inclined towards ?cold and moist? at the start of its cycle. I think Ptolemy?s text gives a better sense of what this really means ? that Saturn is more moderated at the start of its cycle; but it becomes more rigid and more strikingly ?Saturn-like? (hence more potentially destructive) at the end of its cycle.

Deb

PS, Andrew, I agree that we need to be especially careful in the orbs that we associate with the outer planets, but the suggestion that they cannot have a 5 degree orb because they are not visible to the naked eye begs the question of why tradition allows a 5 degree orb to house cusps.

Absolutely. I thought you were trying to suggest that had to be the universal line for all people using traditional techniques. I clearly misunderstood you. Similarly, I have no expectation that an army of traditional astrologers will be joining in such 'folly' here on skyscript.

I always track the transits of Uranus and Neptune through the houses of the horoscope. I have less interest in the purity of astrology than I do in its coherence and concordance with its own internal symbolic structure.

My point on Venus and Mercury was simply that you used ambiguity regarding the meaning of the outer planets as one reason (of many) for rejecting them.

As previously noted: traditionally, planets (unlike stars or nodes) receive their temperament according to their position on the celestial sphere, related to their proximity to the Sun. As Uranus is even more remote from the Sun than Saturn, I cannot see how it could possibly be described as "hot and dry." Dry, yes, since Uranus (like Saturn) is far, very far, from the moist exhalations coming from the Earth. Hot, no. From whence, pray tell, Mr. Hand, does it derive its heat?

It might be better to conceive of Uranus as a star that masquerades as a planet; in which case, Uranus might best be described as a fixed star of the nature of Mars (hot and dry). Of course, stars have neither domicile nor exaltation.

Andrew, I agree that we need to be especially careful in the orbs that we associate with the outer planets, but the suggestion that they cannot have a 5 degree orb because they are not visible to the naked eye begs the question of why tradition allows a 5 degree orb to house cusps.

Actually, my understanding of this is somewhat different.

In section 24 paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Geographia, Ptolemy writes:

But in order that the longitude is commensurate with the latitude ... let us place eighteen meridians, each occurring every third part of an equatorial hour, to fill completely the whole of the longitudes encompassing the semicircles ... we will take (from out of each of these three parallels) segments equivalent to one third or five degrees.

In order for longitude to be (in an ideal sense) commensurate with latitude it is necessary to take segments equivalent to one third of an equinoctial hour (twenty minutes on the clock). I think the 5? orb for non-luminous points applies in this sense only to house cusps. In his book Classical Scientific Astrology, George Noonan writes:

We read in the Tetrabiblos (iii:10) that the cusp of the first locus is determined by subtracting five degrees from the horoscope (ASC). Al-Biruni also states that planets in these degrees are in the first locus. The reason for this is given in the Almagest (viii: 4-6). One of the primary diurnal effects that must be accounted for is the heliacal risings of the stars and planets. But due to the refraction of the atmosphere and the large apparent size of the Sun with respect to the stars, a star may be obscured in its heliacal rising. Only by subtracting five degrees from the horoscope (ASC) will all heliacal risings be included within the first locus as is necessary. Again, remember that classical astrology uses observational astronomy as a tool.

Sue Ward has written:

The accepted orbs and moieties of each of the planets exclude the trans-Saturnians. They have not been attributed orbs and are usually dealt with (if at all) within the 17' of arc exactitude. This is because the ancient authorities dealt with the planets and stars they could actually see; the fact that they sometimes described their effects in terms of rays or beams confirms that, as does use of techniques such as translation and collection of light. Since the new planets cannot be seen with the naked eye, they could have no rays. Having no rays means no orb of influence, in much the same way as the lunar nodes and the Part of Fortune have no orbs. So they can only be aspected. Bear in mind that astrology deals with the heavens as they appear to the Earthly observer.

This seems coherent. It seems to imply that the space of 5? before the Ascendant (if not all house cusps) is not so much an orb of influence as it is an area of influence. Otherwise, we ascribe orbs of light (whether of 5? or otherwise) to non-luminous points. As Steven Birchfield has written:

The difference between Zahel and Abu Ma?shar is NOT what they consider the perimeter (for those are the same), but it is the language describing the same conceptualisation. In Zahel?s case, he literally calls it an ?orb of light?.

From this perspective, it is impossible for a non-luminous point to have an "orb of light," since non-luminosity implies an absence of light. So while I can accept that planets and stars have "orbs of light," I find it difficult to accept that points and nodes have "orbs of light," still less that the moiety of the Ascendant is 2.5?.

Of course, I'm happy to consider the possibility that I might be completely wrong about all of this.

Andrew,

Please give us the Ward and Birchfield sources.

Whether we realise it or not, traditional astrologers are constantly using techniques that associate the planets with the cycles that Ptolemy describes. We can?t avoid it because the planetary cycles around the Sun are a fundamental basis of astrological philosophy. We get the moisture of childhood (think about the young, plump flesh of babies and toddlers), the heat, activity and passion of youth; the calming and drying effect of maturity, and the coldness of the decline towards death. Although the full-phase effect is not so obviously mentioned for the other planets as it is for the Moon, it is just as valid and we see its presence in techniques such as deriving age by looking at the planet?s phase from the Sun (opposition denotes mid-life).

Hello Deb,

I dont have an issue with any of this. I was just initially trying to reconcile this with the theory of combustion. However, Sasha made a very full explanation of this. I can now see this needs to me seen in a fuller cyclical sense for all the planets in terms of their light/power in terms of their relationship to th the Sun. I do have linguistic and conceptual issues in talking of the Moon or other planets being 'burnt up' by the Sun after entering its cold and wet phase. Equally, the word 'combustion' in terms of a planets proximity to the Sun has similar associations. However, seeing this process as slowly extinguishing the light and inherent power of the planet works for me. That is consistent with the most ancient starlore which predated hellenistic astrology.

The debate on this thread though is more about how far we apply this approach to natal analysis. In particular the approach suggested Luis Ribeiro seems (?) to largely ignore or at least de-emphasizes planetary phase (except for the Moon). At the other extreme the approach of John Frawley seem to completely shift the expression of the planet due to its phase. Which is it to be?

The point that myself, Sasha and Gjiada have been stressing is that Saturn never changes its essential nature. The over-riding quality of Saturn is that it mainly cools (or more accurately it ?chills? because it is intemperate), and to a lesser degree it dries. This is the normal state of Saturn, and if we were to describe Saturn as a person, then at the end of his life we would say ?overall, despite his ups and downs, we can all agree that he lived his life in a cooling and drying fashion?.

I think part of the difficulty is as you have already suggested is that some of these number crunching temperament methods seem to lose such complexity. The tradition is subtle and the intrinsic nature of planets must always be tempered in the context of planetary phase.

While I am sure your position is trying to be fair in embracing all the elements of the tradition I do find it rather impractical in terms of temperament analysis. You state the nature of Saturn never essentially changes but you are comfortable describing it as inclining towards 'cold and moist' in its oriental phase. Surely, even under the influence of planetary phase a cold and dry malefic planet like Saturn cannot change its essential nature that dramatically? A little less dry yes but moist? This is where I find the view of Dorian Greenbaum more acceptable to temperament analysis. Ultimately, this is a question of emphasis but it does have practical implications for temperament analysis. Do we see an oriental Saturn on the ascendant as principally still cold and dry
Greenbaum/Ribeiro) or now cold and moist due to its planetary phase (Frawley). I accept there are shades of grey but as Tom often says temperament analysis is 'rough work' and we have plump for something.

Note: I am away until Thursday now so I will not be around to reply to any posts until then.

Deb,

You've got me wondering. You stated that Saturn in the beginning of its phase in relation to the Sun (oriental of the Sun) is more moist. That would make it less malefic, as Saturn's pernicious influence is due to an excess of dryness. That fits with the fact that the superior planets are considered to be preferable when oriental (which they are after their conjunction with the Sun). But Mars is malefic due to its excess of warmth, and increasing warmth is characteristic of the first half of the cycle with the Sun. So Saturn becomes more temperate ? less malefic ? when oriental, but Mars becomes more malefic because its tendency of too much warmth becomes accentuated. Therefore, Mars would not be preferable oriental. Or am I more confused than I dare admit?

Hi Kirk

Its a fair question but let me break it down:

You stated that Saturn in the beginning of its phase in relation to the Sun (oriental of the Sun) is more moist. That would make it less malefic, as Saturn's pernicious influence is due to an excess of dryness.

Ptolemy says it is more to do with its excess of coldness, although it is drying too, and these two qualities (cold and dry together) are the worst mix in terms of denying fertility and creativity.

That fits with the fact that the superior planets are considered to be preferable when oriental (which they are after their conjunction with the Sun). But Mars is malefic due to its excess of warmth,

Again, according to Ptolemy, it is mainly drying, but also heating, a combination that quickly leads to burns. (A tip ? these planetary qualities appear to be very ancient and based upon Babylonian sources and connections with winds. There seems to be a more simplified association in ancient sources which runs:

Saturn = cold
Jupiter = warm
Mars = dry
Venus = moist

Mercury = Neutral

I?m sorry, but for a long story I don?t have time to go into, I can?t give you the ref for that right now).

and increasing warmth is characteristic of the first half of the cycle with the Sun. So Saturn becomes more temperate ? less malefic ? when oriental, but Mars becomes more malefic because its tendency of too much warmth becomes accentuated. Therefore, Mars would not be preferable oriental.

As the planets open up from the Sun, they all have a repletion of moisture (this is the Aristotelian philosophical life-giving quality associated with youth ? so don?t worry about the fact that the Sun is not ?wet?.) So actually Mars is more tempered in its oriental phase, and because moisture is a creative quality, all the planets are ?full of the vigour of youth? when they are in this stage, which is why they get the increased dignity score. As Mars moves more towards the opposition of the Sun, the heat becomes emphasised; so it is in this period that it becomes intemperate. But because its extreme quality is dryness, it is most destructive after opposition up to the last phase, because this is when Mars has been thoroughly warmed and the extreme dryness is further exaggerated. Hence, if you were to split this into just two periods, then the oriental phase is definitely preferable to the occidental phase.

Or am I more confused than I dare admit?

Confusion is good. It shows that something has been stirred. Trust me, the more you think this through, the more sense it is going to make. And it has huge practical application. When people talk about planets in signification, you can imagine how much the features alter according to the planetary phase.

Hope that helps
Deb

Please give us the Ward and Birchfield sources.

I'm presuming you're asking on your own behalf?

The Ward source:

http://www.horary.com/sward/sward5.html

The Birchfield source:

http://www.astrologiamedieval.com/Orbes.htm

Deb,

I'm getting myself more confused all the time. I said that Saturn's pernicious influence was due to an excess of dryness, which you corrected as an excess of coldness. Oh my ... I knew that! I just got myself all turned around. And Mars is malefic due to an excess of dryness, not warmth ? something else I knew and managed to get wrong. The forum has been exciting lately with a lot of good discussion, but unfortunately it's spinning me around rather than helping me. That's a good indication that I'm going about this too haphazardly and grabbing at everything. Thanks again ? I will spend some time with this.

I'm presuming you're asking on your own behalf?

Andrew,

Thank you. I asked on my own behalf because I didn't want to wait for the private messages from other members requesting that I ask for them . I do get impatient .

It's important to have the source for verification that the quote was typed correctly. Such things as 'It is' mistyped and misquoted as 'It isn't' seriously change the meaning, and we don't want to misrepresent the author. It's also nice to be able to check the context of the quote. Also, it can lead to works that look helpful to read in their entirety. And also, it's just the way it's done.

But: I couldn't get the Birchfield link to work.