Skyscript Astrology Forum

In short words, in my opinion, you should combine the phase with the hairesis, i.e. as you call in English, the sect.

Hi Margherita,

I dont have a problem incorporating consideration of sect into the overall assessment of the planet. However, I still remain unclear how Ptolemy might assess the specific issue of a planet that has helically set and not risen yet. I am assuming this is interpreted as still 'under the beams' before it heliacally rises? Take the example of Venus for example which would be in sect in a night chart. In addition lets say it like the Sun are in Pisces giving Venus its sign of exaltation. So in terms of sect Venus is well placed here and in addition it has powerful essential dignity.

However, lets assume Venus has recently disappeared in the sky due to its approach to the Sun and has not heliacally rose yet ( lets leave the complexity of retrograde motion out of this for the moment!). Am I correct in assuming this would be seen as a major debility in hellenistic astrology?

Mark

Hi MackC

I hope I am not disturbing your interesting discussion with my intervention.

The idea behind the words matutine and vespertine is
Matutine: planet rising in the east part of the horizon before Sun (in the sense that is visible in the sky before the Sun rise),
Vespertine: planet is visible in the west part of the horizon after the Sun has set.

Now oriental is with reference to Sun when the planet is out of Sun beams
Occidental with reference to Sun when planet is under the Sun beams

Remember also that even in the so called under Sun beams state (taken in a general sense) there are still some gradations: sub radiis tantum, adustio, in corde solis.

Again when we refer to sect we are going to take in consideration the day/night process. In another words planets with reference to the diurnal cycle. So as Gjiada mentioned earlier sect and phases are two different things.

To come to your question.
So far, if my memory and my knowledge serve me well , Ptolemy is more preoccupied with the alteration of the planets temperament in different heliacal phases.
So you won't find detailed explanations for your quiz in Ptolemy.

However, lets assume Venus has recently disappeared in the sky due to its approach to the Sun and has not heliacally rose yet ( lets leave the complexity of retrograde motion out of this for the moment!). Am I correct in assuming this would be seen as a major debility in hellenistic astrology?

I am going to give you a fragment from Olimpiodorus commentary to Paulus:

Indeed, if they are matutine and oriental, at once in youth they bring their good, especially if they happen to be in sect. but if they are contrary to the sect, weak (faint) is their benefic action.

The conclusion is that at least some hellenistic astrologers didn't see planet's phases more important than other factors

Just as an addendum to my previous post.

In your example, MarckC, you talked about a planet (Venus) being under the Sun beams.
In this case Olimpiodorus says:

well , more robust (strong) are their good (it?s about a planet being oriental and in its domicile, and Sun also in a domicile of that planet), as also robust is their damage, when they are occidental, happen to be close to the Sun, for example 6-7 degree.

But again this doesn?t mean that the planet is without escape. Why? Because it can be in its domicile, or trigon, or bound, or all of them. and again it could be in sect, in a good house, in relation to some important element of the chart.

Hello Mark,

MarkC wrote: Take the example of Venus for example which would be in sect in a night chart.

Sun now is in Aquarius.

Venus in Aries, so it is vespertine and direct. Venus is starting to slow down, and it will be in the station the 6th of March - according Solar Fire. This means after that date she will be retrograde and visible just in the evening till the moment of her vespertine setting, true?

In this very moment anyway she's vespertine and direct, which is the moment inner planets are stronger, because the vespertine position is more in agreement with their nature. This is in general.

Anyway if we are judging a day nativity, we should consider hairesis too, so in this case would be more convenient a matutine planet. Let's say if we are judging about the qualities of soul for that native it would be better to have a matutine Mercury.

Margherita

Hi Sasha,

I hope I am not disturbing your interesting discussion with my intervention

Of course not! Your posts are always extremely well informed. This is a public discussion forum not a private chat room.

Thanks for the clarification on the meaning of verspertine and matutine and oriental/occidental.

Your definition of oriental / occidental is different from the one I am used to. I had just taken oriental as meaning the planet rises before the Sun and occidental meaning rising after the Sun.

You state:

Now oriental is with reference to Sun when the planet is out of Sun beams. Occidental with reference to Sun when planet is under the Sun beams

I am a bit confused by what you mean here. Are you suggesting a planet free of beams is always described as 'oriental' and under the beams is 'occidental'?

The Skyscript glossary describes the terms oriental/occidental as follows:

Oriental means to rise before the Sun, occidental means to rise after the Sun. The qualities, significations and humoral qualities of the planets can change considerably according to whether they are oriental or occidental. For example, most planets gain in height and hair when oriental.

Have I just misunderstood you or is it that the hellenistic understanding of this term is different from the later medieval and renaissance tradition?

Mark

Hello again,

Oriental means to rise before the Sun, occidental means to rise after the Sun. The qualities, significations and humoral qualities of the planets can change considerably according to whether they are oriental or occidental. For example, most planets gain in height and hair when oriental.

I know this definition, and I agree with it as long as we are aware of the meaning of it.
Also I know that sometime it can be confusing to change the terminology (that?s why I tried to explain it), but the reality is that along the history of astrology different astrologers used different terminology according with their understanding of the celestial phenomena.


There are many ways in which we can describe the phases of planets according to different use.
Two things remain important:
1. to have always in mind what is behind that terminology that we are using
2. to search for the meaning of different terminology of different ancient authors, i.e. to find what was implied by the use of certain terminology.

To come to your question.
I used the terminology of Paulus Alexandrinus and Olimpiodorus. Paulus and Olimpiodorus use this terminology, which is explained in the chapter 14 (and the annotations of Olimpiodorus to this chapter).

Why I was using this terminology if I have the common definitions?

1. Because in different Hellenistic texts there are different interpretations that imply this terminology (and this was the case in the fragment that I posted from Olimpiodorus).

2. It?s not useless. In fact I consider it to be one of the most articulated one because it reveals two important aspects of phases:
2.a the fact that there is a visual aspect of planets phases: to appear from the Sun beams, and to immerge into the Sun beams.
2.b. the fact that there are two main differentiation of planets in their phases: matutine/vespertine (or to use the common terminology: oriental/occidental).


One last thing. There is also a use in differentiating oriental/occidental from matutine/vespertine.
They insisted on oriental/occidental because it was important to determine if a certain planet is visible in the sky.
Matutine/vespartine couple is in fact a main differentiation of a planet in its phase. After this main classification it comes the enfolding of different stages in the phase of a planet (rising, setting, first station, second station and so on).

Hello Gjiada/Sasha,

Thank you for your contributions. Both very helpful.

This discussion has highlighted for me that I am quite ignorant in this area both in terms of astronomy and astrology!

Before I even tackle the astrological issues I feel I need to grasp the astronomy properly going on first. Especially, with the inner or inferior planets in relation to their phases. Its something I have always been rather hazy on and this discussion has highlighted this.

I have come across these two very useful articles by Michael R .Meyer on both the Venus cycle:

http://www.khaldea.com/planets/venus_type.shtml

and the Mercury cycle respectively: http://www.khaldea.com/planets/merc_type.shtml

Naturally this is all in heliocentric terms. To understand the hellenistic astrologers view of the phases in terms of astronomy first we need to understand Ptolemy's ideas set out in the Almagest and the geocentric model of the cosmos involving the notion of epicycles . In addition the influence of older notions stemming from Aristotle set out in his book 'On the Heavens' with the theory of concentric spheres radiating frrom the earth.

I will need more time to consider your replies in both astronomical and astrological terms. Thank you for taking the time to reply.

Mark

MarkC wrote:'

This discussion has highlighted for me that I am quite ignorant in this area both in terms of astronomy and astrology!

it's just phases of inner planets are very difficult.
i believe it was the same reason medieval astrologers just used orbs.
Human being tends to simplicity.

margherita

Although I don't apply heliacal rising in astrology the subject is very interesting from an astronomical observational point of view. The star Sirius was said to cause the summer's heat when invisible. The period of invisibility, about 40 days was in the middle of the northern summer but because of precession the periods don't coincide anymore. However in daily language we use the terminology: dog days, or caniculaire (French) hondsdagen (Dutch) for a very hot period. Sirius is the star in the constellation Big Dog or Canis Major.

Venus is a very interesting example. In the end of march 2009 Venus will be in inferior conjunction with the Sun. At that moment the latitude will be +8?, thus far north above the Sun. Very soon after invisibility Venus will reappear as a morning star after inferior conjunction. I remember the similar situation 8 years ago when I saw Venus about one week after inferior conjunction. However this counts only for the northern hemisphere (I was at 52?N). In a southern latitude location, New Zealand for example, Venus is below the Sun from that perspective. Venus will be invisible for a longer time.

My annual starguide mentions the favourable positions of the Moon and planets. A standard rule that in spring the most favourable conditions is when a planet is in eastern elongation as the astronomers say or east of the Sun (I find the occident/orient terminology indeed confusing, even in one and the same definition there seems to be some contradiction http://en.mimi.hu/astrology/occidental.html ). The planet sets after sunset and in spring this means that the planet is in a sign that will be higher above the horizon. The planets that rise before sunrise in spring are in a less favourable position. In autumn the situation is vice versa, morning visibility is favourable evening visibility less.

Mercury has a very eccentric orbit (0.2056), therefore its distance to the sun at greatest elongation varies from 18? to 28?. Unforuntately for those living in northern latitudes the big ones of 28? always occur in the less favourable periods of the year http://www.jgiesen.de/skymap/MercuryVenus/index.html
According to that starguide these very wide elongations are barely or even will not be visible in the Netherlands (52?N). This means that Mercury then will always be 'under the beams' of the sun. Even the 18? elongations will be better visible when in favourable seasonal conditions. At further northern latitudes the circumstances will be worse and there is even the chance that Mercury is almost never visible, at most a few days per year.

The Moon has similar issues going on. The movenemt of the nodes makes it very interesting. In 2006 the North Node was near 0?Aries. The inlination of the orbit of the Moon to the ecliptic is ca. 5?. In 2006 the result was that the declination of the Moon in 0?Cancer was 23.5?+28.5? and -28.5? in Capricorn. Thus either very favourable or very unfavourable. Some stonecircles in the UK have been built pointed to the extreme moonrise/set points. Furthermore this made the new Moon in the spring visible at a very early date and the evening Moon in autumn very late. Nine years later the highest/lowest declinations will be + and - 18.5?the extremes of (in)visibility will be less. All this is important for the peoples who use(d) the first visibility of the new Moon as the start of a new month. Some traditional Muslim communities still do it this way.

Perhaps the astrologers after the Babylonians and early Greeks payed less attention to the heliacal risings because of the availability of ephemerides made it less urgent to look at the sky to determine the positions of planets in the sky.