Hello Eddy,

A quick view in the ephemeris shows that the first three disasters rather close to the date of the superior conjunction of Venus. The 1966 one occurred one week before the conjunction. The 1998 one wasn't close to a Venus conjunction but it occurred one week before the conjunction of the Sun with Mars. (Uranus was square to this conjunction by the way.)

In fact I was wondering why you were mentioning just the inferior conjunction. Anyway for what I know it's the more "wicked" one.

And I can guess because Mars is involved too. It's because many of these disasters depend on man abuse of nature.
In Longarone they exactly knew the condition of Vajont dike, and they made believe nothing, so they are slaughters more than just floods.
The same in Sarno.

I didn't really have Ptolemy in mind. I assume that you meant ?8 of Tetr. II. There Ptolemy mentions only positive issues under Venus: moist, yes but only in the sense of fertility etc. while Saturn is associated with floods, storms and other disasters.

Yes...
but Venus is moist par excellence and it is associated with heavy rains and other moist things in the human being

Maybe there are no classical sources but I believe that heliocentricity urges us to think about some differences.

But this was true in geocentric system too, upper conjunction is always better than inferior one for Ptolemy.

I've always found it attractive to compare the superior conjunction with 'new moon' and inferior conjunction with 'full moon'.

This is not exactly traditional
If you write like that this means that Venus at inferior conjunction should be hot in temperament and this is not what traditional astrologers wrote.
Venus with the Sun is moist and cold, no?

And it follows that I think that the evening star Venus can be considered 'waxing' and the morning star Venus 'waning'. Maybe this is opposed to tradition and perhaps I'm wrong and this may be some 'own' invention, but some feeling in me makes me consider the inferior conjunction Venus a much more 'fertile' sign than the superior conjunction.

According what I know it should be the opposite; better both have the same quality but the superior conjunction works better...in a certain way inner planets work in the opposite way outer planets work,

margherita

Eddy wrote:Maybe this is opposed to tradition and perhaps I'm wrong and this may be some 'own' invention, but some feeling in me makes me consider the inferior conjunction Venus a much more 'fertile' sign than the superior conjunction.

I love this sort of exploration. The inferior conjunction can only be inferior, and since the inferior planets appear like the superior planets when they make their superior conjunction, the inferior conjunction can only be compared with the opposition of the superiors. At this time the superior planets are retrograde in the same way as the inferiors are during their inferior conjunction. When the inferior planets make their inferior conjunction with the Sun they are sent for a spin.

Consider also the meaning of the phrase: "Mercury corrupts the Moon." In Norse mythology the parallel of Mercury, Odin, became all-knowing by drinking from Mimir's fountain. The price of this was sacrificing his one eye, ruled by the Moon. When the new Moon turns her dark side towards the Earth we cannot see her. When the inferior planets make their inferior conjunction with the Sun they turn their dark side to the Earth and it is possible that they are either corrupted or sacrificed in a similar fashion.

Gjiada - your input on this question is truly fascinating. I hope we may explore the matter further.

Hello Margherita,

Can you please mention some paragraphs in the Tetrabiblos which are focused on the difference between Venus' inferior and superior conjunction? I searched through an online Tetrabiblos ( http://www.geocities.com/astrologysourc ... /index.htm , of which Martin once mentioned that this one in fact is "the old 1940 Robbins translation"). With Ctrl f searching for the word 'Venus' I find several things but I find it difficult to read:
Tetr. III 12

Tetrabiblos wrote:Since this is so, when the sun also is in aspect, if the luminaries and Venus are made masculine, the moon is waning, and the maleficent planets are approaching in the succeeding degrees, the males that are born will be deprived of their sexual organs or injured therein, particularly in Aries, Leo, Scorpio, Capricorn, and Aquarius, and the females will be childless and sterile.

Should I understand this "...Venus are made masculine..." as the time when Venus reappears as a morning star? A few posts ago I namely mentioned the Babylonian idea of Venus as a male war related planet when becoming a morning star. On several places I see the mention of Venus as morning or evening star, like in IV 5 (Marriage) but not really the conjunctions.

I don't understand every text of Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos, some texts seem terribly obscure (like that marriage one), really confusing or is it this particular translation .

I started with only the inferior conjunction not really with a particular reason, surely the superior conjunction can be discussed here too .

the inferior conjunction. Anyway for what I know it's the more "wicked" one.

Perhaps this is also considered because Venus then is retrograde?

...many of these disasters depend on man abuse of nature.

I totally agree. If the events of individuals can be said to depend on a mixture of free will, social environment in combination with planets, then in the mundane sphere I'd say that a similar thing would count. In case of deforesting mountains and badly constructed works like dams then the main part of the 'effects' lie in human hands. One day a disaster, like mud slides and bursting dams will have to take place. The planets probably do the triggering 'finishing touch'. Unfortunately the victims are often not the ones to blame.

Quote:
I've always found it attractive to compare the superior conjunction with 'new moon' and inferior conjunction with 'full moon'.

This is not exactly traditional
If you write like that this means that Venus at inferior conjunction should be hot in temperament and this is not what traditional astrologers wrote.
Venus with the Sun is moist and cold, no?

Would Venus in inferior conjunction be more moist than hot? This because Venus is closer to the sphere of the Moon than of the Sun.
There are some problems I have when reading Ptolemy's explanations(Tetr. I 4). First Jupiter and Mars are always much further from the Sun in the heliocentric view. While from a practical point of view I agree for a large part with the qualities given to these planets I find it hard to reconcile these with heliocentricity. Jupiter and Mars should then be much 'colder'. Another one is the position of Mercury. In the heliocentric view Mercury is closest to the Sun, and in my point of view hardly has anything to do with 'moist'. Mercury would rather be hot and dry alone.

However, astronomers know the temperatures of the planets and know that Jupiter generates a lot of his own heat. Saturn and the other gas giants Uranus and Neptune do this as well but much less than Jupiter. This could explain Ptolemy's view that Jupiter is hot (and moist).

Maybe this is not strictly according to tradition but in a sense it is though. The Ptolemaean/Greek tradition appears to be trying to find a scientifical 'physical' explanation for the phenomena and the qualities of planets, signs etc. An other view is the (more modern) 'synchronicity' and symbolical view. That's also a useful one but I prefer the 'physical' view and try to consider synchronicity/symbolism as a useful tool for unexplained 'causes' not yet understood.

Another interesting detail on Venus is that the planet is covered with a thick layer of clouds that never opens up. There is an extreme form of 'greenhouse effect', there is hardly any difference between the day and night temperature which is about 450?C. Furthermore there are rains of sulphuric acid. The "air" pressure also is many times larger than on Earth.
http://cronodon.com/PlanetTech/Venus.html
Not bad for a goddes of love huh...? Seems rather a suffocating love of a very demanding lady . So from this point of view I can imagine that Venus shouldn't come too close to us, like in the inferior conjunction. Note that the according to Babylonian mythology the men who fell for the love of the Ishtar usually became insane. (Sometimes explained by modern scholars as the effects of syphilis, in which the nontreated infected person can become insane.)

Andrew Bevan wrote:At this time the superior planets are retrograde in the same way as the inferiors are during their inferior conjunction. When the inferior planets make their inferior conjunction with the Sun they are sent for a spin.

This is also a good analogy. Sometimes I doubt about my earlier comparison with the lunar phases. Since the Moon moves geocentric it makes the Moon and the phases unique. So the problem with Venus 'between' Sun and Earth giving the 'status' as an outer planet in opposition is disturbed when compared with the lunar phases. At all the Moon 'between' Sun and Earth is 'new' and not full. Furthermore a planet (whether inner or outer) behind the Sun is fully lit by the Sun and therefore not 'new' in the lunar sense either. Should the planets' position in respect to the Sun then perhaps be considered differently than that of the Moon('s phases)?

Gjiada wrote:...in a certain way inner planets work in the opposite way outer planets work,

From the point of view of reappearance of a planet, this can be explained by a view that the reappearance of a planet in the morning before sunrise is the most significant one. The reappearance of Mercury and Venus in the morning is always after inferior conjunction. In some cases when the outer planets also just appeared in the morning sky Mercury or Venus will conjunct them. So from this point of view there's a lot to say for the traditional explanation.

Eddy wrote:Hello Margherita,

Can you please mention some paragraphs in the Tetrabiblos which are focused on the difference between Venus' inferior and superior conjunction?

more or less
let's say I have different sources from anglosaxon traditional world.

In Ptolemy the idea of epycicle is central, planets change their nature because their position in the epycicle, I believe I explained better in my article about temperament.

http://heavenastrolabe.net/some-notes-a ... peraments/

So you should start from the paragraph about the epycycle:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/astro/ptb/ptb11.htm

then these ideas are better explained in the chapters about weather forecast, the shape of body, the mind and the sexual habits because they mostly depend on the position of the planets in the epycycle.

But there is the problem that Ptolemy writes per speculum in anigmate so better his commentators, like Haly, Albohali, Alcabitius or later Cardano.
I have several diagrams from their books (from my astrological lessons from CieloeTerra, I'm studying with Giancarlo Ufficiale who is the secretary of Bezza's association)

For example Haly talking about inner planets: since when they are occidental coming out from the Sunbeams have direct motion, while when they are oriental and in the same way they come out from the sunbeams, it derives that they are more strong when they are occidental and not when oriental.

then we should adapt this to the various subjects.

I searched through an online Tetrabiblos ( http://www.geocities.com/astrologysourc ... /index.htm , of which Martin once mentioned that this one in fact is "the old 1940 Robbins translation"). With Ctrl f searching for the word 'Venus' I find several things but I find it difficult to read:
Tetr. III 12

Tetrabiblos wrote:Since this is so, when the sun also is in aspect, if the luminaries and Venus are made masculine, the moon is waning, and the maleficent planets are approaching in the succeeding degrees, the males that are born will be deprived of their sexual organs or injured therein, particularly in Aries, Leo, Scorpio, Capricorn, and Aquarius, and the females will be childless and sterile.

Should I understand this "...Venus are made masculine..." as the time when Venus reappears as a morning star?

Here it's easier

71. In men's nativities, when both the Sun and Moon shall be in masculine signs, their actions shall appear according to the nature thereof: but in the nativities of women, these very actions are augmented. Judge the fame thing of Mars and Venus, for being matutine, they incline to be more manly; but vespertine they are effeminate. (Centiloquium)

So I believe yours is right reading, at least for what I understand.

I don't understand every text of Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos, some texts seem terribly obscure (like that marriage one), really confusing or is it this particular translation .

They are very obscure without having a guide, I would not understand without any teacher. This is the very reason because knowledge is from mouth to ear.

The planets probably do the triggering 'finishing touch'. Unfortunately the victims are often not the ones to blame.

I agree. In Longarone there were 1800 victims with no responsability, let alone the one to love their house and their place: everybody knew that the dyke was not sure, especially who had the responsability of it.

Jupiter and Mars should then be much 'colder'. Another one is the position of Mercury. In the heliocentric view Mercury is closest to the Sun, and in my point of view hardly has anything to do with 'moist'. Mercury would rather be hot and dry alone.

I don't know, I mean, I come from modern astrology, but then I saw that it was useless, it could not give any information: now I prefer to stick with tradition. It's not a gospel, I understand, but it works.

In every case I agree with you that inferior conjunction carries water. And maybe it does not in the best way.

Margherita

Thanks Margherita for those links.
I find the temperaments/elements very interesting. However the problem is that there often is some disagreement amongst different astrologers. In your article you wrote that you find that Ptolemy contradicts himself when he attributes dryness to the morning. I agree with this, yet I still have other doubts.

I can understand the reasoning of attributing 'moist' to morning and spring. Ptolemy attributes 'moist' to the new moon to first quarter period. Here I have some other thoughts. As new moon can be considered a 'minimum' wouldn't it be more reasonable to attribute 'cold' to new moon to first quarter? Then 'moist' could be attributed to first quarter to full moon.

Another point is that if oriental Venus is hot and moist wouldn't it be more appropriate to consider Venus in her 'element' when in the 'spring' signs Aries to Gemini or even the whole half circle of the zodiac from Aries to Virgo? Saturn would be doing best in the signs Libra to Sagittarius or even to Pisces. This however is contrary to the concept of rulership but it seems to fit in analogically with the logic of these temperaments divided over a circle.

Further there is the problem of the location on Earth. A while ago MarkC and I exchanged some PM's in which he mentioned Maurice McCann who thinks that on the southern hemisphere the rulerships should be reversed. Other astrologers also mention this and this seems very logic to me. Furthermore attributing the temperaments to the seasons in the locations in the tropics would add even other difficulties.

Usually I've been looking mainly at the geometrical relationships of planets (through aspects in a Keplerian way), but this temperaments division over the circle sure is a lot of help for interpreting the influences over longer periods. Notwithstanding the diferent views some have, I prefer these 'Ptolemy-like' divisions of the temperements more than the 'trigon-divisions' of (Vettius Valens?) Aries-fire, Taurus-Earth etc. The former one is a more 'smooth' and therefore 'natural' change over the circle, while the latter are sudden 'jumps' from one temperament to the other.

This morning I had set my mind on really waking up early to finally go out the city to look for Venus. Unfortunately when the clock woke me up at 6 the sky was cloudy after a few bright days . Has anybody seen Venus reappear yet?

Eddy wrote: However the problem is that there often is some disagreement amongst different astrologers. In your article you wrote that you find that Ptolemy contradicts himself when he attributes dryness to the morning. I agree with this, yet I still have other doubts.

Well, I don't think there is disagreement between astrologers.
I believe that Renaissance astrologers took from Ptolemy and are in agreement, if we are talking about tradition .
If we are talking about modern traditional astrologers, I believe they just don't know Ptolemy chapter. Why he is never mentioned when they write about temperament? Lilly just repeats Ptolemy...
So they don't know Ptolemy, they don't know how planets in the epycycle work for Ptolemy and change attribution of qualities.
But I'm a wicked soul, I know. Still a famous Italian politician used repeat "thinking the worse is always better"

I can understand the reasoning of attributing 'moist' to morning and spring. Ptolemy attributes 'moist' to the new moon to first quarter period. Here I have some other thoughts. As new moon can be considered a 'minimum' wouldn't it be more reasonable to attribute 'cold' to new moon to first quarter? Then 'moist' could be attributed to first quarter to full moon.

Moon is a little tricky: Della Porta thinks and writes like you and in CieloeTerra site they give both the possibilities. Anyway the important point is that after the New Moon, she is MOIST and at Full Moon, she is HOT, because Moon follows the outer planets epycycle.

Another point is that if oriental Venus is hot and moist wouldn't it be more appropriate to consider Venus in her 'element' when in the 'spring' signs Aries to Gemini or even the whole half circle of the zodiac from Aries to Virgo? Saturn would be doing best in the signs Libra to Sagittarius or even to Pisces. This however is contrary to the concept of rulership but it seems to fit in analogically with the logic of these temperaments divided over a circle.

No, because the phase is like an ACCIDENTAL dignity, it is not linked with the essential dignity. An oriental Mars or a vespertine Venus is dignified and powerful in whatever sign is.

Further there is the problem of the location on Earth. A while ago MarkC and I exchanged some PM's in which he mentioned Maurice McCann who thinks that on the southern hemisphere the rulerships should be reversed. Other astrologers also mention this and this seems very logic to me. Furthermore attributing the temperaments to the seasons in the locations in the tropics would add even other difficulties.

In CieloeTerra they reverse the signs in fact. Let's say now Sun is in Aries, they put in Libra for the southern hemisphere. They follow Cardano, Campanella and (surprise) Placido

To be precise Cardano suggests to save the sign name but swithes domiciles, so in practise it's easier switch the signs.

This morning I had set my mind on really waking up early to finally go out the city to look for Venus. Unfortunately when the clock woke me up at 6 the sky was cloudy after a few bright days . Has anybody seen Venus reappear yet?

In Rome it's very difficult to see stars..

Margherita

Gjiada wrote:... So they don't know Ptolemy, they don't know how planets in the epycycle work for Ptolemy and change attribution of qualities.
But I'm a wicked soul, I know. Still a famous Italian politician used repeat "thinking the worse is always better"

I don't think some change can do bad, as long as the system retains it's
consistency. I would prefer a more heliocentric based philosophy. I find that Kepler did wonderful work on inserting the Platonic solids in the heliocentric system, and the aphelia/perihelia of the planets' orbits in relation to musical intervals.

Moon is a little tricky: Della Porta thinks and writes like you ...

It's nice to know that others also had this thoughts. Perhaps the Moon is a little tricky because I assume she never entirely looses all of the moist character, whether new or full.

No, because the phase is like an ACCIDENTAL dignity, it is not linked with the essential dignity.

I'll (have to) read more on these concepts to understand this totally .

They follow Cardano, Campanella and (surprise) Placido

Unfortunately nobody seems to have followed this in practice. Furthermore there is still the difficulty of what to do when the location is in the tropics. Exactly on the equator there is no difference at all. Perhaps here the two halves of the zodiac should be similar. Aries-Gemini - Moist, Cancer-Virgo - Hot and same for Libra-Sagittarius - Moist and Capricorn-Pisces - Hot. Near the poles maybe the entire circle should be ruled by cold and just a small arc by the moist and hot temperaments. This all provided that the zodiac is entirely related to the climate.

In Rome it's very difficult to see stars..

That's too bad. However Venus as the brightest 'star' should be visible. Especially early in the morning when there isn't yet a lot of smog during summer. The main problem would be to find a place with free view on the horizon.

Andrew Bevan wrote:Consider also the meaning of the phrase: "Mercury corrupts the Moon."

In a certain way I can understand this. Mercurial is often related to restlessness http://dictionary.die.net/mercurial . With the Moon related to water easily affected by this restlessness, Mercury can absorb moisture (Tetr. I 4). However according to the same text in Ptolemy Mercury also can be humidifying, and that's a bit confusing. On the other side from the mythological point of view, the Egyptian Moon god Thoth is related to writing while writing is also related to Mercury.

Eddy wrote:

Gjiada wrote:
No, because the phase is like an ACCIDENTAL dignity, it is not linked with the essential dignity.

I'll (have to) read more on these concepts to understand this totally .

it's very easy, see Deborah Houlding's article:
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dig5.html#5

She quotes Lilly, who is very true to Ptolemy. See how Lilly determines the strenght of planets.

Have a nice Sunday

Margherita

Gjiada wrote:it's very easy, see Deborah Houlding's article:
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dig5.html#5

Hello Margherita,
Thanks for the link. Since, like Kepler, I make little use of signs and houses, I'm not sure if I easily get used to it but at least I will be able to understand what is meant when this terminology is used on the forum .

I just realised that I need to correct the comment I made on the first page of this thread ? I?m sorry if I caused some confusion about when the cycle of Venus is supposed to ?begin?.

Margherita I tried to see what you have already written in your article about Temperament but the link does not work. From your comments however, I think we are both of the opinion that the cycle should begin with the superior conjunction (or the occidental rising) and not the inferior conjunction which is what we are experiencing now. As Margherita says, the reasoning seems to be implied rather than directly stated in the ancient texts, but one telling argument is in the way that the heliacal cycles are traditionally used to determine the age of someone like an unknown thief.

To give an example using a technique that is described in various places CA, and which agrees with the writings of earlier authors such as Ibn Ezra, Lilly starts this judgement using an average presumed life cycle of 72 years, which begins ? in the case of Venus or Mercury as the significator ? with the superior direct conjunction. The maximum elongation, being mid-way between the retrograde conjunction, suggests an age of about 18, and the retrograde conjunction ? which represents half the complete cycle *where we are now* ? suggests an age of around 36. The next elongation signifies someone around the age of around 54, moving closer to the age of 72 as the planet completes its cycle with the Sun.

This also fits with other comments, such as Ptolemy?s remark that Venus is in her ?proper face? when she is occidental (I.23), and the idea that Venus ? like the Moon ? is ?feminized? by her rising in the west.

I wrote about this in an earlier forum thread ( http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 1&start=30 ) where I think I probably explained this more carefully than I have here.

Eddy ? sorry if I confused you over this. Have you been able to observe Venus yet? I'm afraid that my detrmination to get up every morning at sunrise only lasted until about day 2.
Deb

Deb wrote:I
Margherita I tried to see what you have already written in your article about Temperament but the link does not work.

Yes, the hosting sevice told me the server is down, they will repair later.
Anyway you can read it the old blog;
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com/20 ... peraments/

From your comments however, I think we are both of the opinion that the cycle should begin with the superior conjunction (or the occidental rising) and not the inferior conjunction which is what we are experiencing now.

This is what I learned in my course in fact.

This also fits with other comments, such as Ptolemy?s remark that Venus is in her ?proper face? when she is occidental (I.23), and the idea that Venus ? like the Moon ? is ?feminized? by her rising in the west.

This is what I was taught in fact. A vespertine Venus means feminine sexual tastes - even if we should consider other factors, obviously.

I'm happy we share the same ideas anyway


Margherita

Deb wrote:I just realised that I need to correct the comment I made on the first page of this thread ? I?m sorry if I caused some confusion about when the cycle of Venus is supposed to ?begin?.

No problem. It is confusing anyway but I feel the most comfortable with the superior conjunction.

Gjiada wrote:Quote:
From your comments however, I think we are both of the opinion that the cycle should begin with the superior conjunction (or the occidental rising) and not the inferior conjunction which is what we are experiencing now.

This is what I learned in my course in fact.

But this confuses me a bit. As far as I had understood in last few days, I thought that tradition used inferior conjunction as the 'starting' moment. If inferior conjunction Venus is moist according to tradition, doesn't it mean that she is then at the beginning of a cycle, since moist is usually set as starting moment?

Deb wrote:This also fits with other comments, such as Ptolemy?s remark that Venus is in her ?proper face? when she is occidental (I.23), and the idea that Venus ? like the Moon ? is ?feminized? by her rising in the west.

For both conjunctions there is something to say for. Morning appearance resembles appearance as a outer planet. Evening appearance resembles appearance as the new moon.

About the 'face' thing. If we look at the exaltations then Venus as a morning star is good placed as an 'exaltation face' if this means something in astrology. Furthermore next week Venus is in the last degree of Pisces just before she goes retrograde, and Sun is in Aries. Both thus in their exaltation. A very interesting thing because 8 years ago this wasn't the case. Now a 'big' cycle has started when every 8 years of this particular 8 year serie this Sun and Venus exaltation will occur. The last time of this serie will occur in 128 years in 2137 when during half a day (!) Sun in 0?Aries and Venus in 29? Pisces will be exalted together.

I'm happy we share the same ideas anyway

So we all agree on superior conjunction as starting moment ?

Eddy ? sorry if I confused you over this. Have you been able to observe Venus yet? I'm afraid that my detrmination to get up every morning at sunrise only lasted until about day 2.
Deb

No problem Deb. I like the discussion, there are things to say for both. Perhaps it's like the discussion if a Zebra is a white horse with black stripes or a Black horse with white stripes .

I sidn't see Venus yet. I was awake early last and this week, but I was too lazy to go out to search for a free horizon . Furthermore, after a nice week now it's cloudy almost every day .

At the moment I don't have the time to have a look in that thread, maybe after Easter I'll have more time. Hopefully one of us will have seen Venus by then .