Hello Margherita,

I like very much Crane's book but he does not quote from where he took this idea-

Yes I agree on both points. Its a pity as his book is very good overview of hellenistic astrology. However, his lack of references for much of the content does make it difficult to follow up his ideas and check them against the actual texts. I suppose this is why Deb is always reminding her students to go back to the primary sources themselves rather than the trust modern interpretations of them. Even if we make mistakes at least they will be our own and not somebody elses!

Mark

Hi Mark

I took the implication from this comment. After talking about Ptolemy's views you say:

Mark wrote:This point seems to be quite explicit in James Holden?s recent translation of Rhetorius were there are numerous references to the superiority of an oriental Mercury. Then there are Hellenistic techniques like spearbearing where it seems only an oriental Mercury in a day chart would seem appropriate for this supportive role. An occidental Mercury rising after the Sun could never fulfil that role. Although it could be a spearbearer for the Moon in a night chart.

Still, in astrology there are always differing views. For example, Paulus Alexandrinus seems to prefer a vespertine phase for both inferior planets.

If I misrepresented your purpose, I'm sorry.

Margherita wrote:I guess Ptolemy knew they had a different epicycle- at least this please gave to him, he should have copied it between the rest of his compilations

I am certain the reason Ptolemy did not explain the basic differences in his Tetrabiblos, is only because he took it for granted that the Almagest - which was published beforehand - was first of all known and understood by the reader. This is the opening point Ptolemy makes in the Tetrabiblos, that of the two means of prediction in astronomy the first (the astronomical cycles) has already been expounded, and now he is turning to the second, which is not self-sufficient (in other words, not intended to be read without an understanding of the former).

I believe that McCann has misrepresented the principle, but he had very little to refer to at the time he wrote that article. There are a number of finer points upon which I disagree with Crane, but I know his book was intended to be an introduction, so I mainly think that some principles are too simplified, and because of that they can miss the mark, and sometimes cause confusion. (I'm afraid I often think like this about the popular texts of modern authors, so I know I should make allowances for the fact that I am particularly hard to please).

Thomas Jefferson and Bill Clinton are regarded as the most intelligent Presidents to occupy the White House - both have Mercury Oriental in a diurnal nativity greater than 20 degrees from the sun. Jefferson has Mercury in Pisces in bounds of Mars. Mercury is partile sextile Uranus.
Clinton has Mercury in Leo sextile Mars within a degree.

I have compiled a list of Mercury's position relative to the Sun for all 43 Presidents here: http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5446

Deb wrote:

I took the implication from this comment. After talking about Ptolemy's views you say:

Mark wrote:
This point seems to be quite explicit in James Holden?s recent translation of Rhetorius were there are numerous references to the superiority of an oriental Mercury. Then there are Hellenistic techniques like spearbearing where it seems only an oriental Mercury in a day chart would seem appropriate for this supportive role. An occidental Mercury rising after the Sun could never fulfil that role. Although it could be a spearbearer for the Moon in a night chart.

Still, in astrology there are always differing views. For example, Paulus Alexandrinus seems to prefer a vespertine phase for both inferior planets.

I did omit three important words in my reference to Rhetorius which should have ended my sentence i.e. 'in a day chart'. The comment about Paulus Alexandrinus was a bit unguarded as it was influenced by a comment by Joseph Crane in his book. In reality the ideas of Paulus contain complex astronomical awareness of planetary phases clearly built on the astronomical ideas received from Ptolemy. His ideas are quite complex and such statements probably do not do him any justice. Moreover, reading your post above I can see the issue is quite different to the way it is typically discussed by traditional authors.

Also it could be argued that sect is less important for Mercury because of its common nature. In his short bookelet on planetary sect Robert Hand expresses the view several times that Mercury does not appear to be strongly influenced by sect. Many traditional sources focus on the nature of Mercury changing according to its aspectual connections and that of its dispositor.

I am just going to have to be patient and await the appearance of your book. It should help clear away lots of mental cobwebs and restore planetary phase to its important place in traditional astrology

Any idea when your book might be appearing next year?

Mark

Any idea when your book might be appearing next year?

Hi Mark

I just did a horary to answer that question, and based on Jupiter's applying sextile to the MC I would say in 0.44 degrees

(I went with that because MC-ruler Mercury looks completely stuffed - in fact, I almost wish I hadn't seen the chart now)

worrying indeed !
mercury combust in a watery sign and conjunct south node. Moon recently eclipsed and now Void.
Mars in a Nodal degree and saturn in mercury sign.
Too much of mental karmic intensity.
Take care

PD

Oh no - I hadn't even noticed Mercury was eclipsed and now void. I'm tempted to scrap the whole idea ...
I'm just hoping that the horary wasn't very radical - when I first worked out the timing it pointed to ten past 8 last Tuesday morning (but then I remembered that we're supposed to mix discretion with art, so I decided to go back to my original estimate of sometime soon (hopefully) after the New Year (if I'm lucky) (and don't keep wasting time writing silly and completely unnecessary, off-topic posts in this forum).

Cheers PD!

Thomas Jefferson and Bill Clinton are regarded as the most intelligent Presidents to occupy the White House - both have Mercury Oriental in a diurnal nativity greater than 20 degrees from the sun. Jefferson has Mercury in Pisces in bounds of Mars. Mercury is partile sextile Uranus.
Clinton has Mercury in Leo sextile Mars within a degree.

I have compiled a list of Mercury's position relative to the Sun for all 43 Presidents here: http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5446

What would be the reasoning behind wanting it 20 degrees or more? Aren't the Sun's beams 17 degrees (according to Lilly anyway)? I say this as someone with oriental diurnal Mercury 18 degrees from Sun.