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.

But will they drink the Kool-Aid?

We don't want to misrepresent the author.

No, we don't, and neither do I.

And also, it's just the way it's done.

Indeed! Although it's taken me two post-graduate degrees to figure that out. Whoda thunkit?

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

Try this:

http://www.astrologiamedieval.com/

Then click on Estudos and scroll down. Or try this:

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

Don?t worry Kirk, your confusion is fairly typical. Most astrologers think of Mars as mainly heating because we are accustomed to describing it as hot and dry; so the emphasis falls on the first word. That is why it is important to forget the simplifications and build upon the way that Ptolemy describes this.

Hello Mark,

As Joseph Crane has written there are differences in the way the hellenistic and medieval traditions used the concepts of oriental and occidental of the Sun.

I have that book, it seems to remember something like that for inner planets - if it's better a vespertine or matutine rising, isn'it?

Nevertheless I accept your point. I do think planetary phase has to be considered.

It's not my point . It's Ptolemy's one.

The debate I suppose is whether this is a slight modification or a major one. Ribeiro seems to have decided to ignore it completely for temperament analysis so I do not find his solution acceptable. On the other hand I have a hard time totally accepting Frawley either. 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? I'm with Greenbaum on that one

Well, I follow Bezza because I've many of his books and his astrological course: said this, I think that more or less is the same method, with slightly variants.

Anyway if you want to hear about Bezza, he makes this example for Saturn. It's just hairsplitting because then he does not use it and just add + in the relative column of 4 qualities.

oriental Saturn: cold 8 moist 4 (don't ask me where Bezza took this score please)

oriental Saturn in the first quadrant (hot/moist) cold 6 moist 6

oriental Saturn in the second quadrant (hot/dry) cold 6 moist 2

occidental Saturn: cold 8 dry 4

occidental Saturn in the first quadrant: cold 6 dry 2

occidental Saturn in the second quadrant: cold 6 dry 6

and so on...

Not in the medieval or reniassance sense but there are precedents in Ptolemy and Firmicus. Joseph Crane discusses the so called Oikodespotes or chart ruler discussed by Ptolemy in his book 'The Hellenistic Legacy'. See the quote from Ptolemy on this.

Lord of Geniture is not the planet having more rights on a given point.
But after writing my previous post I found a mention of Lord of Geniture in Bezza method too.
He says that it was a Renaissance method but he considers it in case of doubt.

Anyway Bezza is quite free in his method, it seems to me this, he considers factors when he need...

Aren't the two intrinsically connected? After all the origin of temperament analysis comes from medicine and physiology seems a part of temperament analysis to me covered by Ptolemy's use of the word.

Lets hear from Ptolemy himself:

Bodily Form and Mixture
And so generally one must observe carefully the rising horizon and those planets that are either upon it or those that are its ruler (Oikodespotes; the almuten) in the way that we said before; and in the same way look particularly to the Moon. For the true disposition of the body is observed through the formative nature of these places and of their rulers, and through the commixture according to each for and in addition through the figure descriptions ( aspects) of the fixed stars co-rising with these. The stars ( planets) having rulership are first in power , but the distinctive character of their places also contributes.
Ptolemy ( Tetrabiblos, Book II, Chapter 11, translated by Dorian Greenbaum.

You forgot I attended astrological lessons from people who consider just Ptolemy as astrologer

So for the temperament they consider :

1) Ascendant
2) ruler of the Ascendant
3) angular planets especially in the first house
4) Moon
5) planets configurated to the Moon.

"For the true disposition of body":

1) Ruler of the ascendant (i.e. the planet who has more rights on both the Ascendant degree and the Moon)
2) sign rising at the Ascendant
3) fixed stars at the Ascendant.

Have a nice day,

margherita
www.heavenastrolabe.splinder.com

Hello Deb,

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.

Again, according to Ptolemy, it is mainly drying, but also heating, a combination that quickly leads to burns.

... 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.

Thanks I think I now have a better understanding of Ptolemy's position on this. I have been reading Chapter 9 of Joseph Crane's book ''The Hellenistic Legacy'' which looks at the phases of the Moon and planets. Still I hadn't appreciated the full implications of Ptolemy's approach for the other planets until you explained it relation to their intrinsic nature.

Clearly you do not accept the commonly discussed view that suggests all the superior planets are preferable oriental while Mercury and Venus are preferable occidental. If this is not compatible with Ptolemy I wonder where this idea comes from? I can only guess the source must be astronomical with the slower moving planets in a waxing phase when oriental following conjunction with the Sun. I know that Venus and Mercury speed up and then go retrograde in proximity to the Sun but I am a bit vague on the astronomical specifics and how this relates to them being perceived as less suitable oriental of the Sun?

(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

That is extremely interesting. Would you mind sharing what secondary source you got this from? I would be interested in fiding out more about this.

Sorry, for the reasons I mentioned earlier, I offer this as a tip only. (The long story has something to do with me leaving some of my notes and reference papers on a flight and not being sure yet if I can get them back - but I can tell you that this is reasoning that I noted from Babylonian omens, it's not from a modern text).

Clearly you do not accept the commonly discussed view that suggests all the superior planets are preferable oriental while Mercury and Venus are preferable occidental.

I?m not sure why you say that because I don?t disagree with the traditional view. But people have different understandings of what the term ?occidental? means, so I prefer not to make a quick comment on this, because it would probably be quite misleading, or at least confusing, if I tried to do that.

Pity about the Bablylonian references. I would really like to know where you got this from.

I?m not sure why you say that because I don?t disagree with the traditional view.

I'm wasn't suggesting you were disageeing with the tradition. That seems a very unlikely possibility. I was just a little confused how your statement on Saturn being less destructive in the oriental phase (moistening and warming) sits with the idea off superior planets being stronger and preferable in occidental phase?

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.

Maybe, I am simply confusing two quite different ideas here. In particular how phase effects the expression of the planets intrinsic nature and how powerful it makes them?

Moreover, what we call 'the tradition' is clearly not without differences between the sources. Joseph Crane suggests that Ptolemy took a general position that oriental planets were more powerfully expressed than occidental ones. On the other hand he contrasts this view with the hellenistic astrologer Paulus.

''According to Paulus, an evening rising planet fulfills, its function not in early life, like a morning riser, but in middle age or later. According to Ptolemy, any planet that sets after the Sun, even if it has emerged from the Sun's rays, is occidental and less potent.
The Hellinistic Legacy, Chapter 9, p175, Joseph Crane.

The case for distinguishing between Venus and Mercury and the superior planets does have a lot of astronomical support. From a geocentric, observational view the inferior planets (Mercury and Venus) appear quite differently in the sky to the superior planets ( Mars, Jupiter & Saturn)

Inferior planets (Mercury and Venus)
-Travel close to the Sun in an apparently oscillating motion
-are faster on the Earth?s side of their orbit ( faster at inferior conjunction, when they are between the earth and the Sun)
-are slower when the Sun is between the Earth and the inferior planet ( ie slowest at superior conjunction)
-Move swiftly when they first appear in the morning sky, slowing down before leaving it
-Move slowly when they first appear in the evening sky, speeding up before leaving it
-Are brightest close to conjunction with the Sun.
-Enter the evening sky in the west

Superior Planets ( Mars , Jupiter & Saturn)
-appear as evening stars at opposition
-disappear from the evening sky as they approach opposition
-go retrograde as they approach opposition
-are brightest at opposition to the Sun
-enter the evening sky in the east.

Mark wrote:

I was just a little confused how your statement on Saturn being less destructive in the oriental phase (moistening and warming) sits with the idea off superior planets being stronger and preferable in occidental phase?

If you look at Lilly?s table of fortitudes and debilities on CA p.115, you?ll see the superior planets gain points of fortitude for being oriental, and lose them for being occidental. (CA., p.115)

The thing to remember with the inferior planets is that there is two cycles within one, because they open from the Sun in their direct phase, reach maximum elongation, and return back in their retrograde motion ? this is only half of the full cycle ? then they continue separating in a retrograde motion and finally close into the Sun again. Because of this ?double-cycle? effect, they deserve more explanation than I have time to offer at the moment, as I?m finishing off some projects to spend some time away from my desk.

If you look at Lilly?s table of fortitudes and debilities on CA p.115, you?ll see the superior planets gain points of fortitude for being oriental, and lose them for being occidental. (CA., p.115)

That much I did know. At least I thought I did. Somehow this discussion got me into a real muddle. Clearly, my brain is having its own mercury retrograde. I now see your point and as you suggest there is no inconsistency of approach here.

All I have to do now is make sense of where James Crane's view fits in with all this. Anyway, I will meet you soon enough face to face for the Ben Dykes workshop.

See you there.

Mark

I think you mean Joseph Crane - this is why I'm trying not to rush myself today I don't know how this fits with what he writes. I tend to stick with the primary texts when it comes to explanations of technique.

As for the source of my other comment ? you can find statements to that effect in Ptolemy I.4 (Robbins pp.35-37). Here he explains that Saturn is chiefly cooling, Mars chiefly drying, Jupiter chiefly warming and Venus chiefly humidifying. He says the same thing in many different places, sometimes referring to Saturn and Mars more simply as Saturn=cooling, Mars = drying, (for example at I.5 and 1.7).

Gotta rush now but will look forward to seeing you tomorrow!

MarkC wrote: Clearly you do not accept the commonly discussed view that suggests all the superior planets are preferable oriental while Mercury and Venus are preferable occidental. If this is not compatible with Ptolemy I wonder where this idea comes from? I can only guess the source must be astronomical with the slower moving planets in a waxing phase when oriental following conjunction with the Sun. I know that Venus and Mercury speed up and then go retrograde in proximity to the Sun but I am a bit vague on the astronomical specifics and how this relates to them being perceived as less suitable oriental of the Sun?

Hello Mark,

surely Deborah had replied better than me.

And I have so little time at the moment that I just gave a quick look to the thread.

Anyway my understanding is that Venus and Mercury are better vespertine because they start their pace in the epicycle from the vespertine rising, i.e. occidental.
On the contrary superior planets start their cycle from the oriental side.

Still I guess it depends on if we are talking about a night or day chart, because a vespertine rising is against hairesis (sect) in a night chart and a matutine setting is against hairesis for a day chart.

Anyway I find inferior planets very difficult to understand, they are very confusing to me...

Margherita
www.heavenastrolabe.splinder.com

Gjiada wrote:Anyway my understanding is that Venus and Mercury are better vespertine because they start their pace in the epicycle from the vespertine rising, i.e. occidental.
On the contrary superior planets start their cycle from the oriental side.

Yes, and this is what confuses me a bit. Venus and Mercury start their cycles in vespertine positions (if we associate direct conjunction with the Sun as "new Mercury" or "new Venus" and retrograde movement as "opposition", the half-point of the cycle). But they don't make a "vespertine rising", they just get visible for a moment when the night darkens until they set under the horizon after the Sun.

But when emerging from a retrograde conjunction with the Sun they really rise out from the Sun in the morning and in a way that has a more fresh or "new" feeling about it. Both Venus and Mercury are warmer when morning stars but for them warming does no good: Mercury becomes more mischievous and less serious and Venus becomes more lustful and "immoral" and less chaste. Is it because they have moved onto the latter part of the cycle - they are less innocent than when occidental / vespertine in the beginning?

Of course in the spirit of Ptolemy we could reason that because Mercury and Venus are so close to the Sun, they are warm enough already. Additional warming does no good for them. But the superior planets Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are further from the Sun so a little warmth does no harm, and that's why they are better when oriental.

If we add the Moon in the picture, it becomes even more complicated. Like Mercury and Venus, also the Moon makes its first appearance after conjoining the Sun in the evening when it becomes visible for a moment and sets under the horizon shortly after the Sun. And when it's in the end of its cycle, it's visible in the morning, rising shortly before the Sun. In a way it goes backwards: from tired evening to fresh morning.

Yes, and this is what confuses me a bit. Venus and Mercury start their cycles in vespertine positions (if we associate direct conjunction with the Sun as "new Mercury" or "new Venus" and retrograde movement as "opposition", the half-point of the cycle). But they don't make a "vespertine rising", they just get visible for a moment when the night darkens until they set under the horizon after the Sun.

But this is what was termed the ?rising? in ancient astrology, with that period of visibility continuing to increase each day ? a more essential principal than the daily rising over the ascendant. Neither Venus nor Mercury gets to be seen for very long because they are limited by their nearness to the Sun, but the process is still happening. As you say, this ?night-time? rising in the west is what happens with the Moon too, and we don?t usually have an issue about the fact that a new Moon becomes visible in this way. We still think of it as ?new? and refreshed. In a way it seems more fitting that the two feminine planets plus the one neutral planet are able to rise in the west after sunset, whereas the masculine planets rise in the east before sunrise. This separation out from the ?morning risers? says something about their feminine inclinations, and their inferior positions under the Sun. (If it helps think of these feminine-type planets as like vampires ? they are not tired in the evening; they are refreshed by it ).

But when emerging from a retrograde conjunction with the Sun they really rise out from the Sun in the morning and in a way that has a more fresh or "new" feeling about it.

But they are retrograde when they do this, so how can they seem new or fresh? With Mercury retrograde at the moment I can understand the importance of the cycle needing to start with a direct-motion separation from the Sun.

Another general point, BTW, is that it is misleading to think of this as Ptolemy's viewpoint. It was the ancient viewpoint, and it is so fundamental that is is worth persevering with until you get past the point of confusion.