Chris Brennan quotes this:
http://theastrologydictionary.com/c/cazimi/

There appears to have been some disagreement amongst some early Medieval sources about how close a planet must get to the Sun before it is considered to be ?in the heart? or cazimi:

According to Rhetorius and Sahl a planet is considered to be ?in the heart? as soon as it comes within one degree of a conjunction with the Sun.

According to al-Qabisi and Bonatti a planet is considered to be ?in the heart? as soon as it comes within 16 minutes of a conjunction with the Sun.
It seems that the earlier authors defined the concept according to the wider value of one degree, whereas most of the later Medieval and Renaissance astrologers used the tighter value of 16 minutes.

I can thicken the plot here.

If you look at the data ...behind the sun begins... behind the sun ends.
There is degree difference of longitude when the latitude differernce is less than 16 minutes.

Maybe both are correct but something got lost in translation and the latitude got confused with the longitude.

So, a neo Trad definition could be..
Cazimi starts when the planet is within a degree longitude of the Sun and its latitude is less than 16 mins on either side of the sun.(superior conjunction).


{and that is why one came out with a tan where you were expecting to be roasted alive }

PD

Good evening,

If one astutely follows transit data, one can notice that H?lios occasionally exhibits 1 second of ecliptical latitude. He is dancing round a barycentre situated outside his circumference.

Of course, this phenomenon is not visible to unaided human sight.

Otherwise i should agree that, is the case of this thread, one has at best a 'Cazimi of longitude', not a complete one. This might be compared to partial and full eclipses, the latter much stronger than the former. However, with Herm?s' ecliptical northern latitude of 1 degree 21', this comparison would be too generous, as H?lios has a diameter of about 30' of arc. No apparent 'bodily' contact occurs.

Ptolemy himself gave the explanation why he considered ecliptical latitude for conjunctions but not for aspects in the last sentence of the text quoted above.

Best regards,

lihin

I'm resuscitating this thread, because I'm currently working on a chart which has
Sun 1?33'46" S and Venus 1?29'22", but Venus' latitude is 1? 1'12" S, so strictly speaking this isn't cazimi. However, looking at the houses it rules, and how the realization of the topics connected with them works out, I would say that this is a strong Venus. It rules the 2d and 9th whole sign house, and is positioned in the 6th. This is a guy who went abroad, started his own small construction company, employs a few people on an on-and-off basis, and is doing really good financially.

James, if you're still around I'd love to hear what's with the chart you posted, with Mars cazimi. Latitude was too big in this case as well, so it would be interesting to know whether it is just completely combust thereby not able to realize the affairs of the houses it rules, or the opposite.
Yuki

hi yukionna,

the chart is for daniel lavoie - http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Lavoie%2C_Daniel

here is his website - http://www.lavoiedaniel.com/site_internet/

hi pankajdubey - sorry i missed your comment previously, or perhaps i saw it but didn't have an answer for it.. it is difficult to get info on him and it is in french when i try!

as for the question of latitude - i am curious to know how coley got to the position of 'it's only cazimi if within 16 minutes of latitude.. an interesting observation is this - uranus is always very close to zero degree latitude with the sun. the sun is always at zero latitude s it is the basis for defining latitude - latitude in relation to the sun.. typically planets are not connected by latitude in an exact manner, but i am curious if someone has a conjunction in latitude - does it share something in common with cazimi and what would the definition of conjunction in latitude? of course coleys 16 minutes sounds quite arbitrary..

astrologers typically ignore latitude, but in reading that book i had mentioned on another thread recently with michael s - "ancient whispers from chaldea" - it is discussed in an original and unique way. the author suggests that the 2 planets that encompass the sun by latitude north and south are important considerations to the expression of the sun. i suppose this has more to do with issues around latitude then cazimi, but it does make one wonder how certain techniques are adopted while others are ignored..

Thanks James

It seems to me that Mars is able to act: it's exaltation ruler of the MC, and in nice mutual reception with Jupiter. I wouldn't know how else to explain his professional success. Sun rules 4, 8 and 12 and is peregrine, so not much help imo. I obviously haven't looked at his chart in depth yet though, so maybe I should give it more time before jumping to conclusions. What do you think? (about Mars I mean, not about me jumping to conclusions)

Hello guys,

I have a comment regarding Pankaj's old comment about the disagreement on the number of degrees required to be in "cazimi".

To my understanding, the Hellenistics had a different concept of what makes a degree or portion (moira). Degrees are discrete spaces that are nonetheless connected to each other (making it possible for the division of space to be hierarchical). So two degrees next to each other is like two adjacent rooms in a school; they are NEXT to each other and therefore connected, but they are separated by a wall. Thus, anything in the same degree is like two people in the same room. They are considered to be in the same space.

Note that the closeness of aspects and conjunction were mostly determined using degrees. Smaller units like minutes or seconds were not present in most the literature I've read (Dorotheus, Valens, Maternus, and a bit of Ptolemy, Hephaistio and Paulus). The exception is Dorotheus, on the topic of length of life technique, but given that the current critical edition is far removed from the original Greek text, it is possible that it was added by the later astrologers.

Therefore, for all intents and purposes, a planet within one degree from the Sun is considered to be 'in its heart', as every minute within that degree belongs to the same space.



In light of the idea of "discrete spaces", however, this sentence construction is potentially misleading, because it leads the modern mind to translate it like this: "a planet within SIXTY MINUTES from the Sun is 'in the heart' of the Sun."

This is NOT what is meant. A better sentence construction would be this. "A planet within the SAME DEGREE as the Sun is 'in the heart' of the Sun."

The difference is as follows. Using the sixty-minute principle, a planet in 6 degrees 1 minute Aries would be in cazimi with the Sun in 5 degrees 59 minutes Aries. This is not the case with the same-degree principle. The second principle requires that the two stars be in the SAME degree. So a planet in 5 degrees 59 degrees is in cazimi if the Sun is in 5 degrees 1 minute of the same sign, but it would not be cazimi if the Sun is in 6 degrees 1 minute.



Regards,

Larxene Xenohart

What Larxene says prompted me to start this separate thread.

pankajdubey wrote: Maybe both are correct but something got lost in translation and the latitude got confused with the longitude.
PD

for me personally the above quote is the critical quote from pankajdubey which i am inclined to agree with.

meanwhile - yukionna - let me get back to you on that in the next week when i have some more time.

larxene - you are talking longitude with no mention of latitude.. i don't know what the old texts say, but i see it the same way as martin who is quoting from a few interpretations of paulus in those quotes he gives on the other thread he started.. i don't think it makes much sense the position you offer here about what defines 1 degree.. better not switch zodiacs either or these degree numbers all go out the window..

does anyone else have any specific thoughts on the use of latitude in relation to the concept of cazimi?

Interesting theory Larxene, thanks. One would really have to look at many charts as was suggested earlier to know the validity of both views.
So in case of the Venus I mentioned, it would be Cazimi in latitude as well. That makes sense in the chart. I will have to review the charts where I dismissed it because of a couple of minutes too much of a difference. It may explain a thing or two.
Yuki

James_m,

I don't have any comments about latitude because I rarely read about them in the ancient texts I am reading. Also, I have not really studied Paul of Alexandria's work yet, so my opinions may change as I read more books and investigate more charts.



Yukionna,

Indeed, we do have to test the hypothesis in order to determine whether it works. We need to keep in mind that most of the ancient texts were destroyed by fire or natural phenomena, so that the texts we have now may not paint a complete picture. We have to compensate for that through our own experimentation and reasoning.



Larxene Xenohart