Skyscript Astrology Forum

Not trying to be a spoil sport.

Best would be to compare with a sport that has no technical skills and stamina but strategy and thinking and perseverence. = Chess


http://www.astro.com/wiki/astro-databan ... hess&go=Go

Saturn and Aquarius with mercury in a venus sign and mars in a non mercury sign seems to predominate .

It would be best to compare the chess players with Football or Rugby players, to bring out the contrast between technique and tactics or mental versus physical exercise.

PD

namely Venus is astronomically visible, coming out of the Sun?s beams

Unless I've missed something glaringly obvious here, Venus is not retrograde in this oriental position so she can't possibly be coming out of the Sun beams, but is instead going after/chasing the Sun, meaning she'll be entering the Sun's beams shortly.

Goran

Yes Goran you are right. Venus is not rising but about to set, and that changes everything Now everyone in this discussion should be a bit happier. This is why chart wheels should always include details of the planetary speeds alongside them - we could have seen that Venus was setting straight away we?d known how fast it was moving. But I?d like to continue the discussion on phase anyway, since the point of Tienka?s question wasn?t to ask how we can see that Messi is a footballer when we know he is a footballer, but how we would have seen it at birth. So to me it?s important to clarify the principles, whether they apply specifically to this chart or not.

Margherita - I can?t thank you enough for taking the trouble to scan that snippet of text. I re-read p.59 several times in confusion, but then eventually found it on p.63! It looks like PH must have reformatted the text sometime between my edition and yours. I then found it on p.57 of the Greenbaum edition. Her translation reads:

But if none of the aforesaid stars is set up in one of these places, nor indeed on the Lot of Fortune, it is proper to seek which one of them has been bound under application of the Moon or the Sun, or a morning appearance of Kronos, Zeus, Ares - in regard to this, also an evening rising of Aphrodite, Hermes ? if it should happen to be made seven days before or seven days after the birth.

I don?t fully understand the logic of considering what happened 7 days before or after the birth. I wonder whether this is applying the principles of a crisis chart since their use was very ancient, and based on how the Moon squared its position in the radix. I don?t know, but it is clear that the passage is only telling us to consider the oriental (?morning?) rising of the superior planets and the occidental (?evening?) rising of the inferiors, not the settings, because these risings describe the phase where planets peak in accidental expression.

It?s usual that the explanations of how these phases commence are given for the superior planets first, with subsequent explanation of how to adapt this to the two-fold cycles of the inferiors. So when Paulus first explains that the superiors are ?active?, ?productive and stronger? following their oriental rising, we know the same burst of creative vigour is expected of the inferiors in their occidental (?evening?) rise, where by direct motion they appear from under the Sun at the superior conjunction. When he talks about the planets being unprofitable when making a morning or evening disappearance, we know he has to be including the inferior planets in this because they are the only ones that can make a morning disappearance.

Abu Mashar gives a great analogy of how the planets are strong and pure in effect after passing through combustion and then finding a sense of release and renewed vigour when they emerge from under the Sun?s beams. Mars is like a sharpened blade which is infallible and causes incurable wounds. Jupiter is like an honest man who has been freed with a great sense of justice, so is kind, merciful and disposed well in all things. Saturn is like a lion that has been freed from its den and can now destroy anything that stands in its path. Throughout the tradition we find references to youth analogies in these cycles, the risings beginning the period of youth and strong activity, the settings closing the period of old age and weakness. So to extend Abu Mashar?s analogy of Mars - when setting it is like a blunt blade that you have to hack with great effort, and even then it will probably cause more bruising than bleeding. Bonatti gives the analogy of a setting planet being like someone who is so weak that they depend on help from others, or a building which has already started to go to ruin.

So I don?t know where this idea that planets gain potency when setting because they are ?in a phase? comes from, or if it is widely taught. The whole synodic cycle is divided into phases of increasing or decreasing potency and purity, so all planets are in some kind of phase at all times, depending on their quality of motion, visibility and alignment with sect. But only the period following emergence from Sunbeams is the really remarkable one and that?s why it?s the only one that Paulus considers relevant to this matter. For Paulus, strong phase is the last thing to consider, not the first. Mars, Mercury and Venus all fit his criteria in more important ways. If they didn?t, none of them would meet it by phase.

Zagat, I found the details in your post very interesting indeed. But since I?m in Margherita?s debt I should point out that she was only doing me a favour by presenting a specific snippet of the text, to help me find a comment that I?d been trying to find in earlier chapters. It wasn?t a case of her ?not playing fair? ? you football lovers are obviously well aware of the need for tactics, but in her defence, that was a straightforward pass.

Now that Goran has clarified that Venus is also weak by phase (although now Margherita may see it as strong ), it looks to me like it?s 0-0 draw now, as far as phase is concerned. But it raised some interesting points anyway, at least for me.

I thought it could be interesting to add the words of Ptolemy, tanslated by Schmidt:
Concerning the quality of action.
The star possessing the lordship of action is taken in two ways, from the Sun and from the culminating zoidion. That is, it will be necessary to consider both that star nearest the Sun which has already made a morning appearance as well as the one upon the Midheaven, when this star has the application of the Moon most of all. p.9.

Schmidt explains: "according to Ptolemy Phases of the Fixed Stars, morning appearance includes both morning rising and morning setting for superior planet or fixed star; the former refers to the first time the body is visible on the eastern horizon shortly before sunrise, the latter to the first time the body is visible on the western horizon shortly before sunrise.
For the inferior planets mercury and Venus, the term can refer only to the first and last times the planet is visible on the eastern horizon shortly before sunrise. However, it is possible that Ptolemy means only morning rising here, particularly since he may have evolved this condition from an earlier tradition of the planet making the nearest application to the Sun. this would restrict the places that a superior planet such as Mars could be found and still qualify for lordship of the action. Footnote on p. 9
So to me, Venus is the favourite

Deb wrote:
Now that Goran has clarified that Venus is also weak by phase (although now Margherita may see it as strong ), it looks to me like it?s 0-0 draw now, as far as phase is concerned. But it raised some interesting points anyway, at least for me.

Never said this or my will to say.

Venus is visible, oriental (in every case it is in the wrong side) and not changing phase, she is going to set.
Mercury is visible, vespertine and is changing phase in a day and it is going to set.

Lastly Mars is vespertine (wrong side), visible, not changing in the next 7 days, and it is going to set.

The essence is that a changing in the phase is a moment where there is a switch in the planet, it is as highlighted.

Tienka wrote:Schmidt explains: "according to Ptolemy Phases of the Fixed Stars, morning appearance includes both morning rising and morning setting for superior planet or fixed star; the former refers to the first time the body is visible on the eastern horizon shortly before sunrise, the latter to the first time the body is visible on the western horizon shortly before sunrise.

maybe you mistyped something: outer planets don't have a morning setting, they rise oriental and set occidental. Or morning means something else in Schmidt?

margherita

To even suggest that Ptolemy could have meant risings and settings here, where Ptolemy specifically mentions only risings, seems to me to only throw a point of confusion into a passage that reads clearly enough and makes perfect sense by itself. We have to bear in mind what the passage is aiming to identify ? a planet that is strong. The significance of the word Phaseis ? which ends up as ?phenomena? by our understanding ? generates different meanings that are only understood by context. In one way it specifically means ?appearances?, in another it presents a more general sense of phase.

Unlike his Tetrabiblos, Ptolemy?s Phaseis is purely concerned with understanding meteorological and calendrical events from the visual appearances of constellations. I suppose Robert Schmidt is alluding to the fact that in his Phaseis (II) Ptolemy explains that the phases of the fixed stars are based on the times of their first or last appearances ? he is quite correct about that, and then Ptolemy goes on to break those phases down into detail.

This wasn?t just heliacal phenomena either, because even the ancient use and meaning of the constellations varies throughout the year whilst they are between those two stages. The altered expression is discovered from the seasonal perspective that the constellation makes as it appears into sight and presents its form to us at sunset. So, for example, some constellations might point upwards at sunset during one part of the year and mean one specific thing because of this, but point downwards in the opposite season and mean something else when in that state. That is also a ?phasis? or ?appearance?, or what was anciently called the constellation?s ?phenomena?. The Greek verb phainomai, means ?to come to light, or to manifest? ? the main calendrical events are seasonal disappearances and reappearances (where the constellations can make them), but the astrological symbolism is still related to a cycle of decline and rebirth. That is very ancient; no getting away from it. Hence, so many treatises that discuss the constellations and their relationship with the calendar go by the name of Phaenomena ? works by Thales, Aratus, Geminos and Ptolemy to name a few. It?s also the reason why the Greek name for Saturn, Phainon, is interpreted as ?shiner? because it comes from the active Phaino ?to shine?. It is also why I don?t believe the principles of planetary phases can be applied to the modern planets, because they don?t present altered forms to us as the stars and planets do.

Another important ?phase? is when planets are in opposition to the Sun, because then they are biggest and brightest and most filled with the Sun?s light. So in general terms, yes, the word which translates into ?appearances? could be used to refer to settings or even acronychal risings (superior planet oppositions), but definitely not when the qualifier ?morning? is used as it is here.

Also note that later in the same chapter, when Ptolemy talks about the effects of dominating planets, he notes that when the dominating planets are ?rising or angular the actions they cause are independent, but if they are setting or declining from angles, subordinate?. Throughout the work setting planets are associated with physical weakness or disabilities, so it wouldn?t be logical for Ptolemy allow a planet in a phase he associates with decline to be a significator for action, or vocation. Judge Judy always says that if it doesn?t make sense, it?s because it isn?t true.

As for the ?highlight? well, there are several points of highlight for planets ? appearances, settings, solar oppositions, stations for the superior planets and maximum elongations for the inferior planets; what about combustion too? All of these give a sort of switch as the planetary state is dynamically altered, but not all of these changes are about strengthening the planet?s expression in a way that would make it a relevant significator for the native?s predominant form of professional expression.

Deb wrote:'phases? could be used to refer to settings or even acronychal risings (superior planet oppositions), but definitely not when the qualifier ?morning? is used as it is here.

Just please notice that all the three planets - Mercury, Venus and Mars- are wrong, Venus included because Venus is matutine here.

Mercury is visible and vespertine.

margherita

I agree, all of them are badly placed by phase. And what's more, I'm very happy to be able to agree with you on that Margherita

it would seem to me that jupiter is strong in terms of planetary phase.. using the 6 or 602am time for messi, jupiter is at the midpoint of ascendant/midheaven as well and in the 11th house area thought to be quite beneficial as well.. i thought i would mention this and see if i could get a reaction and learn more..

what about the idea of what the lights are applying to as having some bearing? moon applies to venus, while sun applies to mercury and we are back to venus/mercury as having some bearing on messi..

i too would like to know the rationale for the 7 day before or after idea as well.. another idea i would like to understand better with regard to what deb had quoted upstream about a planet going thru the sunbeams and being revitalized, is this where the 7 day rule applies too? or is it possible the regeneration of the planetary energy as implied by the connection to sun conjunction planet can happen at the time of the conjunction? i know this overthrows the concept of combust, but i am curious regardless as i have noticed the more pronounced impact of planets close or conjunct the sun which tends to over ride the theories i am told about something being 'combust'.. thanks

Interesting discussions (belatedly caught up with the thread)

Deb wrote: all of them are badly placed by phase.

I'm intrigued that in spite of his Mercury and Venus being in the ''wrong'' phases, the way he plays is predominantly Mercurical: quick, fast, intelligent, skilled, technical and slippery for defenders. It has also Venusian qualities; he often looks as if he's dancing with graceful, easy movements, and perfect balance threading through and between opponents. It's a joy to watch.

As an aside, what Zagata wrote about football is too harsh. One of the reasons many people consider he's the best player is becuase he never does mean stuff (he can score with both feet by the way).

I agree that Jupiter is well placed phase-wise. The strongest position for any superior planet is up to 60? behind the Sun in the zodiac - then it's in its 'oriental strong' phase. This is just outside that but still good - as you say, in its dignity and its own house of joy. And Jupiter is 'success' afterall.

what about the idea of what the lights are applying to as having some bearing? moon applies to venus, while sun applies to mercury and we are back to venus/mercury as having some bearing on messi..

I think they've been noticed and discussed. This is one of the reasons why so many of the planets are strong in this chart.

i too would like to know the rationale for the 7 day before or after idea as well.. another idea i would like to understand better with regard to what deb had quoted upstream about a planet going thru the sunbeams and being revitalized, is this where the 7 day rule applies too? or is it possible the regeneration of the planetary energy as implied by the connection to sun conjunction planet can happen at the time of the conjunction? i know this overthrows the concept of combust, but i am curious regardless as i have noticed the more pronounced impact of planets close or conjunct the sun which tends to over ride the theories i am told about something being 'combust'.. thanks

I haven't seen (or noticed) the reference to 7 degrees before or after in later sources myself; for example, late medieval and renaissance authors. Where it is mentioned I've never seen it clearly explained either. It's not mentioned consistently in the Hellenistic tradition. It looks to me like it could be something akin to the use of the Moon phases in the preceding lunation before birth, which considers the Moon's first aspect after it separates from the Sun. I wouldn't use this myself until or unless it made sense to me. The birth chart is the 'manifestation' moment isn't it? (itself an 'appearance'). So I don't understand why what happened 7 days before or after matters. I suggested something like a crisis chart, because the 7-day measure means that we'd be considering something that happened when the Moon squared or will square its position in the nativity. But it's also possible that this was one of the many variant time-span measures that were used to define the limits of some of the phases. If others have more knowledge of the basis of this, or details of where an historical explanation is given, I'd be very interested too.

Hi Gem

I think what we've lost sight of, because of all the focus on phase, is that it is only one consideration. I've decided to prepare for the site a copy of Schoener's table of planetary fortitudes and debilities, because it's better than Lillys and drives home the point that all of this just part of the overall picture.

James in the other thread you said (I'm remembering) something like retrograde Saturn is better than another planet because it was oriental and the other wasn't. But with Schoener's table you realise that planets only lose 2 measures of dignity for being in the wrong half of the cycle, but 5 for being retrograde. It's too simplistic to think that on one side of the Sun a planet is better than anywhere on the other side. It is distance from the Sun that determines planetary motion, so when oriental planets get near to the trine of the Sun they station and start turning retrograde. The stations are particularly difficult points according to all sources.That explains why Alcabitius names the phases and calls a superior planet that is oriental and retrograde 'oriental weak' but after its passed the Sun's opposition and turned direct again its called 'occidental-strong'. Bonatti explains it's not because the planet is really strong in that position, but stronger than what it was before when it was retrograde. The 'point scoring' tables are not just about phases but help to remind us that everything needs to be put into a larger perspective. Overall, Messi's chart is great.