Skyscript Astrology Forum

Posted: **Sun Oct 19, 2003 10:21 am**

5 Sept 2003

Mark:

I have found that Lilly gives two different version of the nature of Saturn and Venus. I have the downloaded MS-Word version of the first two parts of CA and here is what Lilly says about the nature of Saturn and Venus.

Saturn - [Nature] He is a Diurnall Planet, Cold and Dry (being far removed from the heat of the Sun) and moyst Vapours, Melancholick. (page 58)

Venus - She Is a Feminine Planet, temperately Cold and Moyst, Nocturnal, the lesser Fortune. (page 72)

But in the printed version of CA by Kim Farnell and Deb H. the third part of CA, Lilly says that:

Saturn is Cold and moist when oriental and Dry when occidental. (page 38)

Venus is hot and moist when oriental and moist when occidental. (page 38)

Which is it? Which nature do we use to determine if a chart is radical? The last two descriptions came from Lilly?s book on natal charts. A planet can?t have one nature for horary and one for natal, can it? That wouldn?t make sense.

Lilly also describes the Sun as being Hot and Dry but in his natal book he modifies that when the Sun is in a particular sign, i.e., Hot and Moist in the Spring, etc. I can understand that because the sign qualifies the nature of the Sun.

I know I saw a chart that explained the origins of how each planet is described as being dry or moist, hot or cold in relation to their position to the Sun, but I can?t find that web page anymore. Does anyone know where that is?

--------------------------

Deb:

Can you give the page numbers from the original manuscript?

The web page you are referring to sounds like the article about Ptolemy and his definition of planetary humours, at:
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/ptolemy.html

-----------------------

Graelhaven:

where can one find Volume 3? I see 1& 2 all over the web, but cant find three? I admit I may be blind. =) MissB

-------------------------

Mark:

As far as I can figure out the pages in Volume I are:

page 57 . . . . . . . . . Of the Planet Saturn, and his significations.
Page 72 . . . . . . . . . Of the Planet Venus, and her severall significations and nature.

That is from table of contents in the MS-Word file I downloaded. It doesn?t give the original page numbers if those aren?t them. But it should be easy to find, because it?s the part where he goes over each planet one by one.

From book III, it is page 38, in chapter CVI (56?).

MissB, I couldn't find book III anywhere on the web either so I had to break down and buy it from AstroAmerica. It is much better to have a hard copy than having to read it off of the PC, so I may also buy book I & II as well. The good thing about the MS-Word version is that you can search for key words easily.

------------------------

Deb:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The page references from volume I are pages 57 & 73. From Vol III it is page 533.

I don?t see the definition in Vol III as a contraction to the definition offered in Vol I, but as an expansion of detail upon it, which is particularly useful when trying to determine the overall temperament in natal charts.
So my understanding is that the general quality of Saturn is cold and dry, but when oriental its quality becomes more moistening, and when occidental it becomes more drying. The general quality of Venus is temperately cold (ie, cool) and moist, but its quality is more warming when it is oriental, and more moistening when it is occidental.

This would accord with the way that Ptolemy felt that the condition of being oriental or occidental affected the temperaments of the planets.

----------------------

Mark:

Thanks Deb.

So do we use the basic definitions of each planet for judging if a horary as radical or not?

In a horary for example, if Venus is the lord of the hour, do I always use Cool and Moist when comparing it to the ASC ruler?

Or what if in a horary Venus is the ASC ruler and is oriental, do I use Warm and Moist to compare to the lord of the hour, or do I use the standard Cool and Moist?

My guess is that I should use the standard Cool and Moist.

-----------------------------

Deb:

In terms of deciding whether the planetary ruler matches the temperament of the asc, yes. But as far as I'm concerned, the best way of judging whether a chart is valid, is how well it describes the situation and how much it contains useful and appropriate information.
In essence I feel that planetary hour correspondence helps to describe the horary as a valid one, and demonstrates a situation where you can actively use the information.
That's a quick answer.

Posted: **Wed May 26, 2004 1:02 pm**

In response to Mark, Deb wrote:

In terms of deciding whether the planetary ruler matches the temperament of the asc, yes.

Hi Deb,

following on from your answer here, I just want to say that I agree with your assessment, but what about when one is trying to determine the temperament via the dominant humour? Do we use the "default" for Venus (cool and moist) and Saturn (cold and dry)? Or do we modify these descriptions according to oriental/occidental?
What confuses me further (I'm sorry, I have Mercury stationary in Pisces), is that being placed in the occidental position is merely meant to subtract the temperature from a planet's nature, but in the case of Saturn he's described as cold & moist when oriental, yet dry when occidental. I don't understand how a planet who is described on page 58 of *CA* as being "Cold and Dry.....and Moyst Vapours" (where do the "moyst vapours" come from?) can suddenly gain moisture when it rises before the Sun, when every other planet gains heat. Lilly offers no explanation for this anomaly, other than the obscure reference to "Moyst Vapours" on p58, which in itself seems somewhat strange.
Are there any earlier references to this Saturnian moisture that Lilly has drawn from, I wonder...
Have I missed something somewhere?

Cheers...

Posted: **Wed May 26, 2004 1:57 pm**

what about when one is trying to determine the temperament via the dominant humour? Do we use the "default" for Venus (cool and moist) and Saturn (cold and dry)? Or do we modify these descriptions according to oriental/occidental?

That?s where it does become significant and in getting an overall humour you use the modified descriptions.

I conferred with Graeme Tobyn?s Culpeper?s Medicine (I recommend that ? it?s relevant to the whole issue, he includes his own tables and a demonstration of calculating the humours in Culpeper?s chart, and he?s not just drawing from Lilly). He also lists Saturn as naturally cold & dry, but in defining temperament Saturn scores as cold and moist when oriental, and dry when occidental. I?m not sure why this is, but it seems to be the way that it?s done.

I?m more confident that Lilly is only referring to Saturn?s natural temperament on p.58, and the poor placing of the brackets has obscured his meaning. My interpretation of what he is saying ? by putting the brackets where I think they should be ? is:

"He is a diurnal planet, Cold and Dry (being far removed from the heat of the sun and moist vapours), melancholic, earthly, masculine ?"

Posted: **Wed May 26, 2004 3:12 pm**

That?s where it does become significant and in getting an overall humour you use the modified descriptions.

Ah, I thought as much, yes. Nice to get confirmation, though.

I conferred with Graeme Tobyn?s Culpeper?s Medicine (I recommend that ? it?s relevant to the whole issue, he includes his own tables and a demonstration of calculating the humours in Culpeper?s chart, and he?s not just drawing from Lilly).

Ok, I've got that on my 'wish list', along with about 90 other books

He also lists Saturn as naturally cold & dry, but in defining temperament Saturn scores as cold and moist when oriental, and dry when occidental. I?m not sure why this is, but it seems to be the way that it?s done.

It appears that way, yes, but suddenly it's become an itch that needs to be scratched. Or do we try to ignore the itch, do you think?

My interpretation of what he is saying ? by putting the brackets where I think they should be ? is:

"He is a diurnal planet, Cold and Dry (being far removed from the heat of the sun and moist vapours), melancholic, earthly, masculine ?"

Ah, now that makes much more sense, doesn't it?
My Pisces Mercury says thank you, and continues to swim in the pretty turquoise waters.

Cheers,

Posted: **Thu May 27, 2004 12:55 pm**

Deb said: He also lists Saturn as naturally cold & dry, but in defining temperament Saturn scores as cold and moist when oriental, and dry when occidental. I?m not sure why this is, but it seems to be the way that it?s done.

Pete said: It appears that way, yes, but suddenly it's become an itch that needs to be scratched. Or do we try to ignore the itch, do you think?

We bury our heads in the sand? This reminds me of when we start a new job. We're learning all the new routines and we come across something that doesn't make sense. We ask "why is it done this way?", and we are told "because this is the way it's always been done". Huh!

I know it's difficult for us fixed types to alter something that's been done a certain way for years, or even hundreds of years, but that's no reason not to question the rationale behind it, investigate it and, if necessary, modify it or even change it completely, rather than just to accept it blindly.

I have a question regarding occidental/oriental. An oriental planet is warmer because it is ahead of the Sun and, presumably, therefore is warmed by it. But if it's, say, four or five signs ahead of the Sun, yet an occidental planet is just a few degrees behind the Sun, why should the more distant planet be warmer?

And, Deb, I agree with you about Tobyn's book - I'm always referring to the humours section. But I'd forgotten about his assessment of Culpeper's chart. I am going to check it out

Posted: **Thu May 27, 2004 2:24 pm**

We bury our heads in the sand? This reminds me of when we start a new job. We're learning all the new routines and we come across something that doesn't make sense. We ask "why is it done this way?", and we are told "because this is the way it's always been done". Huh!

I don?t think anyone would suggest you stop thinking and just do as you?re told, but if something goes beyond my ability to comment, I?d rather admit the gaps and hope someone else can contribute a more useful comment. When I started studying horary in the late 80s there were lots of ?rules? and techniques that no one understood the basis of. And they raised a lot of difficult and confusing questions. But years of exploring ancient and traditional sources, trying to find out what the older astrologers were doing and why, and astrologers exchanging the benefits of their research with each other, means that now we are in a better position to understand that there is a valid and sensible philosophy underneath most of the traditional aphorisms we use. It also allows us to see that some are contradictory and some are based on philosophical elements that need to be placed in an appropriate context to carry weight. The most damaging influence upon astrology is when people attempt to be definitive in explaining the logic for something they only half understand.

Very few astrologers have done intensive research into the philosophy of the humours and temperaments and how it arose. I don?t actually employ them myself since my interest is primarily horary, but I?ve seen the work of people like Tobyn and Dylan Warren-Davis and their results using traditional methods have been impressive. To get the answer to this kind of question you need to dig deep, and also consider that it may be an intrinsic element within a connecting theory, such as alchemical philosophy and medicinal treatment via herbalism. I?ve seen fragments of chart judgements by medieval astrologers where they?ve explained the basis of an illness or psychological problem through the humours and their approach has seemed bizarre, and yet they?ve arrived at a similar medical diagnosis to what a modern doctor would, given the restrictions of their medical practice at their time. (The value of some medieval treatments, such as blood-letting by leeches, have been recognised by modern science, but 50 years ago no one would have been able to give a reasonable explanation for it).

Finding the answers to these types of questions often involves discovering the oldest source, which is more likely to labour on an explanation of the philosophy being used. But unless someone is actively researching that, they are unlikely to discover it or take note of its significance where it does appear. But one thing is certain, it?s only because some astrologers haven?t been quick to dismiss the elements that they don?t understand, that they?ve dug away like a dog after a bone to discover the rational that can be explained. Personally, I?d rather hold the use of humours in a position of balance than take the view that this old theory, based on a perspective that was fully exploited in the traditional astrological metaphysical vision, was flawed in the way that the astrologers who understood it best applied it.

I know you are feeling confused and frustrated, but it is that frustration that drives people to ignore the rest of the stuff on their desks and bury themselves in books and suffer tormented nights of mental agitation until they find an answer that brings satisfaction. If I get to it first, I?ll let you know

Posted: **Fri May 28, 2004 10:30 am**

I know you are feeling confused and frustrated, but it is that frustration that drives people to ignore the rest of the stuff on their desks and bury themselves in books and suffer tormented nights of mental agitation until they find an answer that brings satisfaction. If I get to it first, I?ll let you know

Yes, I know there are no easy answers. It can be frustrating but it's still fun trying to get to grips with these things. As for feeling confused, I just recently came across this quotation: "Confusion is the welcome mat at the door of creativity". All I need now is the Golden Key

Thanks for your input, Deb, on this and the Conundrum thread. It's been an interesting discussion

Posted: **Fri May 28, 2004 4:22 pm**

Hi Pete,

I don?t have the answer to your Saturn question but I took another look at Lilly?s table today and I thought I?d discovered the answer to this and Ficina's question - except I then realised that the logic I was using relied upon Saturn being taken as cold and dry whilst oriental, not cold and moist; which threw the whole scheme out. I am struggling to make sense of it and I?m wondering if it could be a simple typing error (yes Ficina, I can hear you laughing... )

I checked with Coley, but he uses a simplified method which only considers the planet?s general nature and doesn?t alter its quality according to whether it is oriental or occidental (sounds good to me). So Saturn is significant in his example but defined only as cold and dry, (it?s occidental BTW). I tried to check with Ramesey but he doesn?t cover the issue and Culpeper doesn?t seem to cover it in his Judgement of Disease, though I?ve only had time for a quick flick through the pages of this and a few other books I could think of.

I hope you get some more contributions on this because my practical experience of judging temperaments is limited. I?d also like to establish whether that ?cold & moist? definition for Saturn when occidental, as listed by Lilly, represents a standard view found in earlier or contemporary texts or whether it?s more likely to be a mistake that's been copied by modern authors.

However, it has to be significant that Lilly warns us to be ?wary? when collecting the testimonies of temperament because some influences cancel each other out and some planets are much more forceful in their influence than others. It?s a pity he only gives us only one example but I suspect he would have regarded tabulating the scores as only a guide to aid the discretion of the astrologer. Coley also makes mention to the fact that discovering the ?Complexion of the Native? was considered to be a matter of difficulty by several authors

Posted: **Sat May 29, 2004 12:40 pm**

I queried this with a friend who has an original copy of the 1653 edition of CA. The text has been corrected in that later edition to read ?cold and dry? when occidental, which makes a lot more sense. So I?m now concluding that the reference to Saturn being ?cold and moist? in the 1647 edition was a printer?s mistake, later corrected.
I?m still trying to double check this but it looks like your itch was quite significant, since Graeme Tobyn?s book and a number of modern articles that I?ve checked this against have all followed Lilly?s earlier text. So all credit to your beagle eyes!

My suggestion regarding the alteration in quality according to oriental /occidental is a little tentative but it seems to me that with all the planets except the Moon, which is treated differently, the process of entering into helical conjunction sets the planet back to neutral in terms of its heat quality, whilst not affecting the natural humidity of the planet. This may be tied into some esoteric philosophy that connects with the traditional interpretation of combustion, which is considered to render a planet powerless and stripped of its natural influence. So a planet that is cold and dry when oriental and ahead of the Sun has the coldness removed by its contact with the Sun and emerges only dry. Similarly a planet that is hot and moist ahead of the Sun, loses its heat when the Sun?s contact ?strips it bare?, so that it emerges only moist. There?s a similarity in perspective (but not in detail) to how Ptolemy tempers the qualities of the planets (Bk1, ch8) according to whether they are between heliacal rising and first station or from second station to heliacal setting, etc. It may also be that the reference to oriental and occidental here, or in an earlier source that Lilly drew upon, was specifically intended to apply to a planet within orb of the Sun?s contact although I?m certainly not sure about that. I?m proposing this, not arguing it; just as I?m not arguing in favour of Lilly?s method in preference to, say, Coley?s method; I?m just trying to find some sense of underlying logic in the scheme that Lilly has put forward.

Saturn oriental ? cold and dry
Saturn occidental ? only dry

Jupiter oriental ? hot and moist
Jupiter occidental ? only moist

Mars oriental ? hot and dry
Mars occidental ? only dry

Venus oriental ? hot and moist
Venus occidental ? only moist

Mercury oriental ? hot
Mercury occidental - dry

Mercury doesn?t quite fit the scheme but Mercury, as the neutral planet, has always been an exception. I didn?t think to check this in the later text, but I?ll try to get some confirmation on whether this remains ?as is? or has been altered in the later edition to become more consistent with Lilly?s definition of Mercury as mainly cold and dry. Even if it doesn?t, the question of whether Mercury is entirely neutral in heat (or Ptolemy suggests) or inclines towards cooling as Lilly maintains elsewhere, has varied according to sources so it?s possible that Lilly has pulled forward an older scheme that contradicts his usual definition of Mercury.

If something like this lies at the root of the definitions, then it gives us a basis to consider Ficina?s question:

An oriental planet is warmer because it is ahead of the Sun and, presumably, therefore is warmed by it. But if it's, say, four or five signs ahead of the Sun, yet an occidental planet is just a few degrees behind the Sun, why should the more distant planet be warmer?

Bearing in mind that my thoughts are still quite hypothetical, my assumption is that once a planet has removed itself far enough away from the Sun to regain its full strength, it reverts back to its natural state. So it?s not a case of planets being warmer when they are oriental, because as you can see Saturn regains its coldness once it has stopped being in the occidental condition and/or remains that way when oriental. At least according to this plan although Ptolemy differs. It doesn?t seem possible to reconcile this with Ptolemy?s teachings on the influences expressed, but it does appear that by following Ptolemy?s approach we can surmise that the basis of the scheme rests upon the view that a planet that has just been in contact with the Sun doesn?t have the power to add heat or coldness to the temperament and must be separated to a certain degree before we can afford it the ability to fully express its influence.

The Moon is treated as a separate issue. That is merely reflecting the qualitive state that the Sun is given according to the season. So the Moon?s first quarter in any lunar cycle is hot and moist, mirroring the Sun?s influence in spring, and so on. Again Ptolemy uses a similar perspective but differs in his details, as shown below:

Ptolemy Lilly
Moon 1st quarter moistening warming/moistening (like Sun in spring)
Moon 2nd quarter heating heating and drying (" " " summer)
Moon 3rd quarter drying cooling & drying (" " " autumn)
Moon 4th quarter cooling cooling & moistening (" " " winter)

Why does a planet lose its heat influence and not its humidity influence? ? I don?t know. On p.546 of CA you see there is a similar recognition that a planet loses height (in matters of physical appearance) when defined as occidental. I?m not confident that I fully understand the definition of those terms, but my personal view is that a planet isn?t either oriental or occidental, but that those definitions should only apply when the planet is within a certain distance of the Sun. Outside of that proximity it would just be ?normal?. (I?m not even sure that Lilly would want to agree with me on that issue.)

Those are my thoughts at the moment but I?d be the first to admit that a lot more research needs to be done.

Posted: **Sat May 29, 2004 5:17 pm**

I queried this with a friend who has an original copy of the 1653 edition of CA. The text has been corrected in that later edition to read ?cold and dry? when occidental, which makes a lot more sense. So I?m now concluding that the reference to Saturn being ?cold and moist? in the 1647 edition was a printer?s mistake, later corrected. [/quote

Thanks for checking up on this Deb. A typo was pretty much what I suspected it must be, and I'm glad it was put right in the later edition.

So all credit to your beagle eyes!
Beagle? I have Scorpio rising, so I prefer Eagle, but thank you.

My suggestion regarding the alteration in quality according to oriental /occidental is a little tentative but it seems to me that with all the planets except the Moon, which is treated differently, the process of entering into helical conjunction sets the planet back to neutral in terms of its heat quality, whilst not affecting the natural humidity of the planet. This may be tied into some esoteric philosophy that connects with the traditional interpretation of combustion, which is considered to render a planet powerless and stripped of its natural influence.

I think your suggestion has some merit. I think it's perfectly feasible that the Sun's heat would neutralise a planet's temperature when that planet is cazimi, and then "give it back" as the planet separates.

>So a planet that is cold and dry when oriental and ahead of the Sun has the coldness removed by its contact with the Sun and emerges only dry. Similarly a planet that is hot and moist ahead of the Sun, loses its heat when the Sun?s contact ?strips it bare?, so that it emerges only moist.
And in the case of Mercury and Venus when they're moving faster than the Sun, they hold no heat when occidental, move into combustion and gain the heat which they then retain as they emerge oriental. Yes, that sounds viable...
It just leaves us with the Saturn problem, doesn't it? Perhaps Saturn was considered too far out in the Solar system for the Sun to lend it any heat whatsoever? Though why it should become cold when oriental is another itch that needs a good scratch, imo.

It may also be that the reference to oriental and occidental here, or in an earlier source that Lilly drew upon, was specifically intended to apply to a planet within orb of the Sun?s contact although I?m certainly not sure about that.
How about the idea that the whole oriental/occidental thing only holds when the planet is within the sunbeams? Beyond that point the Sun's heat has no influence on it? That would pose a tentative answer to Ficina's question about angular distance...

Bearing in mind that my thoughts are still quite hypothetical, my assumption is that once a planet has removed itself far enough away from the Sun to regain its full strength, it reverts back to its natural state.
Your assumption may just have begun to scratch the Saturn itch to some extent ~ but not completely, since our understanding of the term "oriental" includes a planet 1 degree ahead of the Sun and even at that meagre distance Saturn is said to be cold & dry. But I think you may be onto something!

Those are my thoughts at the moment but I?d be the first to admit that a lot more research needs to be done.

And Ficina and I would be joint second, no doubt. This is turning into quite a Sanguine discussion, isn't it?

Cheers...

Posted: **Sat May 29, 2004 6:40 pm**

Hi Deb,

I kind of skimmed these lat couple of posts, so I hope I am on the right track here.

I queried this with a friend who has an original copy of the 1653 edition of CA. The text has been corrected in that later edition to read ?cold and dry? when occidental, which makes a lot more sense. So I?m now concluding that the reference to Saturn being ?cold and moist? in the 1647 edition was a printer?s mistake, later corrected.

I have access to a photo copy of CA 1659. On page 533 it lists Saturn as Cold and moist when oriental and dry when occidental. The cover page of this work says it is the second edition corrected and ammended. None of the planets are given more than one quality when occidental. They are either moist or dry. Temperature is missing. So when a planet rises after the Sun, the Sun has removed temperature from the equation.

If there is a page reference that contradicts what I've written, would someone please provide it, I'd like to keep these things straight.

Tom

Posted: **Sat May 29, 2004 6:40 pm**

What I meant when I said it removes the quality of heat is that it removes heat or coldness. I should have been more particular with my words but I was thinking of coldness as a negative level of heat. You might need to read my post again with that in mind.

Another contradiction lies in the fact that Lilly defines Venus as hot and moist here, but cold and moist in his introduction. Yet Ptolemy describes Venus as moderately warming and chiefly humidifying and I suspect Lilly has copied this table from an older source that follows Ptolemy in that. Hence Saturn is the only planet that is cold when oriental so 'losing the temperature setting' leaves it unable to give heat or coldness, only dryness.

Hmmm, still a lot of unanswered questions. Remember that this is only a small part of a technique that isn't regarded as the 'final word' anyway. A dominant planet or or strong contact with the luminaries can tip the balance in a way that this table doesn't recognise. It seems most useful as a reminder list of the things that need some consideration.

Skyscript Astrology Forum

AP - Cold & Dry/Warm & Moist: planetary temperaments

AP - Cold & Dry/Warm & Moist: planetary temperaments