Skyscript Astrology Forum

I'm readying old classic astrological texts, but I think it is a bit confusing to completely understand what they mean when a planet is occidental and when is oriental. Sounds like, sometime they mean something by those terms, and other times, they mean completely different meaning.
Can you tell me, for example, if Venus in this map is occidental or oriental? And why?
http://www.astro.com/cgi/chart.cgi?wgid ... -Oi_PRQ4Uw

hi frances,

this has to do with whether the planet rises before or after the sun.. oriental is rising before the sun and occidental is rising after the sun. in your chart example venus rises after the sun and is occidental.

welcome to skyscript!

The terms oriental and occidental have caused a fair bit of confusion in the astrological tradition as these words have been used for planets in quite different situations. Unfortunately, texts quite frequently fail to explain what their definition of the term is.

In the introduction to his translation of Bonatti's Book of Astronomy Ben Dykes sets out three different ways in which astrological literature used the terms oriental and occidental:

1. Planets are ?oriental? if they rise visibly before the Sun, and ?occidental? if they set visibly after him. This is similar to the modern understanding, since to rise visibly before the Sun means at least to be in an earlier degree. There were differing opinions on the longitudinal interval a planet had to be in, and whether the intervals were of equal significance.

2. Planets are ?oriental? if they are in the ?eastern? quadrant between the Ascendant and Midheaven ( i.e., where the Sun rises) or the one opposite to it, and ?occidental? if they are on the ?western? quadrant between the Midheaven and the 7th ( i.e.,when the Sun sets) or the one opposite to it.

3. Planets are ?oriental? if they currently , or within 7 days before or after the nativity , are rising out of the Sun?s beams and will become visible at sunrise or sunset; they are ? occidental? if they currently , or within seven days before or after the nativity, are sinking into the Sun?s beams and will become invisible at sunrise or sunset. In Hellenistic astrology this is an example of of what is called ?making a phasis? , and the distance from the Sun at which this arising or sinking would happen, was standardised at 15 degrees. According to this definition , the inferiors can be ?oriental? ( or pertaining?to-arising) on either side of the Sun, since they can arise both while going direct and on their retrograde path.

(Book of Astronomy, Guido Bonatti, translated by Benjamin Dykes, 2007, page Ixxxii-Ixxxiii)

The first defintion is probably the most common in the medieval and renaissance tradition. Ptolemy also offers us the second definition which relates back to planetary sect. Hence the first quadrant from ASC-MC is masculine, the second from MC-DESC feminine etc. The third definition is found in Paul of Alexandria. Benjamin Dykes has concluded that Paul's definition was the basis for the medieval innovation of differentiating between planets being 'combust' as opposed to simply 'under the beams'.

Looking at the Skyscript Glossary under oriental/occidental it appears the terms have even more uses in the tradition!

If a planet is described as 'oriental in the figure', it means that it is located near the ascendant which is the eastern angle, whilst 'occidental in the figure', means that it is located near the descendant which is the western angle.

Occidental hemisphere is the western/setting hemisphere, incorporating the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th houses.

Oriental hemisphere - the eastern/rising hemisphere, incorporating the 4th, 3rd, 2nd, 1st, 12th, and 11th houses.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/oriental.html

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/oriental.html

The best discussion I have seen of the quadrants is in the 2nd edition of Deborah Houlding's book Houses: Temples of the Sky. If you haven't already got this book I highly recommend it to you.

In terms of the three definitions of the term above we can see:

Definition 1: In the example chart you have given us Venus is occidental of the Sun as it will not rise before the sun but will be visible in the night sky after the Sun has set later that day.

Definition 2: Venus is in the example chart is located in an occidental quadrant ie opposing the quadrant MC to DESC which is also occidental.

Definition 3: Venus in the example chart will not meet the definition provided by Paul of Alexandria. Although Venus is occidental of the Sun in terms of being a visible night planet this still doesn't meet Paul of Alexandria's definition. This is because Venus will not fall under the sun's beams or ''make a phasis'' and become invisible at sunset within the next 7 days. Generally, hellenistic astrologers used a standardised orb of 15 degrees from the sun to establish this. However, some astrologers use software to calculate exactly when a planet falls ''under the beams'' or becomes rendered invisible by the Sun in a particular locality.

Mark

Hallo, thank you for your answers.
So, if I'm correct, in this other chart http://www.astro.com/cgi/chart.cgi?cid= ... &rs=0&ast=

both Venus and Jupiter are occidental?
But Mercury?
It seems in-between the superior and inferior line. How should it be considered?

francescomanfredi wrote:

both Venus and Jupiter are occidental?

No. If we are using the link in your first post.

Sticking with Def 1 & Link 1:

Venus is occidental of the Sun because it rises after the Sun. It is free of the Sun's beams so will be visible in the night sky after sunset.

Jupiter is oriental of the Sun that day because it rised before the Sun and would have been visible in the early morning/night sky before sunrise.

But I see you gave a different link in your follow up question which rather confuses things.

In your second link: Yes both Venus + Jupiter are occidental. While Mercury is oriental of the Sun.

Traditionally the inferior planets (Venus +Mercury) and the Moon are better rising after the Sun ie occidental of the Sun , while the superior planets are seen as more dignified when rising before the Sun.

However, we dont tend to describe the Moon as occidental or oriental so much but rather waxing (rising after the Sun) or waning ( rising before the sun). Equally, when waxing traditional sources describe the Moon as 'increasing in light' while waning it is described as 'decreasing in light'.

Looking at the inferior planets the occidental phase is traditionally treated like a waxing phase while the oriental phase is seen as a waning phase. For the superior planets the oriental phase is seen as effectively like a waxing phase while being occidental of the Sun for these planets is equivalent to a waning phase.

Oriental or occidental is only a part of the wider topic of solar phase of the planets in their cycles around the Sun. It also includes planets 'under the beams' of the Sun which are rendered temporarily invisible in the sky.

Solar phase of the planets fits into the gender association of the planets with oriental phase seen as making planets more forceful and masculine in expression while the occidental phase to the Sun is seen as more feminine in expression. Hence a superior planet which is masculine in nature, like Mars, is regarded as more harmonious while in its oriental phase. Equally, an inferior planet , which is feminine in nature ,like Venus is regarded as less harmonious in expression when in its oriental phase to the Sun.

You will find it easier to work this out if you think of the diurnal or primary motion of planets in the sky as the earth rotates. In terms of daily rising and setting we look at planets clockwise motion in the sky not their anti-clockwise progression through the zodiac.

Astrological software like Solar Fire demonstrates this daily diurnal planetary motion very well in its animation mode.

Mark

Can you make an example with the planets of the second natal birth chart?
And say what is the one most dignified in that mode?

francescomanfredi wrote:

Can you make an example with the planets of the second natal birth chart?

I only just noticed you were using two different charts in your two posts! But I did correct my post to address the placement of Venus and Jupiter in both charts. Are you asking me to list all the planets in by solar phase in the second link you gave?

francescomanfredi wrote:

And say what is the one most dignified in that mode?

I think I need clarification what you mean here. Are you just asking about planets delineation in terms of just solar phase? Or are you asking about consideration of other factors that confer dignity in general?

Solar phase is an interesting issue as there is some debate whether it is purely a qualitative issue changing the nature of planets expression or also a quantitative issue altering their strength or power to act. The ancient astrologers seem to have regarded solar phase like an additional essential dignity.

Mark

About this chart.




What would be the most dignified planet in this chart in term of solar phase?
And why. Not necessarily all planets. Tell me about the most dignified. Thank you so much! I'm learning more.

I'm sorry. I have only noticed now, that images are not seen. I will correct my mistake.
To be honest, when I read some classical astrological report, I note a certain emphasis about the oriental-occidental matter. Seems like they worry very much about declaring if planets are occidental or oriental.

francescomanfredi wrote:What would be the most dignified planet in this chart in term of solar phase?
And why. Not necessarily all planets. Tell me about the most dignified. Thank you so much! I'm learning more.

Mars and Saturn are both visible, direct and oriental (rising before the Sun), so they would both be dignified with regard to solar phase. (Mars is better with regard to sect, though.) Venus is occidental/verspertine (setting after the Sun) and probably visible, so if she's not close to retrogression she would be considered quite well-placed too.

Mars and Saturn are both visible, direct and oriental (rising before the Sun), so they would both be dignified with regard to solar phase. (Mars is better with regard to sect, though.) Venus is occidental/verspertine (setting after the Sun) and probably visible, so if she's not close to retrogression she would be considered quite well-placed too.[/quote]


So, we say that oriental is rising before the Sun. And that occidental is rising after the Sun. In that chart, Mars and Saturn are both oriental (and 'upper-horizon': because they rise before the Sun). But of Jupiter and Venus (both 'under-horizon'), we say that Venus is occidental and Jupiter oriental.
So, if I got it correct, every planet has its own particular phase too.
Am I correct?

francescomanfredi wrote: What would be the most dignified planet in this chart in term of solar phase?
And why. Not necessarily all planets. Tell me about the most dignified. Thank you so much! I'm learning more.

mars is the most dignified planet in the chart based on solar phase as i understand it. if you add sect and some other things like dignity - mars for sure..

venus is strong too, but in terms of solar phase, i am less sure.. maybe someone with more knowledge can chime in.

saturn is getting ready to turn retrograde in 13 days, so less strong.. retrograde is a part of solar phase, or factored into this as i understand it.

if you factor in sect, mars remains the dominant planet here..

mercury is an interesting question, as it would seem strong by planetary phase as well and obviously dignified by being in the ascendant.. again - would be good to have some authority on the concept of solar phase comment on mercury and venus here.. i thought deb was going to write a book about just this topic?