16
Thanks Lihin,

As Margherita pointed out there is a French tradition one can trace back to Morin that rejects combustion.

I find it interesting he has so many traditional planets under the beams in his chart i.e. Moon , Jupiter and Saturn.

Perhaps this is a case similar to where astrologers unconsciously choose a house system that places their planets in the best houses?

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

17
Mark wrote:Thanks Lihin,
Great Lihin indeed!
I find it interesting he has so many traditional planets under the beams in his chart i.e. Moon , Jupiter and Saturn.
In effect they are not under the beams. I wondered how someone like Barbault, who is the most important astrologer in Europe (surely in Italy) has so many weak planets, and discovered they are not weak at all-
Image
Both Jupiter and Saturn are in their heliacal rising (in the 7 days range) and Mars is visible and fast.

It is not an awful chart, even I don't change my general idea on Barbault's astrology :)

margherita
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com

More useful than a translation of "L'Astrologie Mondial

18
Good evening,

Many of us might know that some Hellenistic and the Mediaeval ecliptical settings for 'combustion' and 'under Helios' beams' were approximations for values that by definition require the coordinate system of the horizon. To my best present knowledge, the astrology programme called 'Placidus' may have even more accurate algorithms for heliacal phenomena than those used in 'Phasis', although the graphic presentation of the latter that Ms Margherita has shown us is very clear indeed.

May i suggest that those readers of this thread who have 'influence' with astrological publishers kindly use it to get a second edition published of the English translation of Abu Ma'shar's (link follows)

The Book of Religions and Dynasties,

first edition published in 2000 but alas currently out of print?

This might be much easier to accomplish and even more useful than a new English translation of Andr? Barbault's book mentioned earlier in this thread.

Best regards,

lihin
Non esse nihil non est.

19
Margherita,
In effect they are not under the beams. I wondered how someone like Barbault, who is the most important astrologer in Europe (surely in Italy) has so many weak planets, and discovered they are not weak at all- Both Jupiter and Saturn are in their heliacal rising (in the 7 days range) and Mars is visible and fast.
Thank You,

Impressive software. Your using Phasis here? Looks good.

Being strictly pedantic I was correct that the Moon, Saturn and Jupiter are under the beams using the hellenistic approach as they are 15 degrees from the Sun. I didn't mention Mars. Robert Schmidt has commented that the idea of the zone of 15 degrees from the Sun as 'under the beams' is not necessarily just about visibility. He seems to think it had a philosophical justification too. However, he hasn't offered an explicit explanation of why he thinks this. In the absence of any coherent sources to back up his idea up I agree that the effective issue is visibility and the overall part in the phase to the Sun. This seems an area where traditional astrology can be assisted by improved astronomical knowledge. I assume the 15 degrees zone for under the beams originally related to how long the Moon takes to emerge from the Sun although this can vary a lot. Its also worth pointing out that the orb of the Sun is 15 degrees in hellenistic and medieval astrology.

I see you are relying on the idea of Paul of Alexandria that the heliacal rising stage starts 7 days before a planet actually becomes visible in the Sky? I can see that such a planet is emerging from the beams. However, in my opinion heliacal rising is the literal state of a planet emerging from out of the beams in the sky. Until it does so I still regard a planet like this as still under the beams. Even your software above states Saturn and Jupiter are invisible does it not?

Mark
Last edited by Mark on Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

20
Lihin wrote:
May I suggest that those readers of this thread who have 'influence' with astrological publishers kindly use it to get a second edition published of the English translation of Abu Ma'shar's The Book of Religions and Dynasties
I agree this is a very important traditional text for mundane astrology. Its a real regret the only available edition was by a limited edition academic publisher some years back so that its price is now astronomical. The last time I checked you could still purchase it from Brill but the price was prohibitive for most students.

However, there is no need to lobby for a re-publication! Dr Benjamin Dykes has this book on his list of books he intends to translate. The book should be out next year. This is most welcome news and will finally make this very important book accessible to the average income astrological student.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

Link to thread J. B. Morin on Combustion and Cazimi

21
Good evening,

For easy reference here is a link to the long thread here at this forum on the captioned subject:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... sc&start=0

Jean-Baptiste Morin de Villefranche considered himself to be an Aristotelian except when Aristotle, a Heathen, was in contradiction to the official doctrines of the Christian Roman Catholic Church. He is sometimes, is a somewhat derogatory way, termed a 'revisionist' by contemporary astrologers practising Hellenistic, Mediaeval and / or Hindu astrologies. For example, Morin rejected not only the accidental attributes of 'combustion' and 'cazimi' but also the essential dignities of confines and faces.

One can observe that Renaissance astrology is, like Hellenistic and Mediaeval, a special category and that it may not be really appropriate to lump them all together into 'classical' and / or 'traditional'. Morin would scarcely have considered himself an astrological 'traditionalist'.

If i may be permitted to include another comment without being deemed too 'philosophical' and / or off topic, methinks it useful in this connexion to recall that Hindu astrology is, like its Western sisters, 'horoscopic'.

Best regards,

lihin
Non esse nihil non est.

22
margherita wrote: In effect they are not under the beams. I wondered how someone like Barbault, who is the most important astrologer in Europe (surely in Italy) has so many weak planets, and discovered they are not weak at all-


Not a name all that talked about in England to my knowledge, although it's contentious whether or not this is part of Europe.

23
Nixx wrote:
Not a name all that talked about in England to my knowledge..
I have extracted a post from Skyscript member Handn from an old thread on Barbault in the Mundane forum:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6485
Hello

Barbault's reputation as well as the ideas behind his mundane work have both been brought into English many years ago via Charles Harvey, Nick Campion and Michael Baigent in particular.

It's quite funny because I'm the opposite to you both in that I'm surprised to read in this thread that he's not already well known! He was described by the AA in 2005 as a giant in astrology. Plus, he's been around since the Big Bang (almost).

On the related point that you brought up Mark, I don't think there's a 'bias' amongst native English-speakers, anymore than in any other language, or country for that matter. I think 'bias' is quite a loaded way to put it really.

There's a lot to learn in astrology and it's not surprising that people have enough on their plate getting to grips with all the publications and research in their own country and/or in their own tongue. Astrology is a very big subject and there just aren't enough hours in the day to keep abreast of everything even in the UK alone, without stepping outside into other English-speaking countries. The internet makes it both easier and harder -- it's easy to be flooded with information but little time to digest it.

Regards

handn
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

25
Mark wrote:Nixx wrote:
Not a name all that talked about in England to my knowledge..
I have extracted a post from Skyscript member Handn from an old thread on Barbault in the Mundane forum:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6485

It's a name you bump into relatively quickly, I associate him with Mundane Astrology only for some reason ? I have never been given the impression if you asked Campion or Greene, who or are perhaps the two most respected British Astrologers today(contentious as well no doubt), they said you must read Barbaut ASAP, even if his stuff was in English. Maybe they would , but let's not forget the English hate the French although the French seem to like us after Normandy. They bloody should!!

Not sure what handn means by no bias. We don't subscribe to magazines written in Mandarin, or French.

Seems a bit odd for someone to be seen as an astrological colossus if they make 'predictions' and they are usually wrong?

26
Margherita wrote:
In cieloeterra they follow Paulus of Alexandria. In fact they show (left of the image) the condition of the planet 7 days before and after the given date.
I understood this was the view of Paul of Alexandria. Thanks for clarifying that Cieloeterra adopt this view too.

What I dont follow is how an invisible planet can be genuinely heliacally rising yet? Paul of Alexandria clearly notes the end of the period of invisibility within 7 days with this idea. I can see how one might delineate this as less debilitating than a planet entering invisibility which approximates to the medieval notion of combustion. Nevertheless, the general ancient view of heliacal rising was surely based on a star or planet visually emerging from invisibility was it not?

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliacal_rising

This time of a planet first emerging from the Sun would be seen as a very powerful dignity for a planet. In my opinion Paul of Alexandria's view is idiosyncratic and counter-intuitive. I think it is useful to distinguish a planet emerging from being under beams. Nevertheless that is not the same as literal heliacal rising.

I seem to recall Bonatti says that a planet approaching conjunction with the Sun is like a man becoming increasingly ill and approaching death. When the planet separates from the Sun it is like a man recovering after illness. However, full health and vitality is not restored until the planet re-appears in the night sky. (Last sentence my view not from Bonatti)

If we are going to adopt a more accurate astronomical notion of under the beams I would still want to wait until a planet has visibly emerged from the Sun before considering it heliacally risen in an astrological delineation.

Mark
Last edited by Mark on Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:07 am, edited 8 times in total.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

27
Nixx wrote:
Seems a bit odd for someone to be seen as an astrological colossus if they make 'predictions' and they are usually wrong?
You might apply the same comment to Noel Tyl yet he is not short of admirers. Having said that I have respect for him for actually putting his predictions out. That takes guts. Just a pity so many have been way off.

I only have Lithin's opinion that most of Barbault's predictions are wrong. I would prefer to look at this for myself and make up my own mind. Plus I am interested in the planetary cycles of the outer planets and I can see he has some interesting ideas on that. He was possibly a pioneer in that area. Its not that I would necessarily agree with everything he said. I might ultimately, reject everything he said! However, I would like to be able to form my own opinion on that rather than listen to others second hand viewpoint.

The thing is very few astrologers actually make mundane predictions of any depth. For example, has Liz Greene ventured many mundane predictions? I think she made a passing comment about the break up of the Soviet Union somewhere but other than that I am not aware of anything.

Its easy to have a 100% record when you never take any risks and predict. Far too much of contemporary mundane astrology is hindsight based. If its all so obvious after the event why are more accurate predictions not made? Prediction puts astrological ideas to the test. Its how we learn in mundane astrology. Without it mundane astrology is nothing more than astro padding. While its sometimes interesting to see analysis of contemporary events to see what astrology might be behind it we are never going to learn which astrological idea hold up to praxis with this view. In that respect the horary and sports forums are useful as real prediction is going on there on a daily basis.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly