View Single Post
Minderwiz's Avatar
Minderwiz  Minderwiz is offline
Student of Astrology
Join Date: 20 Apr 2002
Location: Wigan, UK
Posts: 7,888

Originally Posted by Ronia View Post
The Venus' description as a morning star fits for me. I'm not sure how to consider Mercury as more masculine as I fail to see him as feminine but I'll keep reading and hopefully, get it.

Does it still matter for the benefics/malefics if they are above/beyond the horizon when cosnidering their attitude towards the querent? For example, you say in a day chart Sun, Jupiter, Saturn behave in a positive way, do I ignore Jupiter in this case as being below the horizon or just take him as powerless?
Mercury is a hermaphrodite, so not entirely feminine to start with. Be careful, I'm not saying that Mercury becomes masculine or feminine but tends to show more masculine traits than if it was an evening star. Think of your Venus - it doesn't suddenly rob you of female Venusian tendencies, but it does present a female side that is more assertive, proactive, positive than the evening star version, which is more the typical stereotype of the submissive, receptive, reactive female. The Roman world probably preferred the latter but that is not to say that they didn't recognise the former and allow for it.

The position of the planets in the chart relative to sect is nowhere near as important as it became in the later medieval period. Jupiter below the horizon in a diurnal chart is still the most benefic planet, followed by Venus (ignoring other factors such as aspects, sign (domicile) placement, house (place) placement, etc. Being above the horizon does add something, as does being in a dirunal (Fire/Air) sign but it's not an additional strength it's perhaps more a slightly easier way of being the best planet. I tended to look at this from a medieval perspective but Chris cautions against that. So it's placement by hemisphere or by sign does not have to be taken into consideration, and if it is, it's only going to be a subtle influence.
Top   #264