Planetary Friends & Enemies

[Barleywine]

I was having a great deal of difficulty trying to sort out Lilly's attributions of "friendship" and "enmity" among the planets, for my use in astro-geomancy charts. Quite often he seemed self-contradictory, and James Wilson considered the whole subject to be "very great nonsense." I went looking on the web and found this site that gives a perspective from Vedic Astrology:

http://vicdicara.wordpress.com/2010/06/04/determining-planetary-friendship-and-enmity/

The author says the foundation of the concept is contained in a Sanskrit verse stating that the planet owning the "root" sign (which appears to mean rulership or exaltation) signifies the perspective from which the relationship to the "lords" of the other houses is viewed (for example, on that basis the Sun merely "tolerates" Mercury but Mercury actually "likes" the Sun; Sun and Saturn share a mutual animosity. This is also built on the idea of reciprocal and non-reciprocal relationships; reciprocal planets share an active relationship but non-reciprocal relationships are one-sided.

This is one of the more lucid explanations I've seen to date. It's possible that Lilly's inconsistencies were driven by something similar but I certainly couldn't figure it out, and Wilson was being his usual acerbic, curmudgeonly self.

Anyone have any ideas along these lines?

 

[dadsnook2000]

I don't like the idea of rigid rules

To me it seems that rigid rules as expressed by ancient astrologers or middle ages astrologers reflected the system of astrology of their time and place, or that we have a new and very different society to live within today -- complex, subject to vast influences from innumerable sources, plus more/new knowledge of astrology.

Given the above views, I view each chat as being very unique and the relationships between any two planets in that chart will probably not apply to those two planets as found operating in another's chart. I suspect this isn't the answer you wanted or expected but that is astrology -- its simple, its complex, its too much to pin down with rules other than "rules as guidelines" for learning. Dave

 

[firecatpickles]

I was under the impression that the relationships of the planets are due to their temperaments, and this is subsequent to the humours and the effects of the elements on them themselves. So it could be said that the relationships between the planets are both fundamental and elemental. "Nonsense" is not a word I would use to describe planetary elemental attributes. It was just the way, as dadsnook, points out above, that the ancient world perceived the physical world around them.

As our knowledge increases, the further away from the source we get and the easier it is to prooftext the ancients, making their original philosophical bases more and more difficult to comprehend.

Just because something is lost to us and seemingly non-sensical in today's day and age does not necessarily mean that is it nonsense.

 

[Barleywine]

To me it seems that rigid rules as expressed by ancient astrologers or middle ages astrologers reflected the system of astrology of their time and place, or that we have a new and very different society to live within today -- complex, subject to vast influences from innumerable sources, plus more/new knowledge of astrology.

Given the above views, I view each chat as being very unique and the relationships between any two planets in that chart will probably not apply to those two planets as found operating in another's chart. I suspect this isn't the answer you wanted or expected but that is astrology -- its simple, its complex, its too much to pin down with rules other than "rules as guidelines" for learning. Dave

The challenge is that astro-geomancy is still very much a "middle-ages" method of divination that relies on some fundamentally "ancient" assumptions. The astrological angle is nothing like our standard chart casting and reading conventions, even from astrologers who were contemporaries of its (geomancy's) practitioners. Looking at an astro-geomancy chart would make any astrologer scratch (or shake) his/her head since the methods of ordering its elements are only vaguely reminiscent of the usual astrological methods. That's not the issue here: what I'm exploring is, given that planetary affinities are such a big part of astro-geomancy, where is the most reliable source for this information? I brought the question to the Astrology forum since many of us are exploring the old ways and might have insights. As far as "pure" astrology goes, I'm with you on that.

 

[Barleywine]

I was under the impression that the relationships of the planets are due to their temperaments, and this is subsequent to the humours and the effects of the elements on them themselves. So it could be said that the relationships between the planets are both fundamental and elemental. "Nonsense" is not a word I would use to describe planetary elemental attributes. It was just the way, as dadsnook, points out above, that the ancient world perceived the physical world around them.

As our knowledge increases, the further away from the source we get and the easier it is to prooftext the ancients, making their original philosophical bases more and more difficult to comprehend.

Just because something is lost to us and seemingly non-sensical in today's day and age does not necessarily mean that is it nonsense.

Whoa, it certainly wasn't me saying that, it was James Wilson back in 1880 As far as I can tell, the planetary affinities in the Western tradition have some underlying rationale other than (or in addition to) their fundamental and elemental attunement. The temperaments seem to be only part of the story, since, as Minderwiz pointed out, there is no real good alignment among the Renaissance authorities on which are the "right" temperamental attributions, while the planetary affinities seem a bit more consistent across sources (except that Wilson says Mars doesn't like ANYBODY ) I was pointing out that the Vedic astrologers seem to have a more coherent documented basis than I have been able to find for Western astrology. Not that it isn't there, I just haven't located it yet.

 

[Minderwiz]

Rigid Rules OK(?)

I'll try and answer the issue in two parts. The first is something of a scene setting, though in the light of Dave's post and designed to highlight the difficulties of the issue.

Dave characterises medieval Astrology as bound by rigid rules and I can see why, but then I thought about modern astrology seen in retrospect. Imagine it's 2600 AD and you are a part of a Chinese archaeology team working in Alaska, trying to learn about civilisation in America before the great religious wars of the 21st Century. Much of the world has been laid waste and knowledge of what existed before has been largely lost. Here in Alaska, the land of the legendary priestess Pa Lin, a discovery has been made of a lost library of a local nobleman, Bar Nes. We know he was of great note because his name and rank have been written in large letters on the outer wall of the library. Much of the content has been destroyed but there are fragments available. We know that the Usaittes worshipped Astrology for most of the surviving fragments are about this religion. We know that it was founded by a great Wizard called Lee O and that he had disciples called Rud Yar, Ar Yo, and Trak Marx, though we wr only know about Rud Yar from the other fragments. There are references to another wizard Yung Cog, but we know little of him at all.

All the fragments seem to show a list of rules which seem to be rigidly deployed. Ar Yo's book Chart Interpretation Handbook and Trak Marx's Art of Chart Interpretation are full of lists and rules, often very detailed and clearly applied in a formulistic and ritualistic way.

There is another book, of which we have fragments, it tells of how to set up a 'solar return', again using detailed rules and procedures, together with detailed rules about progressing the Sun, according to complex calculations and giving rules for interpretation. Many of the examples are concerned with the great warlord Klin Ton, (possibly a sun god) and his priestess and neophyte, Mon'Ka.

The problem with Astrology books is that most are rule bound giving prescriptions of how to do things. However, we know that these are only part of the story. We need contact with the Astrologers, who wrote them, their guidance and ability to show how the rules work and how to recognise exceptions and moderate them and select adequately which practices to apply, in what contexts, to what extent and with what modifications.

We don't have that with the medievals, we just have the 'cook books' - the rules but not the guidance. Just look at how rule bound modern Astrology would seem in such a context. Medieval Astrology is 'rule bound' because that's all we have of it. I'm currently reading Abu Mashar on Solar Returns. Only part of the book is available in translation, even in Greek or Latin. All I can do is speculate about how he practised it and wonder how he and Dave would get on but I will never know for sure what how he practised it.

What holds for me, also held for Bonatti, who used the Arabian and Persian texts to underpin his own Astrology and Lilly and Morin much later on. They can give the lists of the 'ancients' but they don't really know how it was put into action, how it was interpreted and are faced with methods and techniques that they could not see the underpinnings of.

The tendency in such circumstances is to reject or just not use. However that doesn't mean that further research might not yield real insights.

 

[Minderwiz]

So books don't tell the whole story - by their nature they are rigid - they can't deal with every possible set of circumstances, be they written by Bonatti or Abu Mashar or by Stephen Arroyo and Dane Rudhyar. If all we've got is the book and no access to the author, then we have to try and puzzle out the meanings - no easy matter, as the number of posts about the 'basics' testifies.

We're not sure exactly how 'Friends and Enemies' worked because we have few examples of application and no knowledge of the nuances that would come in practice. However there are a number of things that seem to be reasonable deductions:

Firstly it's a 'system' (or classification) of how planets interact with each other whatever the aspect, sign and house - that is at the most general level.

Secondly it's based on a number of factors:

Henry Coley lists the following factors:

Agreement in Nature, Quality, Substance and Power' for example Sun and Mars are both Hot and Dry and therefore friends, Jupiter and Venus are friends because both are benefics, Venus and the Moon are friends because both are cold and moist, feminine and nocturnal.

Coley also lists enemies by opposition of houses, such as Sun and Saturn, Moon and Saturn,Mars and Venus, Mercury and Jupiter. Each planet is in detriment in the sign of the other.

To this Coley adds Enemies by exaltatio - Sun and Saturn, Jupiter and Mars and Venus and Mercury..

The problems with this are that Coley lists Mars as a friend of Venus, when by sign it should be an enemy and reciprocates by making Venus a friend of Mars. Coley repeats it again with Saturn and the Moon, showing the Moon as a friend of Saturn.

Lilly lists the Sun as being helpful to Saturn but says that Saturn is not helpful to the Sun.

So clearly the system is not as simple as the first statements imply.

Part of this may be because there are still further factors to take into account. In Hellenistic Astrology, Saturn was treated as a diurnal planet - the day warms him with the Sun's heat and he is more active and more able to act - so here we have the Sun being helpful to Saturn. In some Hellenistic systems Saturn is a participating ruler in the Fire triplicity. On the other hand Saturn is naturally Cold and Dry - anything that cools the Sun, is not helpful - Winter is the period when the Sun transits Saturn's signs of Capricorn and Aquarius.

Lilly explains the Venus Mars friendship as not so much one of love - Venus doesn't love Mars but she diminisheth his evil influences by good words and her meekness' In other words Venus being cold (but not as cold as Saturn) and moist, just offsets the worst of Mars. Venus is also benefic and as such she makes Mars less malefic.

In Christian Astrology Book III Lilly uses Planetary friends when considering the eleventh House of friends. Basically he says that if two people have Ascendant rulers (or planets in the Ascendant) that are the same planet or are planetary friends then it is likely that the two people are likely to be friends. If their Ascendant rulers (or planet in the Ascendant) are enemies then they are less likely to be friends

Lilly's system is not rigid - it's based on the intrinsic nature of the planets and the foundations of Astrology and it makes sense. Not all friendships are the same or of the same intensity and both partners are not necessarily equally keen on each other. That holds in real life just as much as in the planets. So the Moon might not like Saturn overmuch but she is not as cold and brings some moisture that stops Saturn being as rigid and slow to act

Edited to add:

Sue Ward has a freebie article on Friendship, from which I've drawn heavily but which goes into it in much more detail and with an example

http://www.sue-ward.co.uk/

Go to articles and it's on the left hand side next to the bottom.

 

[Barleywine]

Sue Ward has a freebie article on Friendship, from which I've drawn heavily but which goes into it in much more detail and with an example

http://www.sue-ward.co.uk/

Go to articles and it's on the left hand side next to the bottom.

This article gives me an excellent resource and a path to follow for additional insight. It's also clear that I need to spend more quality time with Christian Astrology; based on Sue's observations, I'm fortunate to have a facsimile edition of the book rather than a questionably transcribed one.

 

[ekb]

...And here's where I throw yet another log on the fire I'll be burned on as heretic geomancer and traditional astrologer: if you revise the traditional model of how planets are organized, the system in Lilly makes more sense. Mercury in the center as translator between polarities, agent of communication (i.e. Hermes). All "like" Hermes, but Mercury has preferences. Jupiter opposite Saturn - they are enemies. If Mercury applies, the effect is lessened. If Mercury separates, the enmity is increased. Lather rinse repeat with Sun-Moon and Mars-Venus. So that goes across the circle. Going around the circle, the planet to the right is a weak friend and the one to the left is a weak enemy. Combine with Sign rulerships and Ptolemaic dignities and you get the order of planets I'm talking about. It's a pretty easy logic puzzle IMNSHO.

BTW - the link is jyotish, not traditional astrology. Don't use that with Lilly unless you want that flavor of headache...

The key is to approach these historic systems as fully functioning and complete in themselves... but not necessarily logical or correct. Once the system is known enough to be able to say that X is definitely not correct, then you can start playing with it. This isn't a matter of time on the clock but more experience with using the tools in multiple contexts.

 

[Minderwiz]

Placing Mercury at the 'dividing line' is interesting and puts me in mind of an alternative version I've seen that has Mercury at the centre. Here the organisation is based on sect (day/night) and the metonic cycle of eclipses to create the firdaria used by medieval Persian and Arab Astrologers. The pairing and their periods is as follows:

Moon = 9 years; Sun = 10 years: total = 19 years
Venus = 8 years; Saturn = 11 years: total = 19 years
Mars = 7 years; Jupiter = 12 years:total = 19 Years
Mercury was given a period of 13 years.

This system also gave time periods to the Nodes

The North Node gets 3 years and the South Node gets 2 years


Lilly included the Nodes in his reference to friends making the North Node a friend of Jupiter and Venus and the South Node a friend of Saturn and Mars (the nodes are seen traditionally as a blend of the benefics (North) and malefics (South), so that friendship is hardly surprising.

However it might be argued that the system of friendships must be related in some way to a system that included the nodes and Time Lord systems did just that.

The Firdaria system does give the enmities between Venus and Saturn and Mars and Jupiter and Sun and Moon as quoted by Lilly. It also gives Mercury's friendships based on sect (or Mercury's lack of) - Mercury's friends are the two least diurnal of the diurnal planets (Jupiter and Saturn) and the least nocuturnal of the nocturnal planets (Venus). His enemies are the most diurnal planet (Sun) and the two most nocturnal planets (Mars and Moon).

Of the friendships: the benefics are friends with everyone apart from their firdaria 'enemy' The Sun is friends with the benefics and enemy to all the rest,

This works after a fashion but the trouble is that there are more than one Time Lord system and variations in the friends/enemies lists (even Lilly is not consistent giving two slightly different lists).

Do the systems require a logic or rationale? There are two problems, firstly the logic of a system might make perfect sense at one point in time but not 800 years later (or nearly 1200 in our case) Secondly, systems change and develop (or fade away) and it's difficult for us to say what the 'original' version is (if indeed there was one as a single original system requires either a single author or an Astrologers' convention of some form or other, to ratify it).

The fun lies in trying out the various versions and theories to see which works and in what contexts. Whichever is the 'true' answer we are forced to think more about the planets and their natures and that can only be a 'good thing'