skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Who Invented Solar Arc Directions?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Tom
Member


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3506
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for taking the time to write up all of this. It sheds a lot of light on the topic.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Andrew



Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 360

Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 3:23 am    Post subject: Re: Who Invented Solar Arc Directions? Reply with quote

Quote:
Did Simmonite develop solar arcs?


From Synthesis and Counseling in Astrology by Noel Tyl:

Quote:
W. J. Simmonite was a major figure in Victorian England. He was a popular astrologer, writer, and publicist for astrology, as well as a medical herbalist and meteorologist. Primarily, he was a horary astrologer, as most astrologers were in those times and for some two hundred years before, back to Lilly's time, probably because the time of a question was sure, as opposed to a birth time recollected in strange ways and requiring risky, time-consuming rectification.

Simmonite noted that using the standardized mean motion of the Sun could amount to an error of 2 degrees and 49 minutes of arc over a span of forty-five years, at the extreme. As we have seen, this would introduce a symbolic prediction error of almost three years! That is what had been infecting the practice of predictive astrology for so very long, a kind of "arc-virus"!

Simmonite advocated using the actual motion of the Sun in progression after the birth date (the Secondary Progressed Sun measurement) as the individual's projected symbolic time factor. There would be no problem with slow or fast Sun; that factor would be included in the actual motion of the Sun. The measure would capture exactly the individual's measure of time and development. This distance that the Sun traveled became the Solar Arc as we know it today.

Simmonite's work was basically a revival of the work of Maginus, which Simmonite surely knew, having studied Lilly's books. But Simmonite's presentation had no mathematical ties to Ptolemy; it did without worries about the equator, ascensions, interpolations, poles, etc. Simmonite simply measured the Solar Arc on the ecliptic (in the Zodiac) rather than on the equator.

It then seemed so natural to take the Solar Arc increment for any given year of life and apply it to every planet and angle in the individual's birth horoscope, to the entire birth pattern.


Unfortunately, my copy of Simmonite is on loan at the moment. But Vivian Robson notes in his A Students' Text-Book of Astrology:

Quote:
Simmonite's Method. The Sun's actual daily motion after birth represents one year of life. In other words the increase in the Sun's R.A. from noon on the day of birth to noon on the next day is the measure for the first year; that from noon on the first day after birth to noon on the second is the measure for the second year and so on. A variety of this method is to employ the Sun's actual daily motion in R.A. on the day of birth as a constant measure for the whole of life.


Note that unlike Simmonite, Tyl states:

Quote:
... in Solar Arcs, only "hard" aspects are observed.


This was not Simmonite's practice.

Simmonite also directed to prominent fixed stars; Tyl (so far as I know) does not.

Simmonite's descriptions for the general effects of directions seem to have been derived (largely if not entirely) from those written initially by John Gadbury; Vivian Robson in turn seems to have abbreviated and modernized those of Simmonite, with the exception of directions to fixed stars, which he omits entirely from his book The Radix System.

So it is to Simmonite that we can ascribe the invention of solar arc directions, as well as the assignation of Uranus to the rulership of Aquarius; although, notably, John Ackroyd, in the end-matter of his 1890 revision of Simmonite's Arcana, writes:

Quote:
According to Ptolemy's theory Aquarius should be Neptune's house.


Interestingly, George Wilde, in his Treatise of Natal Astrology (written in 1894), also assigns Uranus to the rulership of Aquarius, but has it exalted in Gemini. He, perhaps appropriately, assigns Neptune to nothing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1289
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 8:08 am    Post subject: Re: Who Invented Solar Arc Directions? Reply with quote

Having joined recently, I just noticed this old thread.

Andrew wrote:
So it is to Simmonite that we can ascribe the invention of solar arc directions,

To my knowledge, the earliest suggestion of the technique comes from Kepler. Morin discusses and rejects it in Astrologia Gallica 22 (Holden's translation, p. 79):

Quote:
Kepler ... wants then, if it is required to find where a direction of the Sun and Moon extends to 30 years after birth, to take from the ephemerides the places of the Sun at noon on the day of the nativity and then on the 30th day after the nativity, and subtract the former from the latter, and there will remain the arc of the ecliptic, which, added to the radical places of the Sun and the Moon, will show where the directions of the Sun and the Moon extend to in the ecliptic in that 30th year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Andrew



Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 360

Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 1:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Simmonite seems to have popularized it. He also seems to have been identified as the main exponent of the technique in Victorian England.

Yes, Morin rejects it, just as he rejects Placidus. He rejects quite a bit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 5145
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Andrew,

Thanks for explaining more in detail about the differences in approach. I wasn't aware Simmonite advocated solar arc directions to the fixed stars. I will clearly need to investigate his work further as that is a particular interest area of mine.

Still, as I noted earlier in this thread the possibility of Kepler developing this system remains an open question. I do not know if the new translations of his work have shed any light on this. However, the matter is ambiguous and his references could equally apply to the SP Sun. This means he either antcipated Placidus or Simmonite in developing one of these systems.

Nevertheless, as you point out there is no doubt Simmonite seems to be the first to popularise this technique in the astrological community.

When I was first taught solar arcs by Noel Tyl it always struck me as odd that he only looked at hard aspects. However, it is clear Reinhold Ebertin was one of Tyl's major astrological influences and the emphasis exclusively on hard aspects relates to his school of Cosmo-biology stemming from German Uranian astrology. The English tradition of using solar arc directions (aka the Radix system or symbolic directions) stemming from Simmonite and continued by Robson and Carter is clearly quite distinct in focusing on all the major ptolemaic aspects.

Unfortunately, most modern astrologers have followed the lead of American 20th century astrologers like Tyl and adopted Ebertin's approach focusing exclusively on hard aspects.

I was quite cheered when I did get a copy of Robson's Radix system showing the use of the ptolemaic aspects with solar arcs. Like you I now exclude the minor hard aspects.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1289
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MarkC wrote:
Still, as I noted earlier in this thread the possibility of Kepler developing this system remains an open question. I do not know if the new translations of his work have shed any light on this. However, the matter is ambiguous and his references could equally apply to the SP Sun.

But note that Morin cites Kepler's opinion that the solar arc be 'added to the radical places of the Sun and the Moon'. This is clearly not secondary directions/progressions. (Other planets than the luminaries are not mentioned because they were not considered significators. Placidus is similarly concerned with the secondary directions of the luminaries.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Andrew



Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 360

Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark C wrote:

Quote:
I wasn't aware Simmonite advocated solar arc directions to the fixed stars. I will clearly need to investigate his work further as that is a particular interest area of mine.


The Arcana of Astrology (1890) is the most complete edition; it is published by Kessinger and contains delineations of directions to the fixed stars.

Martin Gansten wrote:

Quote:
But note that Morin cites Kepler's opinion that the solar arc be 'added to the radical places of the Sun and the Moon'. This is clearly not secondary directions/progressions.


Yes, this is correct. This is why Sepharial (unlike Simmonite) uses the Moon's mean motion to substitute for the secondary progressions of the Moon (taken from the ephemeris). See his essay "The Radix System" in his book The Science of Foreknowledge. Of course Sepharial contradicted his own opinions constantly. Before blogs, there were books; more difficult to delete.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 5145
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 4:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The Arcana of Astrology (1890) is the most complete edition; it is published by Kessinger and contains delineations of directions to the fixed stars.


Thanks Andrew. I just ordered this. Still, its a pity its only available through Kessinger. Yet another Canary yellow book screaming at me from from my bookcase!

Quote:
But note that Morin cites Kepler's opinion that the solar arc be 'added to the radical places of the Sun and the Moon'. This is clearly not secondary directions/progressions.


Quote:
Yes, this is correct. This is why Sepharial (unlike Simmonite) uses the Moon's mean motion to substitute for the secondary progressions of the Moon (taken from the ephemeris). See his essay "The Radix System" in his book The Science of Foreknowledge. Of course Sepharial contradicted his own opinions constantly. Before blogs, there were books; more difficult to delete.


Fair enough. I clearly missed the full implication of that. James Holden in his 'History of Horoscopic Astrology' did seem to tentatively suggest Kepler may have originated secondary progressions but he didn't provide any solid source for this conclusion. The quote from Morin does seem quite compelling evidence in support of his use of solar arc directions.

Can I just clarify something with you? Its probably obvious to most readers but I want to be sure I have understood you correctly.

It is my understanding that apart from the issue of aspects the other clear difference between Simmonite/Robson/Carter and Ebertin/Tyl etc regarding solar arc directions is that the former use the mean daily motion of the sun (applied to Moon and planets) while the latter use the exact daily motion of the Sun which is specific to each nativity? Hence, the fact Tyl emphasises the difference in 'slow' solar arc directions for people born in summer months and relatively 'fast' Solar arc directions for winter births.Thus, the solar arc Sun used by Tyl is identical to the secondary progressed Sun.

I only ask because you state
Quote:
''Tyl recommends using the mean measurements and solar arc MC, "if given the option."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Andrew



Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 360

Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MarkC wrote:

Quote:
Apart from aspects the other clear difference between Simmonite/Robson/Carter and Ebertin/Tyl etc regarding solar arc directions is that the former use the mean daily motion of the sun (applied to Moon and planets) while the latter use the exact daily motion of the Sun which is specific to each nativity? Hence, the fact Tyl emphasises the difference in 'slow' solar arc directions for people born in summer months and relatively 'fast' Solar arc directions for winter births.Thus, the solar arc Sun used by Tyl is identical to the secondary progressed Sun.


This is correct:

Quote:
To calculate the Solar Arcs, we use the position of the Secondary Progressed Sun.


See:

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/astrological-techniques/solar-arcs.php

But note (in the context of tertiary progressions):

Quote:
The key signal in TP measurements is when the TP Moon crosses an Angle (or squares it) in the natal chart and/or makes a conjunction, square, or opposition with a key planet. The other TP-planets play a supporting (or background) role to the TP Moon, and their positions can be significant as well. So, a double-ringed chart is used with the TP positions in the outer ring. Orbs are very tight (less than two degrees) and, as in Solar Arcs, only "hard" aspects are observed. [Use the Mean measurements and Solar Arc MC, if given the option.]


Noel Tyl seems to mix solar arcs with Uranian techniques and tertiary progressions. Quite a mélange.

Sepharial et al. use the mean daily motion of the Sun, as this passage from The Science of Foreknowledge indicates:

Quote:
For it is obvious that a degree of right ascension is not equivalent to a degree of the zodiac, nor either of them to one day. One day of 24 hours is one revolution of the Earth on its axis plus 4 minutes, because during 24 hours the Sun advances 1 degree in the zodiac. Hence 360 equatorial degrees are not equal to 24 hours, but to 23h. 56m. Thus, if the meridian of a place were in line with the Sun in Pisces 15º at noon, one rotation of the Earth would bring it again to that point of the zodiac, but it would require another 4 minutes of time to bring it into line with the Sun, now in Pisces 16º.

Moreover, we cannot say that 1 degree of the zodiac equals 1 year, since there are 365 days in the year and 360 degrees in the zodiac. Hence the mean movement of the Sun is not 1 degree, but 59' 8" only. Hence we may argue that the longitudinal increment of 59' 8" is the measure for one year.


Remember that these are symbolic (not primary) directions. They ignore latitude and emphasize longitude. The antiscia (rather than parallels) are often overlooked, but in my experience, they should not be ignored.

The section called "The Ruling of the Microcosm" in Simmonite's book is also quite useful.

In his book A Manual of Occultism, Sepharial writes:

Quote:
It should be noted that the Midheaven and Ascendant are the only points which are mathematically determined by the calculation of a horoscope. The degrees on the cusps of the other Houses may conveniently, and indeed rationally, be allotted by dividing the entire degrees contained in each quadrant by three and adding the result to the degree on the Midheaven, or the Ascendant, according to the quadrant involved. This is the method I myself use in practice.


In his New Dictionary of Astrology, Sepharial also writes:

Quote:
Various methods of finding the degrees of the zodiac, which are at any time on the cusps of Houses, have been employed and have been the subject of much discussion. Mathematically speaking the Tables that are given in the books are incorrect, as they employ the semi-arc of the Sun when in the Tropic only, whereas it is obvious that planets which have different declinations will have different horary times and they will cut through the cusps of the Houses at different angles. The easiest and most symbolically correct method is to divide the zodiacal degrees comprised between the Mid-heaven and the Ascendant by 3, and add these degrees successively to the degree of the zodiac on the Mid-heaven. The same process in regard to the Houses below the Horizon will result in a figure which for all practical purposes is satisfactory.


So it seems that Sepharial was the first astrologer in modern times to advocate the use of the so-called Porphyry system of house division.

Maria J. Mateus has written:

Quote:
The first appearance of a description and explanation of this method is made by Vettius Valens (150-175 AD) in Book III, Chapter 2 of his Anthology entitled "The Authentic Degrees of the Angles". Valens attributes this method to an otherwise unknown astrologer named Orion. Holden believes this author to have written before Valens and points to the fact that he could have been the true originator of the system and not Porphyry himself, since Porphyry describes the system 150 to 175 years after Valens does.

Although the method may have originated with an earlier astrologer or mathematician, it was named after Porphyry (233-c.304), the Greek philosopher and student of Plotinus. Porphyry is best known for his work Introduction to Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos, which is essentially an encyclopedic dictionary of astrological terms and techniques. In chapter 43 entitled "Determination of the Angular, Cadent, and Succedent Houses to the Degree," Porphyry how the cusps are derived by trisecting the semi-arc between the Ascendant and Midheaven.

After the Ascendant and Midheaven ecliptic positions have been calculated, the semi-arc between them is computed by subtracting one from the other. This semi-arc -- which represents one quadrant of the chart -- is then divided by 3 to determine the arc of each of the intermediate houses. This constant is then added to the Midheaven to yield the cusp of the 11th house, to the 11th to yield the cusp of the 12th, and to the 12th to confirm the Ascendant degree. The cusps of the 4th and 7th houses will be 180 degrees from the Ascendant and Midheaven respectively and opposite in Zodical sign. The same quadrant arc division process is applied to the northeastern, northwestern, and southwestern quadrants of the chart to yield the cusps of houses 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9. Because this process yields the same constant in each quadrant arc division, house cusps 11 and 5; 3 and 9; 2 and 8; and 6 and 12 will be 180 degrees apart. Also houses 11 and 3, 9 and 5 will be 120 degrees apart; houses 12 and 2, 8 and 6 will be 60 degrees apart.


Just as Maginus compiled a set of tables to determine house cusps in the semi-arc system, I wonder whether the Porphyry system of division might not be an idealized, "quick-and-dirty" method to calculate approximate semi-arc cusps.

Speaking of Simmonite, this is the draft of an article I wrote for a blog that has yet to be created:

Quote:
Astrological practitioners, for the most part, have remained parochial, reading only pop-astrology level books made available by the publishers to exploit the market in astro-pabulum. As a result of this, the general level of astrology has declined since the beginning of the 20th century and many mediocre astrologers, such as Sepharial, are seen as Masters, whereas competent astrologers, such as a John Varley, a Pearce or a Simmonite, are often unknown. —Robert Zoller

Mr. Simmonite, I think, was the most learned and gentlemanly astrologer that England ever knew. He spoke, wrote, and taught eight different languages; besides being a thorough scholar and mathematician. He published a number of astrological works. His “Arcana of Astrology” will be a master-piece of that science for hundreds or thousands of years to come. —Luke Broughton

W(illiam) J(oseph) Simmonite, M.D., Ph.D., (ca. 1800—ca. 1862), a resident of Sheffield, was a prominent practitioner of astrology in Victorian Britain. He was called the Culpeper of his age and has since been referred to as the most notable exponent of horary after William Lilly. His work was noted for its erudite cast.

Dr. Simmonite wrote a volume that could be characterized as a codification of late Renaissance astrology as seen through the lens of Victorian scientific naturalism:
The Celestial Philosopher (London: Simpkin, Marshall, 1847); new edition, with additions by John Story et al., published as Complete Arcana of Astral Philosophy (London: Foulsham, 1890). He also wrote a compendium of horary and electional astrology called The Prognostic Astronomer (London: Simpkin, Marshall, 1851); new edition, with additions by John Story et al., published as Horary Astrology: the Key to Scientific Prediction (London: Foulsham, 1896).

Headmaster of a private school, he also practiced botanical medicine and wrote a practical treatise on herbal remedies entitled Medical Botany (London: Simpkin, Marshall, 1848). His first textbook, The Practical Self-Teaching Grammar of the English Language (Sheffield: Greaves, 1841), comprised a complete system of composition for education and instruction in grammar and syntax.

Simmonite consulted the works of Lilly, Culpeper, Gadbury and Partridge, among many others (most notably Maginus). Primarily a horary practitioner, he was the first astrologer to apply the solar arc increment (the actual motion of the Sun after the birth date) to every planet and angle on the ecliptic (in the zodiac) rather than on the equator. He was not so much a formal innovator as a prudent reformer who respected and indeed revered tradition.

The British criminalization of astrological practice in 1824 made it essential for Victorian astrologers to avoid entrapment by the law. In 1851, Simmonite, who published an almanac in Manchester that featured meteorological predictions, began to refuse personal interviews after the prosecution of Frederick Copestick of Bath, who was convicted in 1852. He declined to answer horary questions for clients and claimed to be merely a conduit for correspondence with a London astrologer, one Mercurius Herschel, F.R.S. Simmonite apparently conducted his astrological practice solely by correspondence (primarily as an adjunct to other occupations) in order to avoid entrapment by a representative of the law.


Enjoy the "Arcana"!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Andrew



Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 360

Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MarkC wrote:

Quote:
It is my understanding that apart from the issue of aspects the other clear difference between Simmonite/Robson/Carter and Ebertin/Tyl etc regarding solar arc directions is that the former use the mean daily motion of the sun (applied to Moon and planets) while the latter use the exact daily motion of the Sun which is specific to each nativity?


Mea culpa. I ought to have added that it was Sepharial and Robson who used the mean daily motion of the Sun (rather than solar arcs per se).

As for Simmonite, as Robson notes in his A Students' Text-Book of Astrology:

Quote:
Simmonite's Method. The Sun's actual daily motion after birth represents one year of life. In other words the increase in the Sun's R.A. from noon on the day of birth to noon on the next day is the measure for the first year; that from noon on the first day after birth to noon on the second is the measure for the second year and so on. A variety of this method is to employ the Sun's actual daily motion in R.A. on the day of birth as a constant measure for the whole of life.


And it was Noel Tyl who wrote:

Quote:
[Use the Mean measurements and Solar Arc MC, if given the option.]


http://www.noeltyl.com/techniques/000930.html

I hope this helps.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom
Member


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3506
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi,

I just returned from vacation and haven't had time to digest the resurrection of this thread, but I did catch this:


Quote:
Quote:
But note that Morin cites Kepler's opinion that the solar arc be 'added to the radical places of the Sun and the Moon'. This is clearly not secondary directions/progressions.


Quote:
Yes, this is correct. This is why Sepharial (unlike Simmonite) uses the Moon's mean motion to substitute for the secondary progressions of the Moon (taken from the ephemeris). See his essay "The Radix System" in his book The Science of Foreknowledge. Of course Sepharial contradicted his own opinions constantly. Before blogs, there were books; more difficult to delete.


Fair enough. I clearly missed the full implication of that. James Holden in his 'History of Horoscopic Astrology' did seem to tentatively suggest Kepler may have originated secondary progressions but he didn't provide any solid source for this conclusion. The quote from Morin does seem quite compelling evidence in support of his use of solar arc directions.


Since last year when this thread started I've spent quite a bit of time with Morin and I think I can say with minimal authority that he would have hanged himself before using solar arc directions. Almost everything Morin did had a basis in nature. Nature is the basis of his astrology as stated in Astrologia Gallica. In fact it was through nature that Morin tried to establish astrology's validity in the face of the rising tide of skepticism and the coming Enlightenment.

More than likely he is referring to primary directions when he talks about the solar arc being added to the Sun and Moon, meaning using the Sun's arc (he used Naibod mean motion 59' 08" per day) to equal one year of life. So for every 59' 08" of arc the Moon moves by primary motion it is the equivalent to one year in the life of the native. I'd have to look at the precise quote to be more specific, but I am nearly certain that he would have had nothing to do with solar arc directions had he been aware of them. He wouldn't use the Lots, except Fortuna, the terms, faces, and nodes as they all lacked a place in nature. So why would he use, much less develop solar arc directions particularly since he so loved primary directions?

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 5145
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Tom,

Hope you had a good break.

I haven't worked with primary directions so I will defer to those with greater knowledge to respond on your suggestion on Naibod primary directions. Still, it seems to me that the quote provided by Martin is fully compatible with a system of solar arc directions. Moreover, Martin did not suggest Morin used this system or approved of it. On the contrary, he states:

Quote:
Morin discusses and rejects it in Astrologia Gallica 22


Lets go back to Morin himself:

Quote:
Kepler ... wants then, if it is required to find where a direction of the Sun and Moon extends to 30 years after birth, to take from the ephemerides the places of the Sun at noon on the day of the nativity and then on the 30th day after the nativity, and subtract the former from the latter, and there will remain the arc of the ecliptic, which, added to the radical places of the Sun and the Moon, will show where the directions of the Sun and the Moon extend to in the ecliptic in that 30th year.
Astrologia Gallica 22 p79 [Translated James Holden)


So do you consider the above quote as consistent with a description of Naibod primaries used by Kepler? Why pick on Kepler in particular? If these are Naibod primaries there would surely be nothing very interesting or noteable in what Kepler was doing? Surely, lots of astrologers were using this system then? Why not refer to Naibod himself? Isn't it far more plausible Morin is identifying and disagreeing with an astrological idiosyncracy of Kepler?

This sounds identical to the system of solar arc directions used by modern astrologers like Ebertin and Tyl based on the daily solar motion representing a year of life rather than the mean solar arc of the sun. If Kepler was using a standardised mean daily motion for the sun as suggested by Naibod why does he need an ephemeris to calculate the position of the Sun after 30 days= 30 years? Moreover, from my reading of this Morin is stating the moon is directed using the same solar arc rate of a day for a year. This surely isn't compatible with either secondary progressions or primary directions is it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 5145
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 1:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Andrew,

Thank you for all your fascinating input on Simmonite and Sepharial.

Quote:
I ought to have added that it was Sepharial and Robson who used the mean daily motion of the Sun (rather than solar arcs per se).


Quote:
Simmonite's Method. The Sun's actual daily motion after birth represents one year of life. In other words the increase in the Sun's R.A. from noon on the day of birth to noon on the next day is the measure for the first year; that from noon on the first day after birth to noon on the second is the measure for the second year and so on. A variety of this method is to employ the Sun's actual daily motion in R.A. on the day of birth as a constant measure for the whole of life.


That makes me even more interested in Simmonite's work as I have found the daily solar arc system more accurate than the mean daily motion of the sun in the charts I have worked with.


Last edited by Mark on Sun Aug 17, 2008 1:05 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom
Member


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3506
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 1:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Mark,

Let me explain:

Quote:
So do you consider the above quote as consistent with a description of Naibod primaries used by Kepler?


I don't know how Kepler did primary directions. Naibod's use of the mean motion of the Sun is what Rumen Kolev called a "key." One can use the same "key" with several different primary directions systems. Briefly.

There are two main ways to calculate primary directions: in zodiac and in mundo. In zodiac means directions are cacluated on the ecliptic in celestial longitude. If the astrologer calculates in the order of the signs he is calculating "direct." If he calculates against the order of the signs, he is calculating converse directions.

In mundo calculations are based on the exact position of the planets above and below the equator. Some calculate with latitude some calculate without latitude. Regardless the arc of direction is different in mundo than it is in zodiac.

All astrologers calculated directions to the angles in the same way. But not all astrologers agreed on how to calculate the arc of direction in mundo from planet to planet either by conjunction or aspect. Morin calculated primary directions in the manner of Regiomontanus as did Lilly. There are other methods including Placidus directions, Topocentric, Under the pole of the significator, et al. Now once we settle on the way to determine the arc of direction, we now need to determine the symbolic time that arc indicates. Ptolemy used one degree for one year of life. So if the arc of direction between, say, Mars and Jupiter, regardless of how it is determined, is 37 degrees, Ptolemy would say Mars is directed to a conjunction with Jupiter at age 37. But if we use the Naibod Key of 59' 08" for one year of life the conjunction would take place at a later time than age 37. So we can see that the method as well as the key can result in "Hits" that may occur years apart.

Morin used Regiomontanus' system for directions to aspects and conjunctions and he used the key of Naibod.


Quote:
Why pick on Kepler in particular?


No reason. Someone else mentioned Kepler before I did. Morin probably had something to say about him though because Morin had something to say about everyone.


Quote:
If these are Naibod primaries there would surely be nothing very interesting or noteable in what Kepler was doing? Surely, lots of astrologers were using this system then? Why not refer to Naibod himself? Isn't it far more plausible Morin is identifying and disagreeing with an astrological idiosyncracy of Kepler?


I really need to get a handle of what Kepler is doing in order to understand Morin's remarks. I understand how Morin did primary directions. If we can tie the origin, in one way or another, of solar arc directions to Kepler, it is highly likely that Morin would criticize that, if he were aware of it.

The purpose of solar arcs, at least as they are understood today, is not quite the same as the purpose of primary directions. Modern astrology places a great deal of emphasis on aspects in the natal chart. The use of solar arc directions keeps those aspects in tact exactly as they are in the nativity. This is perfectly consistent once we accept the over riding importance of aspects. For example, if we believe that the Jupiter - Mercury square in the chart of native A describes much of his personality, then keeping that most important aspect in tact throughout the life when we do predictions is also very important.

Primary directions on the other hand show the type of events most likely to occur in the life based on a natural planetary motion (allowing for converse directions to be considered "normal" motion - this can be done but not all old astrolgoers directed conversely). It shows how the life unfolds, and used as Morin and others used them, it was part of a predictive system, not the only part. So although there are similarities, we are really dealing with apples and oranges here.

Let me get over my jet lag, and I'll dig into this some more.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 5145
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 1:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Tom,

Thanks for trying to explain the workings of primaries to me. I know you have gone into this and indeed Morin far more than most of us. Primary directions is definitely next on my list of traditional techniques to study. I have always felt one cannot really call onself a traditional astrologer unless one can do these. I do intend to get Rumen Kolev's books and his software (when my ship comes in!)

I do not have access to my copy of the book right now. I think I better take some time to study the relevant part of Astrologia Gallica myself to understand more of the context of this quote from Morin we are all focusing on.

As things stand though, I still dont get why Morin would look upon this as something particular to Kepler if it was just Naibod directions or indeed any system of primaries as you suggest. That doesn't make much sense to me.

It seems hard to deny that the definition of Kepler's technique, as described by Morin, exactly matches the modern approach to solar arcs?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated