Converse primary directions in Morin and earlier?

1
I am trying to find out when converse primary directions in the 'modern' sense (against the primary motion/against time) were first advocated, and by whom. Does anyone know of a definite reference to converse directions prior to the 17th century?

More specifically, I have been looking for such references in Morin's Astrologia Gallica. I note that in Book 22, p. 20, Morin does use the terms direct and converse, but apparently in the Ptolemaic sense of against or in the order of the signs of the zodiac ? both of which are, as Morin himself says, caused by the same (direct) motion of the primum mobile (or, as we should say, by the rotation of the earth).

In the same chapter, Morin talks of directing Saturn in the 12th to the Ascendant, which sounds like a 'modern' converse direction; but he explicitly terms this a direct direction. I therefore assume that by 'the Ascendant' in this context he means not the fixed horizon, but rather the zodiacal degree rising in the radix.

Any light shed on this matter would be much appreciated.

2
Hello Martin,

Its probably a lot later than your period of interest but I have seen what looks like an example of this concerning the 17th century Scottish astrologer James Corss. Corss was a Glaswegian practising and teaching astrology in Edinburgh in that period.

The Scottish astrologer Jane Ridder-Patrick has been studying the life and writings of James Corss as part of her PHD.

In a talk I heard Jane give earlier this year we discussed several of the charts from his books. In one of them Jane mentioned a primary direction Corss calculated which predicted the early death of a child. The thing that initially seemed confusing to all of us about the prediction was that Cross described Saturn directing to Venus even though Venus was ahead of Saturn in zodiacal order. I had always thought primary directions had to operate in diurnal order before this.

The chart troubled me and it only really clicked what was happening after I read Sepharial's book describing converse primary directions.

This does seem like an example of what you describe although I freely admit my ignorance about the intricacies of primary directions.
Last edited by Mark on Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:29 am, edited 2 times in total.

3
Hi Martin:
Does anyone know of a definite reference to converse directions prior to the 17th century?
Ibn Ezra makes the following reference to Ptolemy and Dorotheus in the recently (2008) translated The Book of Nativities and Revolutions, Meira Epstein translator, ARHAT. On page 25 Ibn Ezra writes:
"Ptolemy said that if the place of life is in the descending quadrant of the wheel, which is [from] the line of the midheaven to the setting degree, we should always direct it backward (contrary to the order of the signs), but Dorotheus said that we should not direct it except according to the rule (forward). In the same manner Ptolemy said that the Lot of Fortune should be directed backward, and those who came after him directed both the Lot [of Fortune] and the place of life [Hillaj or Hyleg] when it is in the descending semicircle [both] according to Ptolemy's way and Dorotheus way, ... The proper directions are as I mentioned in the Book of Reasons.

This quote date from the 12th century and of course Ptolemy is second century AD. I could not locate the reference in The Book of Reasons, but I only skimmed it. I didn't check Tetrabiblos or Dorotheus. From this we can see that Ibn Ezra claims both Ptolemy and Dorotheus at least knew of converse directions.

Tom

4
Hi Tom,
From this we can see that Ibn Ezra claims both Ptolemy and Dorotheus at least knew of converse directions.
One might think so, but this matter of in/against the order of the signs actually has nothing to do with converse directions in the modern sense. Rather, it relates to the difference in Hellenistic astrology between sinister and dexter aspects ('looking ahead' and 'casting rays').

Ptolemy is discussing the difference between (1) a (direct) direction between the hyleg/apheta and a planet ahead of it in the zodiac; and (2) a (direct) direction between the hyleg/apheta and a planet behind it in the zodiac. The latter is considered less effective precisely because the planet cannot move towards the hyleg; rather, the hyleg is moved towards the other planet ? the reason being that all movement takes place in the same direction, from east to west.

6
Hello Martin,

I seem to got the wrong end of the stick on your query. :-sk I should have known to leave primary directions to the experts!

Yes James Corss does sound very interesting. He was quite a well known figure in his day and kept up a correspondence with other european astrologers.

I dont think Jane Ridder-Patrick is ready to publish yet. She is still working on her PHD and this is provisional research.

However, she is speaking about James Corss amongst other topics at the History of Astrology Conference in London in October. The talk is entitled:

''The Astrology of King James VI of Scotland & I of England and Ireland''

I don't know if you are able to come over for that. Sounds like the kind of event you should be speaking at once your book is published!

http://www.astrolodge.co.uk
Last edited by Mark on Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:30 am, edited 2 times in total.

7
MarkC wrote:I seem to got the wrong end of the stick on your query.
I am not at all sure you did.
''The Astrology of King James VI of Scotland & I of England and Ireland''

I don't know if you are able to come over for that. Sounds like the kind of event you should be speaking at once your book is published!
It does sound very tempting. :) Let's see what happens.

8
Hi Martin:
One might think so, but this matter of in/against the order of the signs actually has nothing to do with converse directions in the modern sense.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the modern sense."

Although you are correct regarding the specifics of the particular Ibn Ezra quote, it didn't seem to me to disregard converse directions in all cases, just that one. My purpose was to provide a pre 1700 reference to converse directions.

In book 22 Morin says:

" ... Ptolemy ... concerning directions seems to have been lacking in all calculation content merely to expound two methods of directions, one following the succession of the signs and one against it, which we shall examine below." - page 1
He doesn't seem to be rejecting the idea of converse directions, but rather crticizing Ptolemy for over simplifying primary directions. Now for what it is worth in a footnote, James Holden says:
His [Ptolemy's] astrological handbook, the Tetrabiblos contains the fundamental instructions for calculating what are now called primary directions (in Book 3 Chapt. 10). His instructions were misunderstood by most readers (including Morin).
I haven't read Book 22 in depth (it's on the list), but it still seems pretty clear to me that directing both ways (with and against the zodiac), was generaly accepted. I don't have enough background to state with certainty exactly how older astrolgoers understood Ptolemy on his point. Perhaps Holden explains in other places.

I think Ed knows Rumen Kolev, if Ed doesn't know, perhaps Kolev could shed some light on this subject.

Tom

9
Good morning Tom,

By converse directions in the modern sense I mean against the primary motion. This in itself is a bit self-contradictory, as primary directions are supposed to follow the primary motion (hence the name). To my current knowledge, the earliest astrologers to suggest such calculation against time (e.g., bringing a planet in the 12th house to the eastern horizon, where in fact it had been some time before birth) lived in the 17th century.

Now, the terms direct and converse do occur earlier, as synonyms of 'in/against the order of the signs'. But if we examine the meaning of those terms in the older texts (starting with the Tetrabiblos), we find that they have nothing to do with directing against time. As Morin points out, they are both caused by the same primary motion (from east to west). The difference lies in whether the apheta is directed to the anaereta or vice versa, which in turn depends on whether the apheta is in the eastern or western half of the chart. From the point of view of the apheta, the anaereta may be in front or behind; but the directions always follow the primary motion.

Kolev treats of this subject briefly on pp. 26-29 in his booklet The primary directions & history of astrology.

When Holden writes that
[Ptolemy's] instructions were misunderstood by most readers (including Morin)
he is referring to Morin's adherence to the Regiomontanus system, which he claimed (incorrectly) to have been the true intention of Ptolemy.

10
Hi Martin

I?ve always believed that Ptolemy was making the case for converse directions in that passage, so it?s interesting to hear your thoughts. Are you speculating that later astrologers misread Ptolemy and made a case for converse directions when there was no need? If so, there is probably a better way to establish more about what Ptolemy did mean, but since I?m speculating about what you might be speculating about, I?ll let you correct me if I?m wrong. I?ve never related to the logic of converse directions myself, BTW, so I?d love it if it were proved that we never need to bother about them!

11
Hi Deb,
I?ve always believed that Ptolemy was making the case for converse directions in that passage, so it?s interesting to hear your thoughts. Are you speculating that later astrologers misread Ptolemy and made a case for converse directions when there was no need?
No, not speculating. :) I believe there is a consensus on this matter among those who both have a working knowledge of primary directions and have read Ptolemy. The speculation was probably on the part of late-Renaissance astrologers; their predecessors for some 1,500 years had been content with following the actual primary motion.

Ptolemy explicitly says that when the apheta/hyleg is in the western half of the chart and we direct it towards the descendant (by the primary motion), any malefics it may meet on the way do not kill, ?because they do not move toward the prorogative [=aphetical/hylegiacal] place, but it moves toward them?. (This is in Robbins?s translation, p. 281; I?ll be happy to give the Greek if so desired.) When the malefics are east of the apheta, however, they do kill, precisely because they do move towards it, ?hurling their rays?, which is considered more menacing. So you see that the motion is constant, from east to west; it is just a matter of the relative positions of the apheta and the other planets.

(As an aside, I believe Ptolemy was wrong about western malefics not being able to kill; but that's outside of our present discussion.)

12
This is why I've never felt comfortable about my understanding of what Ptolemy was supposedly saying in that passage - because I've been conditioned to think that he must be meaning something else. And that 'something else' is neither adequately explained nor does it make theoretical sense (as you say). Very interesting. I put up a post suggesting that Placidus might have used converse directions, but then I took it down because I remembered that you are looking for pre-17th century sources. Unfortunately, there are not that many older sources that we have access to that give working examples, and I don't think I have any useful suggestions for you. But as I read Ptolemy's passage again with your comments in mind, it now makes perfect sense.