Primaries - zodiacal

1
Hello
Martin Gansten and others who have studied the history of primaries tell us that until Placidus, zodiacal directions were used.
I hope I correctly understand these as being (in Ptolemy's case, for example) the conjunctions (or aspects) of one zodiacal projection (e.g. the longitude of a planet on the sun's semi-arc) with an angle, with a proportional cusp, or with another zodiacal projection on the sun's semi-arc. These would all be"zodiacal without latitude" directions.
"Mundo directions" are the conjunctions (or aspects) of one actual body (e.g. a planet) with an angle, with a propoportional cusp, or with another actual body (each body moving on its own semi-arc).
Hence zodiacal directions of the sun to angles or cusps are always the same as mundo directions (this at least is true...)
Hope I'm right so far...

Now, what then are zodiacal directions with latitude? Are they not the same as mundo directions? I can't get my head around this one. In Rumen Kolev's program, there is an option to obtain "Gauric / Placidean classic" zodiacals with latitude, but in practice it doesn't seem to work, the values are the same as the zodiacal without latitude.

Anyway, "Dr H", of Regulus astrlogy, who has posted a message in this forum, claims in his book on Rectification that the Holy Grail of primaries, and hence the most convincing way to use them, is to seek two hits: the zodiacal with and without latitude. He finds related major events occurring around these two hit dates, which define a period.

I tucked this idea away because I didn't understand zodiacal with lat, and anyway had no way to calculate them. But recently I started experimenting with looking at the period defined between the mundo and zodiacal hits to the angles (I've only looked at direct directions). It's very interesting. The periods vary between a few days and over a year (depending on ecliptic latitude of the planet) and do indeed seem to reflect a key period within which a major event or series of events occur. It seems clearer than using orbs for a hit: things happen between these dates, rather than near one of them. (I've found Naibod key seems to give best results).

I thought this might be wishful thinking, but then there could be a certain logic to it: if you look at an astronomy program, or simply visualise what's happening, there's a perpendicular from the body to ecliptic, and one end of that perpendicular hits an angle before or after the other. The rest of the perpendicular then falls between these two limits. And as in astrology bodies in the sun's orbit are all referred back to the ecliptic but also exist in there own right, this perpendicular could be seen as representing the body's "scope" (symbolically or influentially, depending on your beliefs).
So I at least find the idea satisfying.

But I wonder if this is the same thing as the period between zodiacal with and without latitude that Dr H uses. I suspect not. But could anyone who understands "zodiacal with latitude" tell me at least if Dr H's period (between zodiacal hits with and without latitude) would always fall within my one (between hits in mundo and zodiacal-lat-0)? I suspect so.
Many thanks for any help
Graham
Last edited by Graham F on Wed Mar 11, 2009 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

2
Graham,

I understand your confusion on the definition of 'mundo' directions. Let me give you my current understanding on this issue and let Martin and others who have looked at this in greater detail fill in the blanks.

Zodiacal vs Mundo. Two meanings

These terms appear to be used in two ways and I believe this is the source of your question. First in terms of a planet's position; second with reference to the mathematical method for primary directions.

A planet's 'zodiacal' position means its zodiacal projection with zero latitude. A planet's 'mundane' position takes into account its latitude.

As to directing methods, zodiacal directions are defined by planet's positions on the ecliptic but measured by directional arcs which use ascensional differences measured in the equatorial coordinate system. Placidus invented a completely different style of 'mundo' directing whose basis is a planet's position relative to its house position.

Zodiacal Directions with Latitude

So then what is this animal? As long as the directional arc is measured using ascensional differences along the celestial equator we are dealing with zodiacal directions. When we start to use a planet's latitude, we are technically using a planet's 'mundane' position in a zodiacal direction.

This is my understanding of the vocabulary and will leave it to others for better clarification.

Primary Direction Sequence

For forum readers which haven't looked into my primary directions research, let me define the primary direction sequence. Before getting into this, let me emphasize I am using the zodiacal method of directing, not 'Placidian Mundo.' Also for simplicity let's keep this discussion to directions to the Ascendant and Midheaven.

Definition: Primary Direction Sequence

A set of dates, computed with all latitude combinations between significator and promittor, which defines a sequence of events listed in chronological order.

For each planet-angle direction, two directions are computed. The first direction assume zero latitude; the second assigns latitude to the planet. For the Sun with zero latitude, there is only one direction.

As you are aware, computing two directions yields two dates. The bigger the latitude, the further apart are the projections. As you point out, I consider that these two endpoints of a sequence do a better job of defining effects of a direction that trying to define a direction's orb based on the size of the actual planet (as Kolev suggests) or some other ad hoc measure like '6 months either side'. If there is an exception here, and this is something I have not commented on before, it is with the Moon. Many authors have commented that primary directions involving the Moon have tended to be less accurate than with other bodies. Some of this I suggest is related to measurement error because the Moon is the fastest moving body. Others have looked at the issue of parallax as a way of explaining errors in Moon directions. I haven't looked at parallax and it is a tangent anyway with regards to your post.

The question of latitude become tricky when considering aspects of planets. There have been many approaches to this question. Certainly at the beginning, zero latitude was assigned to aspects and I agree that zero latitude zodiacal directions are efficient and workable. The most common latitude adjustment for aspects looks like this:

conjunction => full latitude
sextile => full latitude * 1/3
square => zero latitude
trine => full latitude * - 1/3
opposition => full latitude * -1

This is the approach favored by Martin and I am sure he will explain it more fully in his forthcoming book and workshop.

There have been a few other proposals for assigning latitude to aspects. Morin has his own method which translator James Holden cast doubt on because the efficacy of Morin's approach could not be ascertained given the level of accuracy of logarithmic and planetary tables of his day. Montulmo's method ("On the Judgment of Nativities Part 2", Project Hindsight) adds a planet's latitude and declination to form a new declination; and taking this new declination finds an equivalent degree on the ecliptic. Translator Robert Hand states 'By modern standards this is not a very satisfactory procedure' (p. 91).

My approach to assigning latitude to aspects differs from other authors by assigning the planet's full latitude to each and every aspect no matter whether we are dealing with a conjunction, sextile, square, trine, or opposition. It is new. In support of this method are empirical findings presented in both my books. My most recent book, America is Born: Introducing the Regulus USA National Horoscope, considers several dozen primary direction sequences. Taking the Ascendant, I have done no cherry picking; instead I have taken every direct and converse direction for all Ascendant-planet combinations. For some, my method of assigning a planet's full latitude to an aspect is controversial. All I can say is compare my suggested latitude assignment to other methods and draw your own conclusions. Mine are published and available for anyone to review.

Now back to your question as I understand it: Is computation of a 'Mundo' direction and a 'Zodiacal' direction equivalent to the 'primary direction sequence' as I have defined it? If you are considering conjunctions, yes. For other aspects, no; though this may depend on what software you are using.

If you want to take this up with a specific example, send me a private message, and once we get it worked out it can be posted to this thread.
Dr. H.
World Class Research in Medieval Predictive Astrology
www.regulus-astrology.com

Re: Primaries - zodiacal

3
Hi Graham,

Terminology can be very confusing, :???: but the reality behind it is actually quite simple.

A planet's zodiacal position is its longitude in the ecliptic without consideration of latitude, while its mundane position is the same as position with latitude. So there are only two options with regard to position. (And you are right: for the Sun the two are the same.)

When it comes to aspects, there are three options. The first is to take the aspect point in the ecliptic as usual, without latitude. The second is to construct a special 'aspect circle', slightly inclined to the ecliptic, in which to take the aspect points (there are several opinions on how to do this). This gives the aspect points a little latitude. This second option is what is meant by zodiacal aspects with latitude.

The third option is called mundane aspects and was invented by Placidus. It is not a new method of directing (Placidus used the Ptolemaic method), but a new method of reckoning aspects, based not on the ecliptic or aspect circles but on the relative positions of the planets in their respective quadrants.

I hope this helps.

6
A great problem primary directions is the common language(notation).Rumen Kolev's program calculates Gauric/Placidian zodiacal directions with latitude correctly.The problem is in correct configuration options.Settings work only in the REGIO/PLACIDUS NAVIGATOR OPTIONS =Kuehr Navigator.

Re: Primaries - zodiacal

7
Martin Gansten wrote:..... The second is to construct a special 'aspect circle', slightly inclined to the ecliptic, in which to take the aspect points (there are several opinions on how to do this). This gives the aspect points a little latitude. This second option is what is meant by zodiacal aspects with latitude
Do you mean 'angular separation' here, measuring the distance between the two planets as points directly? In ancient times a Jacob's staff http://www.ta-dip.de/6b2764fc066a281cf8 ... nComet.jpg
has been used for this. But was this also used by astrologers?

Re: Primaries - zodiacal

8
Eddy wrote:Do you mean 'angular separation' here, measuring the distance between the two planets as points directly?
No. An aspect circle is a great circle passing through the body of a planet (i.e., its actual position, with latitude). In its simplest form, this circle is inclined to the ecliptic by the exact latitude of the planet, so that the planet represents one of the two points of maximum latitude in the aspect circle. The other such point is of course exactly opposite the planet. This aspect circle will always cut the ecliptic at a distance of 90? from the planet.

Take the noontime (CET) position of Venus today, around 14?45' of tropical Aries with a latitude of +7?48'. Drawing a straight line from Venus through the centre of the earth, its opposition point will be at 14?45' of tropical Libra with a latitude of -7?48'. The points halfway between Venus and its opposition (90? removed: square aspect) will intersect the ecliptic and therefore have 0? latitude. The sextile points (60? removed) will have half the latitude of Venus (+3?54'), while the trine points (120? removed) will have half the latitude of the opposition (-3?54').

Any of these points may be directed in the same fashion as a planet with latitude. When projected onto the ecliptic, the trines and sextiles will differ slightly from the corresponding aspects taken without latitude.

10
Thanks everyone for help. I now understand somewhat better. I've worked out how to get Kolev's program to produce zodiacals with latitude (Gauric method), using the quick setup page, then the "Placidus-Gauric" printable list. I can't fathom the navigator, which anyway is treacherous as it keeps jumping back to Placidean mundo without telling you.

First, the pairs of directions I described for conjunctions to the angles (mundo Placidean and zodiacal lat 0?) are thus the same as Dr H.'s, since when conjunct an angle the zodiacal with lat are the same as the Placidean mundo directions. I now understand, thanks to Dr H and Martin's explanations, that zodiacal with lat will only give separate values to Placidean mundo if directing to aspects, not to conjunctions. I haven't yet looked at interplanetaries, but even with conjunctions and aspects to angles there's a lot to be going on with.

So I notice that when conjunct an angle, zodiacal with lat is the same as Placidean mundo. When square an angle, the zodiacal with lat are the same as the zodiacal without lat. So Kolev's little "peep" viewer of directions to angles is quite adaptable.

For Placidean mundo, square an angle is the same as conjunct the other angle, but it isn't for zodiacal, so with zodiacal you get an extra direction: for example, Saturn conj Desc and Saturn square MC are different (this probably goes without saying for most of you, but it's only just dawned on me).

Intermediate aspects (between the conjunction/opposition and the square) are intermediate between these two equivalences (i.e. Placidean mundo and zodiacal without lat, respectively), so that's when you need to dig into zodiacal-Gauric calculations in Placidus. For example, a planet (having latitude) trine to the MC will give 3 directions: Placidean mundo, zodiacal lat, zodiacal lat 0?.

In the aspect examples I've looked at, the Placidean mundo is quite apart from the other two, giving a period too long to be useful if combined with the others. So when dealing with aspects to angles (and doubtless, interpanetaries too), Dr H.'s pairs (zodiacal with + without lat) are much tighter and hence more useful than the pair "zodiac without lat + Placidean mundo". But I don't know whether this is always true.

Kolev's program only produces zodiacal-Gauric (with latitude) aspects to the MC and planets, not to the ascendant, so although you can find when something with latitude is square or trine etc to the MC, you can't find the same for the ascendant.

Thanks to Martin and Dr H for presenting their respective positions regarding the amount of latitude to take into account: Dr H uses full latitude always for all aspects, Martin uses the proportional aspect circle as he explained. I'm still not clear which of these is used by Kolev for his Gauric calculations, he doesn't explain zodiacals greatly in the Help. I suspect Kolev uses full latitude, as does Van Damm which the program also claims to calculate (I haven't investigated, but perhaps Martin could confirm?).

Many thanks for your contributions
Graham

11
Graham Fox wrote:Thanks to Martin and Dr H for presenting their respective positions regarding the amount of latitude to take into account: Dr H uses full latitude always for all aspects, Martin uses the proportional aspect circle as he explained.
Just to clarify, I don't actually use latitudes for aspects at all. I only explained what has been the normal method for doing so since the Renaissance. (Assigning the same latitude to all aspect points effectively means arranging them on a latitude circle parallel to the ecliptic; and as this would necessarily be a small circle, its centre would not coincide with the earth. In other words, the 'rays' of aspect would converge somewhere out in space, which would be contrary to the traditional view that all aspects converge in the earth.)
I'm still not clear which of these is used by Kolev for his Gauric calculations, he doesn't explain zodiacals greatly in the Help. I suspect Kolev uses full latitude, as does Van Damm which the program also claims to calculate (I haven't investigated, but perhaps Martin could confirm?).
I haven't read much of Gauricus, but it is almost certain that he would have used the 'normal' method that I described. Van Dam, as far as I know, rejects the use of latitude.

Also, to clarify again: Placidean 'mundane aspects' bear no relation at all to normal aspects (i.e., angles within the zodiac); only the conjunctions and oppositions coincide (as you noted) with their zodiacal counterparts with latitude. Two planets may be in zodiacal trine and Placidean square simultaneously, or vice versa; it's all a matter of their respective positions within their own semi-arcs.