4
I'm curious because I have my idea- surely wrong- that everyone has his/her own method.... Smile
Yes, marguerita, and NOW everybody has his own method, like topocentric in mundo, in zodiac cum latitude in regiomontanus, etc, etc.

And everybody method?s is so much better than everyone else, and gives perfect results, and can rectify a chart to a tenth of a second and blah, blah, blah.

But as we see the traditional sources, we perceive that differences in method were not so great:
mainly used ptolomeic model, with zodiacal directions.
there were no "converse" directions
prediction follows delineation,
you direct only the hylegical places
etc, etc, etc
Meu blog de astrologia (em portugues) http://yuzuru.wordpress.com
My blog of astrology (in english) http://episthemologie.wordpress.com

Re: Martin's book about PD

5
Gjiada wrote:I downloaded the article and I liked a lot and I'm thinking to buy the book, if the price for euro buyers is not very high :) You know how much is it Liber Astronomiae, true?
Hello Margherita,

Can you tell me, please, where you got Martin's article? I would like to read it, since I am anxiously waiting for the book too! :D

Also, does anyone know when the book should be available to order from Wessex Astrologer editor?

Thank you.

UPDATE. I found the article on Skyscript's articles page...
Regards,
François CARRIÈRE

8
yuzuru wrote: But as we see the traditional sources, we perceive that differences in method were not so great:
mainly used ptolomeic model, with zodiacal directions.
there were no "converse" directions
prediction follows delineation,
you direct only the hylegical places
etc, etc, etc
To be honest I would compare what they do in CieloeTerra, and surely they are not modern, I tried to do the same with the new software Morinus, it was not easy...

But yes, they do the things you mention. I'm hoping in some revelation, maybe because I cannot understand Placidus method of zodiacal directions, I find very difficult to grasp, I surely will buy the book...

Margherita
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com

9
yuzuru wrote:But as we see the traditional sources, we perceive that differences in method were not so great:
mainly used ptolomeic model, with zodiacal directions.
there were no "converse" directions
prediction follows delineation,
you direct only the hylegical places
etc, etc, etc
It depends on how you define 'traditional', of course. Regiomontanus directions were pretty much the norm in late Renaissance astrology (used by Lilly, Morin, and many others), often including latitude. And even earlier, not that many seem actually to have followed Ptolemy in directing only the hylegiacals. Ar-Rijal (Abenragel) definitely directed all the planets, and there are similar indications in Sahl. Morin and Lilly used all the planets, too, and Placidus complained that it was a common practice.

You are absolutely right about the 'converse' directions (against the primary motion), though. As far as I have been able to make out, they were invented some time in the 19th century, possibly by a misunderstanding of older sources. (I have actually found one example in Gaurico's work, but I am inclined to believe it was a miscalculation.)

12
Martin,

While I am waiting for the book to arrive, I have a question. A French astrologer, a former student of Denis Labour?, wrote a booklet on solar returns in 2005, where he uses divisor (the bound of directed Ascendant) and co-divisor (the last aspect of directed Ascendant), plus other things, such as transits "according" to Abu'Mashar (house counted in whole signs, from the sign a planet is located and from their rulership signs). He is unclear for the Periods he mentions (he talks about Ptolemaic ages and possibly about ascensional time -where I have to check-, but I would prefer the Decennials, for instance). Since it is rather "concentrated" (20 pages), I feel it is not as complete as I wished. Do such things are covered in your book? (Or where could such things can be found?) Thank you.
Regards,
François CARRIÈRE