16
martin,

thanks. i realize we are moving the conversation in a different direction, but i think skyscript readers here will find this interesting.. do you consider the primary directions in effect for a certain period of time the same as time lords? is that how ptolemy or valens would have thought of reading primary directions in relation to the idea of the chronocrat?r?

for anyone interested in the 'seven ages of man' comment of martins - it seems to be a reference to shakespeare's 'as you like it' reference which in turn is from the concept of planetary ages of man which i do recall reading about over the many years in astrological literature.. both are contained in this link below which gives the different lengths of times the planets are said to rule over..

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/dictiona ... of-man.php

18
Thanks for the link, Deb.
james_m wrote:do you consider the primary directions in effect for a certain period of time the same as time lords? is that how ptolemy or valens would have thought of reading primary directions in relation to the idea of the chronocrat?r?
Valens doesn't use primary directions as described by Ptolemy but describes a bewildering (at least to me) array of other chronocrator systems which I'll leave to others to sort out. But yes, Ptolemy considered the promissors by direction to be rulers of periods of time. If a significator -- say, the ascendant -- is directed to the body or aspect of any planet, then that planet would be considered to govern the significator in question until it is directed to the next planet by body or aspect; and the rulers of the terms (or bounds) in which these directions take place are given part of the rulership.

Later authors (possibly following Dorotheus, who of course was earlier than Ptolemy) emphasize the terms more than Ptolemy does. To them, the important questions are [1] which planet rules the current terms of the significator (that planet is called the divisor) and [2] which planet or planets occupy or cast their rays into those terms. The combination of two or more planets sets the tone of the period. These authors would not typically consider an earlier promissor still to be a chronocrator, unless (as al-Qab??? says) it is 'in the division [= terms] or near the position before it'.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

20
Konrad wrote:Martin, Valens does describe the use of 'Circumambulations' (directing using the rising times of the signs) to determine the length of life. It is basically the same concept as directing the Hyleg through the bounds though obviously the method of calculation is different.
Yes. Ptolemy explicitly rejects that calculation as over-simplified. But of course the idea of some sort of motion through the terms is similar.

As you mention the hyleg (or aphetes, to give it its Greek name), perhaps we should also point out that Ptolemy and later astrologers following him directed not only the chief hyleg (significator of life), but all the major significators: the ascendant, midheaven, Sun, Moon and Lot of Fortune. Some also directed the planets as significators, and various other Lots.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

21
thanks for the wiki link deb.. i see your name is even mentioned in the long article itself and that one of the footnotes leads to an article you wrote for a publication in 94.. obviously you are into astro history!

martin - thanks! now i am confused as i get the impression there can be many time lords in operation at the same time. i do recall reading the dykes translations and rulers of the terms having rulership over certain times based on different factors.. do i have that right that there can be a number of signifactors in operation at the same time? i think there can be, but i have to ask..

what i do find fascinating is the thought that some of these systems established for time lords did or didn't continue on for different reasons.. also, i always thought ptolemy was before dorotheus, not after.. maybe i read your post wrong or just didn't know this.

22
james_m wrote:martin - thanks! now i am confused as i get the impression there can be many time lords in operation at the same time. i do recall reading the dykes translations and rulers of the terms having rulership over certain times based on different factors.. do i have that right that there can be a number of signifactors in operation at the same time? i think there can be, but i have to ask..
Yes. In the Ptolemaic/medieval model, there are several significators (most importantly, the lights, angles, and Lot of Fortune). Each significator represents certain areas of life (though in practice, there is some overlapping). At any given time of life, each significator may be under the influence of one, two or even more chronocrators (time lords, including the divisor and promissor), which give malefic, benefic or mixed results. This is why your health may be poor while your finances are good and your love life middling, etc. In those relatively rare periods when most or all major significators are simultaneously under the sway of benefics (or malefics), almost every aspect of life will appear rosy (or dreadful).
also, i always thought ptolemy was before dorotheus, not after.. maybe i read your post wrong or just didn't know this.
No, Dorotheus wrote in the 1st century and Ptolemy in the 2nd. However, the Greek original of Dorotheus' work has not survived (except in fragments), so that the version we have is an interpolated third-hand translation that postdates Ptolemy by more than half a millennium.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

23
thanks martin,

do you see the system you have outlined as competing with other systems or concepts of time lords that some in the astrological community are trying to re-introduce based on hellenistic literature that has been made available more recently? i am mostly thinking of curtis manwarrings software and the time lords that he has mentioned in passing here a few times. it seems to me the planetary ages of man or whatever one calls those time frames given in the link deb shared from wikipedia would have been a general system of time lords that are not as specific as the ones either you or curtis have talked about. thanks for elaborating anymore if you feel you have personal views on any of this that you'd like to share and thanks for what you have shared!

25
james_m wrote:do you see the system you have outlined as competing with other systems or concepts of time lords that some in the astrological community are trying to re-introduce based on hellenistic literature that has been made available more recently? i am mostly thinking of curtis manwarrings software and the time lords that he has mentioned in passing here a few times.
As a matter of fact, Delphic Oracle now includes a very useful primary directions module (I use it myself). But yes, I do think one has to choose one method, or one set of hierarchically interlinked methods. If you try to use three or four different methods side by side, then all planets will be perceived as active simultaneously, making every event justifiable in retrospect but impossible to predict in advance.
it seems to me the planetary ages of man or whatever one calls those time frames given in the link deb shared from wikipedia would have been a general system of time lords that are not as specific as the ones either you or curtis have talked about.
Yes, I agree.
thanks for elaborating anymore if you feel you have personal views on any of this that you'd like to share and thanks for what you have shared!
My pleasure, and I second Konrad's recommendation of that Bezza article, though it's hard going at times. (The English translation mirrors the high style of the Italian original.)

My personal experience supports the method I've outlined (with the addition of annual revolutions), but in a sidereal zodiac. The choice of zodiac affects the terms, though not the directions to promissors. And I hope it's all right to mention here that all aspects of primary directions, including the ones we have discussed briefly in this thread, are treated in some detail in my online course.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

26
thanks konrad and martin,

i am going to start a new thread up as i have too many questions and comments to make and i think it might be better to start a new thread on the concept of time lords.

i had read margherita's translation of the bezza article before, but at the time i hadn't read as much as i have to date which means that the article raised some questions for me this time that i didn't have previously. perhaps the most pressing one i will mention now is how solar returns play into the hierarchy of important considerations and the role of 'time lords'. after reading benjamin dykes persian nativities book 3 'on the solar revolutions' i had a conversation here on skyscript.. astrojin was kind enough to comment on some of questions i had around the use of profection and solar return charts. perhaps konrad and martin remember this thread as they were both involved in it at the time. the thread can be found here -http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7696
astrojin wrote: james_m:
one other comment you've made seems to suggest the solar return chart is the main filter when applying the different methods you've listed below. this would appear to place the solar return at the top of the chain of considerations with all other predictive techniques of lesser importance. i am curious to know your thoughts on this. i wonder if this is a development of arab astrologers that didn't exist previously. i don't know the starting point for the use of solar return charts but i believe it is an arabic invention if i am not mistaken.

From Valens? Anthology Book IV, Chapter 11 (PP29 ? 30, Schmidt?s translation):
Though the divisions are diverse, if one pays attention he will not go wrong. For when the same handings over are signified in a twelve year period, they will not [always] possess the same operation of the effects, but different. Whenever we will find a handing over after one or more [years] in a certain cycle, we will examined the renewed nativity for that year?

Equivalent translation from Riley (/168P/ Book IV Chapter 11, Pg 79):
The same transmissions are indicated every 12 years. They will, however, not have the same causative influence, but different. Wherever we find a transmission in one cycle, (whether from one or from many), we examine the horoscope recast for that year, ?

This is the reference where Valens instructs the astrologer to marry the profection system with the renewed nativity (which is the solar return).

We could say that the solar return is the door by which the indications promised in the natal chart are to be manifested.
i don't know how well these comments or the idea of the use of solar return charts dovetails with the system outlined in the bezza article, but it appears their is no room for solar return charts having some say over the 'lord of the year' whether one would like to call that a 'time lord' or not..

martin - i have the latest version of delphi oracle but i have yet to learn how to use it. that requires some devotion of time on my part which i haven't been able to give to it yet. more comments later, perhaps tomorrow in a new thread. thanks..

27
Deb wrote:Link to a good explanation of Ptolemy's use of 'Seven ages of man':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrabiblo ... dentals.29
(Begins 4th para down from top of this link)
Well, it overlapping with Firdaria's ages ruling planets somewhere, like with diurnal chart 50s ruled by Jupiter (roughly), but totally different with Saturn's ages. In Ptolemy's "Seven ages" its after 69, in Firdaria's diurnal its 40s, in nocturnal is teenager's age.
If adding general aging from AC sign triplicity (Like Saturn-Mercury-Jupiter for Air signs for 3 periods of life) and main Luminary's sign triplicity
it comes already to TOTAL MESS.
Moreover in regard to all described above techniques, with directions, perfections and solar returns.
Image