37
okay.. thanks martin.. i will play around with the options.. following your setting instructions on page 207 - i had selected mars as a significator, but i now understand that is not enough.. i will read over the section on latitude again too.. thanks..

38
Hi Martin, a very nice, practical and inspiring book. I bought it for myself as a Christmas present. I have argued for several years that Egyptian terms function correctly only in the sideric zodiac. That's why I'm glad you feel the same way.

40
Hello Martin
Many thanks for this excellent book, which I'm finding quite an inspiration. It has helped clarify a few things which weren't quite clear to me from your book on primary directions (though I only have the first edition of this).
Your clarification of "right" and "left" aspects (p.21) really helped, dexter being an aspect sent in zodiacal order, and considered stronger, as in Indian astrology, than an antizodiacal left/sinister one. This makes sense to me, but is the opposite of what I had understood from other reading about traditional Western astrology, such as the article by Deborah Houlding here on Skyscript, "The Classical origin and traditional use of aspects":
If planet is placed in Aries, its square to a planet in Capricorn is called a dexter aspect ('dexter' meaning of the right) and its square to a planet in Cancer is called sinister (of the left). The interpretation of these terms is again linked to Pythagorean philosophy and rests upon the way that the signs view each other. Their sight is said to follow the daily movement of heaven so that dexter describes a natural, forward view, while sinister describes a stained, backward view.
I've since found that Chris Brennan defines left and right as you do, in his book Hellenistic Astrology pp. 309-311, with helpful examples. In Delphic Oracle 8, lists of primaries (e.g. aspects of planet promissors to Ascendant as significator), use the same terminology as Houlding: dexter for those coming from beyond (below) the Asc, cast in antizodiacal order, sinister for v.v. (once you know to reverse the meanings, it's helpful that this information is included in the tables).

How do you find retrograde planets' aspects should be interpreted in directions? The most common consensus in Indian astro (in general, not specifically directions) seems to be that they send aspects forward, just like direct planets, but some say they are weaker, some say stronger, and many say more negative or less beneficial. I think Western traditional has this same idea of possible delay or blockage, but hard to find a consensus.

For primaries, you recommend using latitude only for a significator (if moon or planet), but I've read that promised events often occur between the two dates of the "hits" by the promissor with and without latitude. I've noticed this seems to work quite well retrospectively, and helps narrow down an appropriate bound-lord period. Do you have a view on this?

A resource which I found useful for starting to use primaries, which recommends and draws largely on your book on PDs, is an article/ tutorial on Seven stars astrology, which suggests starting by generating a report for circumambulation to Asc and aspects of planets, sun and moon to Asc, so you can see how those could maybe work with the bound lord in its period. The writer proposes a Morinus set-up identical to the one you propose to start, but with secondary motion of moon ("3.iteration", I've no idea what the 3 iterations are), which you say works less well for you. I think I find Naibod's key better than Ptolemy's, so will stick with that for now. The link:
https://sevenstarsastrology.com/astrolo ... ns-bounds/

Anyway, many thanks for book and your help here on the forum. I also found your article "Balbillus and the method of aphesis", (PDF easy to find on the net), very helpful. According to an option in DO, Balbillus sometimes used the "ideal" Egyptian year of 360 days for certain time lord procedures - do you know if there is any suggestion this may have been used for primaries (as it still is sometimes in India for dasha)?

Graham

41
Thanks for your words of appreciation, Graham. The dexter/sinister matter can be confusing. When a planet in Aries casts an aspect into Capricorn, that aspect does go towards the right, so it is a dexter or right-hand aspect; but it is the planet (if any) at the dexter end of the aspect, that is, in Capricorn, that is considered stronger.

I haven't thought about retrograde planets sending aspects in a different way than direct ones. Generally speaking, though, I find that retrogression is a drawback for a planet's significations, not a strength.
For primaries, you recommend using latitude only for a significator (if moon or planet), but I've read that promised events often occur between the two dates of the "hits" by the promissor with and without latitude. I've noticed this seems to work quite well retrospectively, and helps narrow down an appropriate bound-lord period. Do you have a view on this?
Yes, I know where that came from. ;) No, I don't find assigning latitude to aspect points (sextiles, squares, and trines) to be helpful. Profections, on the other hand, can be very useful in narrowing down a prediction, as both Ptolemy and medieval practice suggest. And, of course, the (sidereal) revolution chart.

On the 360-day year, no, I am not aware of any practice exactly like that. But I do think it possible that at least some authors (in India and elsewhere) have been misunderstood. From working on Balabhadra's text (here), I know that he and others often used a 360-day year in calculations because it is so much easier when you have to calculate things by hand; but in the final stage they converted those figures to actual solar years (which, incidentally, are what Ptolemy says should be used for directions). Balabhadra talks of a 'solar day' as the time it takes the sun to travel one degree in the zodiac, and gives a formula for converting that to a civil or calendar day. If you are interested, just search for 'solar day' in the PDF of The Jewel.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

42
Hello Martin

I've been experimenting with your recommended settings and others, and thinking about points from your book, and a few questions have emerged.

First, I've found that Morinus doesn't seem to be able to deal with equal house cusps (actually, I use Vehlow/Raman, "equal medium" (promoted by number of French astrologers mid C20th, and "Gauquelin compatible"), but that's not offered, and the equal cusp is the same). It doesn't give the option in primaries of using the nonagesimal as the 10th cusp, only the MC, but if I enter the longitude of the nonagesimal as a User-defined significator, or another equal cusp as a User significator, it comes up with wildly different dates from the supposed "hits" on the house cusps. So I think the equal cusps are wrongly calculated in PDs, but just the nonagesimal would do me. Do you think it's using some special way of defining User longitude? (I've tried defining User point in ecliptic longitude or RA, counted from 0° Aries, zodiacally, as usual).

I wondered also if you chose Alcabitius simply because it works better for you, or if you think there is something wrong with using equal divisions (except for calculating semi-arc directions, of course)? You say that astrologers started to get things wrong after about the 5th century, but Alcabitius is C10th, so I suppose there must be another reason.

The question of lunar parallax also makes me think, as I'd given up on it after trying it out mostly with Indian sidereal methods. I can't say I've noticed any difference in accuracy with primaries one way or the other, but what bothers me is it seems a bit contradictory with your view of latitude of promissors. Isn't parallax a bit like using "non-Bianchini" latitude for promissors? Looking at Joseph Ratzinger's chart (given in your book on PDs), I've noticed that if you rectify to get the moon rising you get 48' less with parallax, and when it's setitng, 18' less (so both positive, unlike Bianchini, and also different values). So what happens when the Moon is conjunct or opposing another planet? This seems different than the reasons you postulate to explain the use of Bianchini (Mundo) latitudes in these cases, and the principal that aspects have to go "via" the centre of the earth. (If I understand it correctly, parallax posits a local visual horizon above or below, and parallel to, the "rational" one which goes throuhgh the earth's centre.

Finally, you said you thought looking at the time between "hits" with and without latitude (from Regulus, if I remember rightly...) was not useful (you recommend sticking with profections to fine-tune circulambulations). I noticed that the cases I was referring to involved conjunctions or oppostions, for which you exceptionnally use Bianchini latitudes (i.e. mundi opp/conj). Does this mean that for conjunctions and oppositions, unlike for other aspects, you consider "no latitude for promissor" to be wrong, or just less useful?

Thanks for any help!
Graham

43
Hi Graham,

I went into the question of latitude with James earlier in this thread, and discuss it fairly extensively on pp. 68–70 in the book, so may I suggest that you read those pages first and then let me know if something isn’t clear? The short version is that I treat conjunctions and oppositions without latitude as aspect points, whereas the ones with latitude are more like co-risings (paranatellonta), and typically more powerful.

I don’t think I ever said that astrologers started to get things wrong after the 5th century – which, as it happens, is probably the approximate date of the earliest evidence of the so-called Alcabitius house system. (It is named today after al-Qabīṣī, but he didn’t invent it.) But yes, I do use the system because I have found it reliable in practice. It is generally very close to the so-called Porphyry system, which is even older (and wasn’t invented by Porphyry).

I believe you are mixing apples and oranges in comparing the question of parallax correction to that of assigning latitude to aspect points. On principle, I think the whole chart should be calculated for the actual place of birth (or of an event, a question, etc.); but in practice it only makes a real difference with regard to the moon. Casting the chart for the birth place should be the default option; using the centre of the earth is a convenient concession to simplify calculation, not a philosophical principle.

I use the traditional version of Morinus, which doesn’t include intermediate house cusps among the significators, but my guess would be that the versions that do define those cusps according to the method of direction chosen, not according to your house system of choice. In Morinus, that would basically leave you with the choice between Placidus, Regiomontanus and Campanus cusps. The user-defined promissor/significator function works fine, though (you need to enter the tropical longitude and, if desired, latitude).
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

45
Thanks Martin

I think I had understood your point of view on latitudes, and the topocentric principle, from those pages, and it makes sense to me. it was just that using Bianchini/mundo latitudes for oppositions, if I understand it right, means that longitude and latitude are both in opposition - so to make an opposition, as well as the same longitude, you need opposite (south <> north) latitude as well. This makes the aspects go via the centre of the earth, just as when there's no latitude and geocentric positions. Whereas an opposition between planets both having e.g. northern latitude, would not.

I thought my orange was at least analogous to my apple, as I was trying to visualise whether parallax (when Moon is promissor) does something more like the first or the second case. But as the Moon is not going to reach an opposition to itself, I suppose this is not important. And if the Moon is defined with parallax when it's, say, near the asc/dsc in radix, I suppose it doesn't matter if a directed position nearer the MC/IC axis would, if it were the Moon's body progressing, have a different parallax : just as you prefer to use the Moon without secondary motion, it's more like the place the Moon has "marked" in the sky that gets directed, not the Moon itself, so "incremental parallax" in directions would not be relevant. I hope I've understood that right, but whatever...

Still, I'll have to think about the idea of zodiacal aspects bypassing the centre of the earth, I thought even the ascendant was defined by the plane of the rational horizon which goes through the centre of the earth - to which we are each and always connected. I'll mull it over, and find where I got this aspect doctrine from (a French book on Cosmographie for astrologers, I think).

I have indeed been using modern Morinus, as I thought I needed a Python installation to install Traditional, but have found I don't, so that's now done. I was already using tropical options and positions of the User point - except for the sidereal bounds, of course, I find tropical is safer and less prone to bug in programs in general.

James, yes, I wondered if the equal 4th/10th cusps would show up same as squares (or other multiples of 30° aspects, for the other houses) to the Asc/Dsc. But this isn't the case. I think the User point option is working correctly as Martin says, because if I advance the chart till the Sun is on the 4th or 10th equal cusp, then define that longitude as the User point, a promissor without latitude will be conjunct Sun and User point on same day, but usually some years from a square with Asc or Dsc. It must all depend on variable rising times.

BTW, intermediate house cusps are also an option in the version of Traditional that I downloaded, but they must be quadrant cusps as per the method of direction chosen, as Martin says.

Graham

46
You are right, Graham, intermediate house cusps are included in Traditional Morinus as well. I must have overlooked them last night.

And yes, I see your point about oppositions and the horizon, but the principle of the ray passing through the centre of the celestial sphere (which is the sphere surrounding the actual or imagined place of observation) is the same whether you use the geocentric or the topocentric horizon. Both can be called rational horizons, meaning simply that they are calculated great circles not dependent on topography, although the geocentric one is more commonly used for reasons of convenience. Both the zodiac and all heavenly bodies except the moon are so far away that the difference is negligible.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

47
Hello Martin
I'm having trouble getting the basic annual profection chart, in Morinus or in Solar Fire.
You recommend starting with just the straightforward annual, with all chart factors moved forward one full sign. But there's always a slight differnce of a at least a few minutes arc, and not the same for each chart factor.
I've tried (in the calculate profection options) just choosing the date, or date plus birth time, or the precise time of the solar return that year, but it never gives exactly the same placements as natal (just moving the zodiac around).
is there some trick I haven't discovered?

Also, I found the answer to my question about parallax - it seems to be somewhat analagous to Bianchini latitiudes for oppositions and conjunctions (though not quite the same gradation from ascendant to square as with the latter). Also, I've learned that parallax affects apparent latitude as well as longitude.
David Cochrane :
When the Moon is square the MC and the Moon is on the east side, i.e. near the Ascendant, then the parallax-corrected Moon approaches about one degree ahead of the usual Moon position. When the Moon is square the MC and the Moon is on the west side, i.e. near the Descendant, then the parallax-corrected Moon approaches about one degree behind the usual Moon position. The parallax-corrected Moon is therefore, you might say, "lowered" in the chart wheel. You can also calculate parallax-corrected positions of the Sun and the planets, but the difference between the parallax-corrected positions and the usual positions is very small (less than one minute of arc). - David Cochrane, ISAR
(He says it seems to work less well for him, contrary to his expectations. I'm still experienting...).
Many thanks for any help
Graham
(p.s. I had the same problem you mentioned elsewhere of no email notifications for private messages)

48
I'm afraid I can't help with the profection charts, Graham, as I never use them myself. I typically only profect the Asc, and it's easy enough to do mentally: two and a half degrees to a month (so 5 degrees to two months, and 10 degrees to four), and some 12 days to a degree.

The reason I don't find parallax and aspect latitudes analogous is that parallax is really about where you locate the centre of the celestial sphere, whereas aspect latitude is about which circle within that sphere you use to locate aspect points. I say the centre of the sphere is where a person is actually born (or a question asked, etc). That topocentric perspective properly affects the entire chart, though for practical purposes we can still use geocentric positions for everything except the moon: the differences, as you say, are negligible. Aspect points are simply points distributed on a circle, and the question is: do we take that circle to be the ecliptic or something else? This can be argued on both practical and theoretical grounds, but it is a different question from where the centre of the sphere is.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/