skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
The Life & Work of Vettius Valens
by Deborah Houlding
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Placement Relative to the Horizon
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4132
Location: England

Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 10:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Geoff,
Welcome to the forum. Just a few years ago astrologers were dreaming about the prospect of one day creating 3D sky models– now we have these amazing programs like Stellarium and things are developing more quickly than I can keep up with ...

Hi Kirk
there probably is the point that you wouldn’t be able to see Mars at only 1° above the horizon, but I would regard the influence of Mars as angular, not cadent, and effective upon the 7th house and not the 6th, being guided by common sense. William Lilly did something similar in CA (p.180) where Fortuna was 6¼° from the 2nd cusp – he says that even though it was beyond the 5 degree limit of tradition “yet were it absurd to think it had signification in the first”.

This situation occurs occasionally because the ascendant is not simply the eastern horizon and the descendant is not simply the western horizon. To define daytime we are mainly interested in the rising and setting of the Sun, and that always rises in synch with the ascending degree because we use its apparent path as our plane of reference in the zodiac. And this is appropriate because all the planets are centred upon the ecliptic, although unlike the Sun they can drift away from it. The worst problem is with Venus which can go as far as 9° north or south of the ecliptic. It’s one of the things to look out for and its one of the reasons why any generic system of astrology (which is what we all use, whichever house system we adopt) is less than perfect at representing local astrological events.

The ancients, of course, were concerned with matching what they could see in the sky with an appropriate system of measurement that would allow them to replicate the timing of events in the future – so they weren’t troubled by software information. They knew how the system worked. We have these problems because of our generic simplifications. But if you can see it in the sky, then that’s the way to go (IMO).

Watch out for that angular Mars Smile
Deb

Edit: sorry, I meant the worst problem amongst the traditonal planets is with Venus, the problem is much worse with Pluto of course, with its 17° inclination to the ecliptic (one reason I was happy to see it demoted, even though I don't doubt its ability to be astrologically meaningful). A diagram that demonstrates the effect of misrepresented house position can be found on p.106 of this extract from my book:
http://skyscript.co.uk/temples/Chapter8.pdf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steve



Joined: 16 Mar 2009
Posts: 261

Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply Reply with quote

Quote:
Deb wrote:
The ancients, of course, were concerned with matching what they could see in the sky with an appropriate system of measurement that would allow them to replicate the timing of events in the future – so they weren’t troubled by software information. They knew how the system worked. We have these problems because of our generic simplifications. But if you can see it in the sky, then that’s the way to go (IMO).


Well put Deb. With rare exception, every planet except the Sun will be charted by our standard software programs in the wrong quadrant at four periods (certain times) in every day.

Regards, Steve
_________________
With all our modern knowledge and scientific equipment, and with the the great strides made in mathematics, we astrologers have done nothing to even remotely compare with the achievements of the astrologers of antiquity. Cyril Fagan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Geoff,

Here's another one for you, same date but different location:

March 5, '10
5 am
Montreal, Quebec

DESC: 07 LEO 11
Mars: 00 LEO 28

Mars' altitude is only +00° 26' in this case, but is well over 5 degrees from the DESC.



Hi Deb,

It's nice to hear talk of common sense in a study that loves its numbers and graphic representations (visually displayed charts). The Lilly reference surprised me.

Maybe it's safe to imagine that the ancients were more graceful in moving from observation of the sky to their “appropriate system of measurement” than we are in our awkward stumbling from software to observation of the sky. They may have been less 'in their heads' and stepped with two surely placed feet. They brought sensual experience to ideas, we bring ideas to sensual experience. But do I romanticize?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Estebon_Duarte



Joined: 19 May 2009
Posts: 134
Location: West Coast USA

Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kirk wrote:

Quote:
It has yet to fully enter Leo and is cadent by division.


Mars is Rx and has been in Leo for some time, so that doesn't apply in this case. [But could being Rx in the 1st degree be likened to being direct in the 30th degree?] Zodiacaly, he would seem to already be cadent, but Mars could in fact be angular and strong due to the altitude of +1° 02' indicating that he's still in a position of strength – after all, he's right there above the horizon staring at us. Or is he so close to the horizon as to already be quite weak – suffering from a 'twilight effect' and in a position of setting/dying?

I'm getting all worked up and flustered. Crying or Very sad When do we work with a clean theoretical structure and when do we go by what the sky tells us? Should the mind proceed alone or work together with the eyes Question


your best bet is to take notes on the month and see how it manifests. if it truly is an angular, Mars in Leo you are going to see an effect, unless Mars is weak in your natal.
_________________
Western Predictive Astrology by Estebon Duarte Independent Researcher AMA MACAA
Natal Chart & Annual Solar Revolution Reports
www.organic-astrology.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dr. farr



Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Posts: 276
Location: los angeles, california usa

Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Kirk"]Hi Geoff,
Here's another one for you, same date but different location:
March 5, '10
5 am
Montreal, Quebec
DESC: 07 LEO 11
Mars: 00 LEO 28
Mars' altitude is only +00° 26' in this case, but is well over 5 degrees from the DESC.



As I mentioned in my earlier posting in this thread, use of "real" time (Sun's local apparent time) as opposed to civil clock time, can make a difference in zodiacal degrees in the chart.

In this above example, "real" sun time is 11 minutes slower than the clock time (used to determine the chart); ie, the Local Apparent Time (Sun time, which would be the time shown on the sundials-which were exclusively used in astrology prior to 1800 for determining the time in casting horoscopes) The chart erected for the "real" time (on March 5th, 2010 in Montreal) yields a Descendant degree of 3Leo25. This "actual" (real-Sun-time based calculation) Descendant is therefore less than 3 degrees (precisely 2 degrees 49 minutes) distant from the Mars position ( 0Leo28), rather than being over 6 degrees away as in the chart calculated on "clock time" (local mean time) The Descendant degree is more than 50% "closer" to the Mars position, when rectification for "real time" (the Sun's time) is made...

In the "clock time" chart there are over 6 degrees seperating Mars and the Descendant "line": even allowing a 5 degree orb, no Mars/Descendant conjunction would be indicated. In the Sun-time rectified chart, even limiting Mars orb to 3 degrees would make Mars conjunct the Descedant: with the very close visual Mars elevation of 00degrees26minutes, such a conjunction with the Descendant line would seem to be suggested, and in fact we do have this conjunction shown in the chart when it is "corrected" to Sun time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Ed F



Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 301
Location: Ipswich, MA USA

Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dr. farr wrote:

As I mentioned in my earlier posting in this thread, use of "real" time (Sun's local apparent time) as opposed to civil clock time, can make a difference in zodiacal degrees in the chart.

In this above example, "real" sun time is 11 minutes slower than the clock time (used to determine the chart); ie, the Local Apparent Time (Sun time, which would be the time shown on the sundials-which were exclusively used in astrology prior to 1800 for determining the time in casting horoscopes) The chart erected for the "real" time (on March 5th, 2010 in Montreal) yields a Descendant degree of 3Leo25. ...


Dr. Farr,

No disrespect intended, but this is misguided and shows a lack of understanding of how charts are calculated. The use of LAT vs the use of a standard time with a zone or even LMT is a convention for expressing time which is then converted into kinds of time agreed upon for indexing into an ephemeris and for determining the local sidereal time. In all cases, we need a reduction from the local time convention used to TT (terrestrial time, formerly ET, ephemeris time) for driving or indexing the ephemeris for planetary positions, and to UT for determining the sidereal time at Greenwich, and then the local sidereal time.

The important point is that there are distinct methods for performing these reductions from different local time conventions to the times actually used for calculations. Regardless of the local time convention used to express time for a given moment and place, they all reduce to the same TT, UT and LST - if the conversions are used correctly.

- Ed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dr. farr



Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Posts: 276
Location: los angeles, california usa

Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 4:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

EdF:

No offense taken by your response. Remember the Local Apparent Time thread (which I started) a while back? You made insightful and informative posts in that discussion and I appreciate your expertise in this area. Basically what I was trying to find out in that thread is if the generally available computer programs on the internet (such as Astrodienst) automatically took into account LAT in making necessary time conversions in the final determination of zodiacal degrees in chart construction. At the end of that thread I came to believe that they did; then I found out from Astrodienst that LAT is not automatically taken into consideration: that local mean time is converted to standard time then to TT/UT, etc, but that the basis (starting point) of these conversions is the "clock time" convention.
I ask again, here, of an expert like you (and I use this term with sincerity): if on March 5 the LAT is 11 minutes slower than the "clock time", does the "machinery" of astrological calculations automatically account for this in the final chart erected from the time/place data? When on March 5 I asked a horary question, at "clock time" 12 noon, then punched that time (12 noon) into the Astrodienst chart erection internet computer, does that computer adjust the LAT of the question to 11:49 AM, then make the other time conversions eventually to sidereal time, etc, and show a chart taking all of this into account?

PS: I am not trying to make, or defend, some point here, nor attempting to be controversial: I would love it if you could tell me in fact that the ascendant degree which would be determined from ephemeris calculations based on the sundial at 11:49 am March 5th would be the same if I punched the "clock time" of 12 noon March 5th into the chart-generating computer program (such as the one on Astrodienst.com) That would settle the nagging question I have regarding whether, using civil time conventions ("clock time") we are deviating from what "really exists" in the natural world (the Sun's time)...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Ed F



Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 301
Location: Ipswich, MA USA

Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Dr Farr,

I would depend on whether the program accommodated LAT as a known kind of time. If it does, it should apply the equation of time to convert to LMT or a standard time, then proceed as usual. Probably most programs do not do this conversion because LAT is rarely used these days.

Perhaps this will help. If you had an LAT of 12pm, with the Sun on the meridian, there would be corresponding LMT and standard times that would also put the sun on the meridian. They're all the same moment.

- Ed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dr. farr



Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Posts: 276
Location: los angeles, california usa

Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 3:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks EdF for your reply.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 1058
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 6:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Placement Relative to the Horizon Reply with quote

Kirk wrote:
Looking at my current lunar return chart I see the DESC at 06 LEO 55 and Mars at 00 LEO 28. That's a difference of 06° 27', so Mars is clearly below in the 6th house – well out of reach of the 5 degree rule. But the altitude of Mars is listed as +01° 02', and therefore it's above the horizon. Not only would that seem to make Mars a 7th house occupant, but Mars would be more comfortably and agreeably placed, being nocturnally placed in a nocturnal chart (the Sun is below the horizon). This is one of those cases of 'I haven't the slightest idea of what to do'.

What would the old guys have done? Would they have looked at the zodiacal placement only and left Mars in the 6th house, or would they have said Mars was nocturnally placed and in the 7th house? If they stepped outside they would have seen Mars just above the horizon – as long as there weren't any obstructing trees or hills, of course. Using whole sign houses they would have had a 7th house Mars in either case, but it does still affect sect placement. But if Mars had been at 29 CAN 59 and still above the horizon by altitude (and visual observation), whole sign houses would force Mars into the 6th. Did the ancients give priority to placement by zodiacal degree or by visual observation?


This is a situation where it helps to understand the anthropomorphic paradigms that Schmidt uses. The ancients had astronomical tables also, so they would have looked up these positions and Valens says to be careful about being as accurate as possible in doing so. Back in the early days of Project Hindsight we used to think that sect was a 3-fold principle where a planet could have a partial sect status (masculine feminine sign, above below horizon and in sect or out of sect) but we now believe that this is wrong. Planets are either of the sect or contrary to the sect that is in political power and this is because there are two sides struggling to set the agenda for the native and the only planet that switches political affiliation is Mercury depending upon his relation to the Sun.

What Schmidt says is that the planets are either of the sect or not (that is in power or not in power) and that the conditions of being above or below the horizon and being in a masculine and feminine sign are rejoicing conditions. If the sect is diurnal, a nocturnal planet might not be in power, but if it is below the horizon, it at least is not in the enemy camp where it may be subjected to maltreatment, etc and may be surrounded by sect mates. Nocturnal planets want to be in the hemisphere opposite the one the Sun occupies and in feminine signs and contrarily with the planets of the diurnal sect. Since planets are said to be in the service of heimarmene, he says that the planets consult the signs (the temples where the planets go to consult) to find out what should ideally be the fate of the native in a particular topos (house). Since the signs are houses, the image (sign) is responsible for setting this ideal (this is where whole sign houses are used). There is a whole section here on how Schmidt deals with the Antiochus aspect doctrine that could be addressed here but I don't want to be too long on this...

That doesn't mean that what happens up there is necessarily going to come to pass, it is just an ideal or potentiality, so you have the allotments (arabic parts) to show how these "fall to earth". So when it comes to questions that exist on a zodiacal level and planets interactions on the zodiacal level regarding heimarmene, then in zodiaco is more philosophically consistent, because the horizon doesn't exist at that level of the planet's interaction, as the earth is removed from consideration, but insofar as the question comes to the level of lots / parts then the rejoicing conditions of being above or below the horizon (observed) should come into play. That is why there are 3 frames of reference in the Preliminary Natal Analysis (Zodiacal, planetary and terrestrial) and each has their own set of coordinates to be used not to be confused mixed with each other. In the example above you are mixing horizontal coordinates with zodiacal coordinates.

Since Mars is of the sect in this chart, and the Sun is not in power, you can think of this Mars as getting ready to join in battle with the diurnal sect below the horizon and it would have it's joy in the 6th anyway in doing so.
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 1058
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BTW, this also might be a way to differentiate philosophically between coordinates in "zodiaco" or in "mundo" as referring to which level of fate you are dealing with (hemiarmene / tuche, etc) when dealing with primary directions. If something has it's decree from the realm of heimarmene, then the zodiac should be used, but if directions from the lots are used, then in mundo might be more appropriate. Schmidt frequently distinguishes the meanings of such things saying that you have to know what you are looking at first and what it represents before you can derive the meaning.
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Curtis,

Thank you for the reply. I'm late in replying because I didn't know what to say. Confused I was frustrated by your statement:

Quote:
Back in the early days of Project Hindsight we used to think that sect was a 3-fold principle where a planet could have a partial sect status (masculine feminine sign, above below horizon and in sect or out of sect) but we now believe that this is wrong. Planets are either of the sect or contrary to the sect that is in political power . . .


After some whining, moaning and groaning I've decided I prefer this view of it and, deep down, it was the direction I wanted to take, anyway. As far as the other two being conditions of rejoicing – well, I have to figure out the difference between being in sect and rejoicing. Is it a matter of quantity vs. quality of strength and power?


Quote:
So when it comes to questions that exist on a zodiacal level and planets interactions on the zodiacal level regarding heimarmene, then in zodiaco is more philosophically consistent, because the horizon doesn't exist at that level of the planet's interaction, as the earth is removed from consideration, but insofar as the question comes to the level of lots / parts then the rejoicing conditions of being above or below the horizon (observed) should come into play. That is why there are 3 frames of reference in the Preliminary Natal Analysis (Zodiacal, planetary and terrestrial) and each has their own set of coordinates to be used not to be confused mixed with each other. In the example above you are mixing horizontal coordinates with zodiacal coordinates.

I need to spend time with this. But it makes all the difference in the world if this is largely accepted or if we are in Mr. Schmidt's world. He is someone who's views I approach cautiously and I certainly don't want to accept things as truth merely because he has claimed them to be so. And then there's the fact that this concerns Hellenistic astrology. What was developed to the east several centuries later does differ, but it's no less valid.

**********************************

In any case, that lunar return month is finished and there wasn't anything particularly Mars-like about it, except for the usual ruffled feathers and battles here. Mars is my natal Moon's dispositor and they're natally in applying partile trine [Moon's next aspect to complete after birth], so I look closely at Mars in lunar return charts. I'm thinking Mars didn't play much role during that month not only because it wasn't aspecting any natal planets, but also because Mars was not in aspect to the return/natal Moon. Being so involved with the return DESC wasn't enough.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 1058
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mr. Schmidt doesn't claim all of these ideas as absolute truth. There is varying level of certainty in his thinking as might be the case with many people. His ideas on sect are derived from the word "hairesis" which means a number of things depending upon the context: a school of thought (as in those adhering to one view vs another), a faction (as in one side politically vs another), a split, divide, etc...

There is a tendency to do a direct one to one correlation in our thought as astrologers (planet in Aries, contrary to sect, etc means "such and such") without examining the world view and reasons for the meaning. One should always ask the question why something has a given meaning. The astrology that formed during the Hellenistic era came about as a reorganization of the basic Omen based observations as some noticed patterns and tried to understand why and this why was part of their world view, so their ideas on fate, religion, philosophy, etc all were a part of this. Why do we have "arabic parts" otherwise known as "lots"? The word is "daimon" which is a power of a deity that is disembodied from the person of the deity (or Theos as Schmidt would say). If we can get a complete picture in this way, then we can see the planets speaking to each other and their political battles, who wins in the arguments, who gets exalted and who is overcome and what offices they have control over and how this affects what they rule and at the lot level whether these arguments matter and are brought into reality through the interactions of these disembodied powers. It is a bit like a dungeon and dragons game. I had an idea to program it this way years ago, but this is not a one person project.
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 1058
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kirk wrote:


After some whining, moaning and groaning I've decided I prefer this view of it and, deep down, it was the direction I wanted to take, anyway. As far as the other two being conditions of rejoicing – well, I have to figure out the difference between being in sect and rejoicing. Is it a matter of quantity vs. quality of strength and power?


I forgot to answer this...

It is a matter of what the planet does and what its role is. Schmidt says that a contrary to sect planet is hindered in setting the agenda for the native and is placed in a role of going against the agenda of the ruling sect. That doesn't mean that the planet is powerless; look at the joys of the planets (Jupiter in Sag, Saturn in Aq, Mars in Sco, etc). Most of these are in places where there is no power shared (no exaltation lord) because the planet of the contrary sect is obligated to lift up the exaltation lord (Mars lifts up the Sun in Aries, Jupiter lifts up Venus in Pisces, etc) and they don't like to share power... Schmidt says cases like these are where planets "cross the isle" to the other side politically for a cause. The exceptions are the feminine planets which cooperate and share power and Mercury who being common to both sects decides to lift up himself and remain neutral to the power struggle.

We think that one planet has control of a given sign / house, but the more advanced thinking on this is that it depends... We get a hint of this in the concept of the almuten in the medieval period and with each place there are any number of planets that may have control - sometimes it is the exaltation planet, domicile lord, joint domicile master (signs trine to domicile), etc. Each planet has a political agenda and Schmidt says that the planets are said to be in the service of heimarmene.

So if a planet is contrary to the sect and has control of a given house, and it is in it's own places then it can effect from it's own significations, and such a planet is always subject to being overruled by a planet of the sect, but not necessarily. A planet contrary to the sect though and not in it's own places, but in the places of a sect mate, will bring things about with the help of the sect mate, again as long as it is not overruled, but a contrary to sect planet, not in it's own places, nor with help from sect mates can only affect the significations of the house; not bring in its own significations. So a Mars contrary to the sect having control of the 7th might bring marriage to someone in the military as long as its not overruled. If however it is not in its own places nor has any help, then it trashes the significations of the 7th because it is contrary to the sect, causing divorce, acrimony in old age, difficulty with the public, etc... Benefics contrary to the sect are not as disrespectful in this regard. It is always the malefic contrary to the sect you have to watch.

All of this is with a view of what the planets want for the native; and the planets want what they signify. These are the political distinctions that give the interactions of the planets depth. The lights (Sun and Moon) are opposed to the domiciles of Saturn as light is always opposed to darkness, good opposed to evil. What is good from one planet's perspective (Saturn for instance) will be at odds with what the lights want. Mars also squares the lights and will be at odds in a different way. Mars trines the light of the nocturnal sect because they agree on agenda, but squares the light contrary to sect (Scorpio squares Leo). And Mars is made to disagree with the Moon (by squaring from Aries - Cancer, when it crosses the isle to lift up the Sun in exaltation contrary to the wishes of the Moon). So Mars is the lesser malefic in part because of this partial agreement, but Saturn disagrees either way.

I find it odd that Schmidt's thinking is considered to be unreliable since most in the field have not thought through what any of these concepts mean, but simply go with established usage without further examination.
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
margherita



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1369
Location: Rome, Italy

Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 1:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

zoidsoft wrote:


I find it odd that Schmidt's thinking is considered to be unreliable since most in the field have not thought through what any of these concepts mean, but simply go with established usage without further examination.


For me it's a little difficult to follow this anthropomorphic explication, planets consult the signs, which are the temples and so on -it's like Frawley passions of the planets- at least I understand like that from what you write.

But I would say that I agree that the sect, hairesis, is one of the first - I would say the first one - factors they consider in Bezza's group- and I saw many and many examples where a planet out of its hairesis made a disaster.

I always check it if some important planet is in the wrong place in the chart- because I'm sure sooner or later this planet would manifest its effects.

margherita
_________________
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated