Hello all,

Quick question: is there a single example of any astrologer, past or current, who ever used this technique in the actual way Ptolemy prescribed it? By horimaea I don't just mean directions in converse motion, but the specific technique of directing the hyleg to the descendant, then subtracting/adding to this direction using the horary times which are proportionate to the planet's distance from the horizon? I could not find any astrologer who even refers to it except for Placidus who deviated from Ptolemy’s method.

Gemato wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2024 11:42 pm I could not find any astrologer who even refers to it except for Placidus who deviated from Ptolemy’s method.

Placidus would have been very upset to read that. But no, I've never seen anyone else discuss it either, at least not in English, with a single exception. There might be something about (the Placidean version of) the method in the writings of Giuseppe Bezza or his associates.

My one exception is John Partridge, who likewise was (or rather became) an adherent of Placidus. He doesn't name the technique and calls it ‘a thing known to very few of our Age, either Theorically [sic] or Practically’ in his Opus Reformatum (London 1693, p. 94); a worked example, although not very detailed, is found in his Defectio Geniturarum (London 1697, pp. 205 f).

Martin wrote

There might be something about (the Placidean version of) the method in the writings of Giuseppe Bezza or his associates.

Hello Martin,
I am curious on what you find in common with the method of Giuseppe Bezza (Placidus).?
Where do you agree and disagree with his method?
Do you think that if you live in a high terrestrial latitude that his method is missing something?
Do you think that equatorial and zodiacal position can be merged to get a comprehensive approach to a natal chart?
And if we keep them separate, what is the difference?
Kenneth Bowser gave these potential latitude positions saying that only the Sun is on the Ecliptic.

• Saturn can have more than 2½º of latitude,
  Mercury almost 5º,
  Moon more than 5º,
  Mars almost 7º,
  Venus more than 8½º
  Pluto more than 17º.

And I have not included the TNPs here!

It all seems to be in the calculations.

Appreciate your input,
Ouranos

Martin Gansten wrote: Sat Jan 20, 2024 6:39 am

Gemato wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2024 11:42 pm I could not find any astrologer who even refers to it except for Placidus who deviated from Ptolemy’s method.

Placidus would have been very upset to read that. But no, I've never seen anyone else discuss it either, at least not in English, with a single exception. There might be something about (the Placidean version of) the method in the writings of Giuseppe Bezza or his associates.

My one exception is John Partridge, who likewise was (or rather became) an adherent of Placidus. He doesn't name the technique and calls it ‘a thing known to very few of our Age, either Theorically [sic] or Practically’ in his Opus Reformatum (London 1693, p. 94); a worked example, although not very detailed, is found in his Defectio Geniturarum (London 1697, pp. 205 f).

This very much makes me wish I wasn’t a useless monoglot . I would hazard to guess that there has to be some Renaissance authors who used the method, as I also recall in Placidus that he relates that Argol found it “vain and useless” but unfortunately the Renaissance tradition remains largely in Latin. Thanks for the Partridge referral: I love his prose and style, it’s very funny

Ouranos wrote: Sat Jan 20, 2024 4:24 pm I am curious on what you find in common with the method of Giuseppe Bezza (Placidus).?
Where do you agree and disagree with his method?

I haven't read that much of Bezza's work (and mostly the bits that have been translated, as my Italian is almost non-existent). But I don't really use any of Placidus' inventions.

Do you think that if you live in a high terrestrial latitude that his method is missing something?

Not quite sure what you're thinking of here. If you were born north of the polar circle (or even close to it), many standard concepts/practices of astrology will break down or have to be applied differently, so that's not unique to either Placidus or Bezza.

Do you think that equatorial and zodiacal position can be merged to get a comprehensive approach to a natal chart?
And if we keep them separate, what is the difference?

Again, I'm not sure what merging would mean. These are different reference systems, but the equatorial one isn't typically invested with any astrological meaning as such; it's just useful for calculating things like risings, culminations, etc.

Kenneth Bowser gave these potential latitude positions saying that only the Sun is on the Ecliptic.

Any planet can be on the ecliptic, but only the Sun is on it all the time, as the Sun is what defines it. (Equally, any planet can be exactly on the equator, but most of the time they're not.) I do think the actual bodily positions of the planets (e.g., relative to the angles) matter.