Currently have my nose buried in Ben Dykes translation of Abu Ma'shar's On the Revolutions of the Years of Nativities and have been thinking about something Dykes calls the profection process (p.40) and Ma'shar describes in VI.4.32-33 which can be (I think) summarized as:

If the profected Ascendant reaches a sign that contains a planet [which does not rule the sign] "it will not complete its indication in that year (whether for good or bad), but it does indicate some of it". The indication only becomes complete then the profected year reaches "a sign of that planet" [a sign it rules]. As an example, he gives the profection coming to Taurus which contains the Moon (who is exalted there) saying "And the in this year indicates some good fortune: but when the year reaches Cancer, the Moon will complete her indication of good fortune."

I'm curious to know if anyone has seen something similar in another source or have, themselves, noticed something similar when using profections.

As well, it's got me thinking about sign rulership; some of the earlier texts talk about there being two "domicile masters" (the domicile ruler and the exaltation lord) and a few claim the exaltation lord as the true 'owner' of the sign (sorry, haven't looked up the exact references at the moment). Ma'shar actually says if the profected sign contains "an alien planet (or [even if] it has a claim in it)" which I've interpreted as the domicile ruler not being in the sign given that 'alien' means a planet with no dignity in the sign and 'a claim' is any dignity. Since his example uses Taurus' exaltation ruler and the process ends at Cancer the whole thing implies Venus is the true 'owner' or 'domicile' master of Taurus, not its Exaltation ruler, the Moon.

The whole thing also seems to bolster the idea of a planet in domicile creating immediate, strong effects; if a planet produces 'some of' its effect in one year with the full effect not being completed until a few years later, it rather implies that any effect produced by a planet not in domicile has a "time limit" and may or may not be immeadiately noticeable in the life; it also would bolster the connection we always assume between the house a ruler occupies and the house the sign occupies; the activated planet sets up the conditions that make the domicile house's matters possible i.e. ruler of 2nd in 9th - money from higher education only manifests completely when the education is finished? in the 10th, when a career is established? in the 7th, when a marriage happens?

Just some thoughts, wondering how others would interpret it.

Could it refer to the Almuten? Like a planet having more dignity.
As for the time factor, does Abu Ma'shar has an example in the translation of Ben Dykes?

Ouranos wrote: Tue Apr 30, 2024 10:57 am Could it refer to the Almuten? Like a planet having more dignity.
As for the time factor, does Abu Ma'shar has an example in the translation of Ben Dykes?

Hi Ouranos,
Took another look at the text and Dykes comments on the topic; I don't think they are referring to an Almuten;however, I may well have misread things as Abu Ma'shar does appear to favour a planet in the profected sign over the sign ruler as LOY

"And if the Ascendant of the year coincided with one of the signs in which [planets] were at the root of the nativity, and the year terminated in that sign,...,then you should make that [planet] be like the lord of the Ascendant or like the lord of the year, because it will be more powerful than them both." (III.8.15) [I substituted 'planets' for 'infortunes' as he says the same applies for fortunes and in a footnote Dykes says it 'infortunes' could also mean a planet made unfortunate.]

Dykes (p.43) also references Valens IV.11 who says "It is also necessary to pay attention to the empty places. And especially if some stars should be present upon them by ingress [solar return], they will take over" (Schmidt trans.) So while the domicile ruler appears to be the default LOY it may not always be taken as the LOY.

So possibly I've read too much into the example and the Moon being the exaltation ruler of Taurus; he could have easily, in the example, used any other planet in Taurus and set the timing to match when their domicile would be reached; the 'domicile-master' argument wouldn't apply at all in that case.

I didn't spot an actual timing example in the text, other than the one I mentioned.

"Abu Ma'shar does appear to favour a planet in the profected sign over the sign ruler as LOY"

Makes sense.
Morin de Villefranche in Book XX1, 33
33. When only one planet physically occupies a house, it will be the one which principally decides whether or not realization will occur, and what quality will characterize the events and affairs signified by the house; nevertheless, its dispositor will participate in this.

"Dykes (p.43) also references Valens IV.11 who says "It is also necessary to pay attention to the empty places. And especially if some stars should be present upon them by ingress [solar return], they will take over" (Schmidt trans.) So while the domicile ruler appears to be the default LOY it may not always be taken as the LOY."

In this case, the SR planet can be viewed as in Rule #33.

And again Morin on empty houses
31. When a house is devoid of planets, one judges the realization or its suppression, and the quality of the things essentially signified by the house, according to the nature and the state of its ruler.
32. It is to be noted, however, that the Ascendant has a stronger significance for the life and constitution of the native than does its ruler, if the latter is absent from the First House. The aspects received by the Ascendant are in this case more powerful than those received by the ruler.
The same observation holds for the Midheaven.

Hi, yes, it does seem nearly everyone agrees position is more immediate than rulership.

I was having a discussion with Wei this week and we talked about the importance of looking at the whole chart not just the LOY
At the same time, if you have SA at the MC in the radix when it changes sign and house it carries with it that SA-MC influence.
Let's say
Radix SA in Cap at MC
Profected SA in Tau in 2nd House
It should be read as a 10/2 year. Example: a career that consolidates financial security or that requires investment, or your mother acquiring a new house etc.
If you go through a 10/5 year, you could get involved in a hobby that leads to a career or you bring creativity in your career or you start teaching in a college.
Keeping in mind the double-take in the reading not simply a planet isolated entering the room as it carries with it the radix.

Ouranos wrote: Tue Apr 30, 2024 9:47 pm I was having a discussion with Wei this week and we talked about the importance of looking at the whole chart not just the LOY

Hi Ouranos, thanks for the reply. I didn't mean to imply I was trying to read the whole year from the LOY. The concept of a profection process was new to me so I was trying to see how it fit with concepts I'm already familiar with; I remember new concepts better if I can link them to existing concepts.

Ouranos wrote: At the same time, if you have SA at the MC in the radix when it changes sign and house it carries with it that SA-MC influence.
Let's say
Radix SA in Cap at MC
Profected SA in Tau in 2nd House
It should be read as a 10/2 year. Example: a career that consolidates financial security or that requires investment, or your mother acquiring a new house etc.
If you go through a 10/5 year, you could get involved in a hobby that leads to a career or you bring creativity in your career or you start teaching in a college.
Keeping in mind the double-take in the reading not simply a planet isolated entering the room as it carries with it the radix.

This is a little bit of a different take; Ma'shar stresses that planets become active when the profection for the year reaches the sign the planet is in, in the radix; or when a directed planet aspects the planet's radix position; or when they become a distributor, etc. So theoretically, if a planet ruling the 2nd is posited in the 9th and the profection year is in the 9th, something to do with movable assets will be indicated but, according to the "profection process" concept, won't be complete until the domicile of the 2nd is reached by profection; so the complete fulfilment of the ruler of the 2nd in the 9th will be delayed in time. It is primarily the delayed timing aspect that caught my attention.

Have found this article by Tania Daniels. Not sure if it can be helpful

https://www.taniadaniels.com/abu-mashar ... evolution/

With regard to helpfulness, this springs to mind:

The criticism of Ibn Abi r-Riǧāl that Abū Maʿšar was like a man gathering firewood in the dark (K. al-Bāriʿ, II.2) is repeated by the Latin translator, Hermann of Carinthia [...] (The Great Introduction to Astrology by Abū Maʿšar, transl. Yamamoto & Burnett, 2019: 4)

Incidentally, Abū signals a teknonym (kunya), so Abū Maʿshar would mean 'the father of Maʿshar'. Calling him just Maʿshar is therefore not correct.

Ouranos wrote: Thu May 02, 2024 10:37 am Have found this article by Tania Daniels. Not sure if it can be helpful

https://www.taniadaniels.com/abu-mashar ... evolution/

Thanks for the link Ouranos, I agree with Tania that the text is not an easy read. I've saved her article for later reference. To date I'm still struggling with the Radix/Profection/SR connections and have only given the months, days, and hours text in Book IX a quick read. Trying to tweak out what he actually used from everything he reported is quite a headache; as with most of the early texts, they rarely build the framework in one place, usually clues to it are sprinkled throughout the entire text; drives me nuts...lol

Martin Gansten wrote: Thu May 02, 2024 2:00 pm With regard to helpfulness, this springs to mind:

The criticism of Ibn Abi r-Riǧāl that Abū Maʿšar was like a man gathering firewood in the dark (K. al-Bāriʿ, II.2) is repeated by the Latin translator, Hermann of Carinthia [...] (The Great Introduction to Astrology by Abū Maʿšar, transl. Yamamoto & Burnett, 2019: 4)

An apt description, I think he threw in everything but the kitchen sink.

Martin Gansten wrote: Incidentally, Abū signals a teknonym (kunya), so Abū Maʿshar would mean 'the father of Maʿshar'. Calling him just Maʿshar is therefore not correct.

lol...thank you Martin, I will keep that in mind; just being lazy with the typing.

abu janegca!

i expect you to honour these literary traditions, lol...