Solar Returns 1 by Tom Solar returns have come up a few times in various locations on the Forum, so I thought I?d pass along this bit of information. I debated whether to put this on the Nativities Forum or her on the Traditional Forum, but since I?m quoting a traditional astrologer, even if he is somewhat of an iconoclast, I thought it was better placed here. No charts included, at least not yet. If the discussion takes off maybe we can place one or two on the thread. A famous French recipe for rabbit stew began, ?First go out and kill a rabbit.? Good advice. Since we cannot have a solar return without a place for the Sun to return to, we need to start with the nativity. The theory I?m advocating is this: the nativity shows us the potential in the life, sometimes called ?promise of the chart.? It is important to note that ?promise? as it is used in that phrase does not mean ?guarantee,? as in ?I promise to take out the garbage tonight.? It means ?potential,? as in, the garbage truck will be here tomorrow; I am physically capable of taking out the garbage so I have the potential to do it.? We are not trying to be overly fatalistic here. There is always the possibility, especially during the baseball playoffs, that the native will not take out the garbage, in which case he will have an encounter with Saturn, and maybe Mars. The theory runs this way: 1) The nativity shows the potential 2) Directions show the development of the potential 3) The solar return shows when the potential can or will be realized 4) Therefore, if it isn?t in the nativity, there is no potential for it regardless of what the solar return shows. 5) Primary directions have a potential all their own since they evolve directly from the nativity, but are less potent if they do not coincide with the nativity. 6) It is OK to substitute ?Secondary Progressions? for ?Primary Directions.? What does ?potential? mean? I suggest we use it to mean or indicate ?change.? Let me explain. Let?s say the natal chart shows the potential for the native to become a great athlete; we?ll use tennis player. Over time the native will practice and evolve or ?change? into a great tennis player. If the native never picks up a racquet, the native will never realize the potential. The nativity may show honors for athletics, and if so, the solar return will show us when the honors will be received or when the potential will be fully realized. The quote below is from Astrologia Gallica volume 23 Revolutions, by Jean Baptiste Morin de Villefranche (1583 ? 1656). His sentences are long so read carefully. He is addressing the question of whether a return can overrule the nativity. In other words, if sudden riches are not part of my natal chart, can I still win the lottery if I have Jupiter in Cancer in the 2nd in my solar return? [No]. The translation is by James Holden. Itaics in the translation. Brackets are additions by the translator for clarification. We have indeed asserted that a revolution per se cannot produce an effect that the figure of the geniture has not signified. For since the celestial influx, imprinted upon the native at the hour of his nativity and seen concretely in him is by that act the cause of whatever is inherent in the native when he is born, by reason of the constitution of his body, his temperament, health, character, and mental qualities; but, by its potential [it is the cause of] whatever is naturally going to happen to that same native, at least insofar as noticeable changes in his body, mind, and fortune, it follows rightly that nothing of any moment is going to happen to the native in those things that the genethliacal constitution shall not have had in potential. Therefore, a revolution per se will effect nothing, at least nothing notable, that the genethliacal constitution has not presignified. Moreover, the fact that the nativity contains in potential whatever of any moment is gong to occur to the native with regard to his body, mind, and fortune, is most evidently proven by the revolutions and directions that explain the fates of the native; for without any direction or revolution corresponding to the natal figure there can be no change, at least no significant one; and notable individual changes have their own directions or revolutions corresponding to the natal figure by which they are invoked. But directions imprint their own strengths upon the native on the day of his nativity, as we have said in Book 22, Section 3, Chapter 2. And therefore they pertain to the same geniture, which consequently contained the same change in potential. This doctrine is confirmed, moreover, since otherwise no faith could be had in the geniture [for] if with the geniture denying matrimony, offspring, or dignities, such things of contrary significations could be conferred by subsequent revolutions, then there is no man indeed who is wretched and unfortunate from the genethliacal constitution of the sky, or for whom good revolutions and accidents conformable to them will not occur if he lives to old age. That which is in fact contrary to experience! Whew. Let?s start at the end. How do we know that revolutions or returns cannot bestow what the chart does not indicate? For example: if the chart denies marriage, how do we know that the native will not get married if the solar return gives a strong indication of marriage? Simple. If the return could bestow the marriage the nativity denies, what good is the nativity? We only need returns to predict. The chart shows what you can become. The returns show when you can become this. You cannot become what your potential prohibits. Therefore, whatever in the revolution that indicates you can become what is prohibited in the nativity is at best short lived or more probably will not occur. How do we know which solar return indicates a change from potential to reality? After all, every year is not momentous. The return must reflect that which is contained in the nativity. If the nativity promises honors say with Lord ASC on the MC trine Lord 10, we need to find something similar in the solar return chart to predict when that will occur. It does not have to be the same thing although that would be a simple example. Perhaps both ASC and MC rulers are conjunct the MC in good signs in a particular revolution of the Sun. Perhaps they are both sextile the MC in a particular revolution. We need to look for a repetition of what is promised in the chart. If the angles in the nativity are repeated in the solar return, this is a serious signal that an important year is in the making. Why? Because the planets rule the same houses in both the nativity and the return, and therefore their influence is more focused and more likely to produce the potential of the chart. Notice that Morin tells us that directions produce their own effects. The same would be true for progressions. I?ll use the word ?directions? to mean both, and ?progressions? when I want to indicate secondary progressions alone. Directions are slow moving affairs that show the evolution of the natal chart. Unlike the returns they are not snapshots of particular instant. Therefore we should not take the progressed chart, cast it for the birthday and make meaningful use of it. If Jupiter by direction approaches the MC, we are looking for good fortune, but it does not necessarily happen all at once. It is more gradual and ultimately peaks at the time of perfection of the aspect (well it would in a perfect world). So if the direction perfects in a particular year since it represents the evolution of the nativity or the potential in the nativity, the return should reflect it. If the return does not, then I would say that the direction would have limited influence. The reverse would also be true. From here it is only natural that we summarize with Aristotle. I could spend enormous amounts of time discussing Aristotle (if I knew enough), but I prefer to use what he taught to illuminate what I?ve been trying to get across, and of necessity, I?ll be brief. We?ll begin with the tomato. There is a plant that produces a fleshy bit of substance that ultimately becomes more or less round and is green. This tomato has the potential to become red, and soft, and (to some - I hate tomatoes) tasty. The green tomato for our purposes is the birth chart. It shows us that the green plant can become this red, useful fruit (no a tomato is not a vegetable). The weather and health of the vine are the directions or progressions that enable the tomato to realize its potential. The tomato is ripe and red and ready to eat when the returns tell us it is. Not every tomato will fulfill that potential, weather, insects, neglect, all shown by difficult directions, may prevent it from realizing the potential. In short, if that is the case, the tomato needs help from outside sources. Think counseling. This idea of the process of becoming is Aristotelian. It is applied to humans as well. We all have the potential as shown in our birth charts. How that potential is developed is shown by the directions. When that potential is realized is shown by the returns. Whether or not we realize our potential is up to us. Some need more help than others. In other words, difficult charts need more help than easy charts to realize the potential. If we cannot overcome the obstacles in the chart, the gift of leadership and statesmanship results in an Al Capone or an Adolph Hitler. But this takes us far away from solar returns. The returns are part of the package that we need for prediction and understanding of the potential of the native. It shows us the nature of the development and the length of time the development will take. It is up to the native to shape what he or she has to maximize this potential. The astrology is used to show us the way. Tom Quote Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:07 am
2 by ### The chart shows what you can become. The returns show when you can become this. You cannot become what your potential prohibits. Therefore, whatever in the revolution that indicates you can become what is prohibited in the nativity is at best short lived or more probably will not occur. I should agree with this. It makes a good amount of sense. And it does make astrological prediction easier. But I can?t get myself whole-heartedly on board. Astrology is a humanly devised system. Can we truly say that it has developed the correct rules and procedures for exactly and flawlessly defining a person?s potential? Astrological knowledge is expanding. There is a lot going on in the area of translating and interpreting old and ancient texts. That is good. But we should keep in mind that all these works of the past two thousand years may only be the beginning of astrology. We may still only be at astrology?s starting gate. So it?s probably a good idea to keep in mind that we aren?t and can?t be nearly as acquainted with a birth chart ? and the chart native?s potentials ? as we believe we are. And are we truly tied to one chart from birth? Why can?t we, or at least some of us, be able to step through a door at some point of our life and leave the chart behind? Or if we don?t leave it behind perhaps we reach a state where our chart gets altered somehow. Just because the future position and motion of the planets can be found in an ephemeris doesn?t mean the future 'position and motion' of a person can and will always be found on the same pages. It?s this sort of determinism based on a humanly devised system that has me worried that astrology is potentially a very dangerous way to pass one?s time. Has mankind really been wise enough to develop and perfect a system that can tell us exactly which are and aren?t the potentials of a person and when those potentials can become reality? What Tom is laying out here is a functional manner of proceeding with astrology that is useful and often accurate. I know I could use a more disciplined method. However, I think it?s a good idea to let ourselves be surprised. What we need in our astrology is a lighter touch and the willingness to let things fall through our fingers. Quote Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:51 am
3 by Tom I thought we could work with an actual chart with a AA rating, and pick a native with whom we could have some fun: Clint Eastwood May 31, 1930 5:35 PM PST + 8 hours San Francisco, CA 18 Scorpio 35 Rises Clint Eastwood is a success. He stared in one of the then popular half hour TV westerns Rawhide in 1959. Four years later he launched a screen career in the first of the so-called ?spaghetti westerns? directed by Sergio Leone, A Fistful of Dollars. In this role Eastwood redefined the stereotypical western hero from lawman or simple justice seeker to a tough, laconic, bounty hunter with a heart ? a little bit of a heart. This is the year I want to work with, 1964, after we look at the nativity. Eastwood?s Scorpio rising should not be a surprise. Although more talkative than his characters, he is a bit reserved. He has two prominent fixed stars in his chart. The ASC is conjunct the north scale (Zuben Elschmali). ?It gives good fortune, high ambition, beneficence, honor, riches, and permanent happiness.? And he has the royal fixed star on the MC Regulus. If one wants to become a Hollywood legend, this is a good way to start. There are two aspects of note (there may be more). The Venus ? Saturn opposition and the Mars - ASC trine. His success on the big screen began in 1964. That year Mars, lord ASC, would conjunct Mercury (co ruler of 10) in the 7th by progression, so we?ll look at the solar return for that year, using the birth place for the chart: Clint Eastwood 1964 Solar Return May 30, 1964 10:49:18 PM San Francisco, CA 00 Aquarius 00 rises The first thing we notice is that the angles of the nativity are in the same signs in the solar return but in different locations. The natal ASC, Scorpio, is now on the MC. The MC is on the DSC. The SR MC is less than three degrees difference than that of the natal ASC. This shows the native (natal ASC) working for and achieving honors (natal MC). Eastwood is legitimately described as a "self-made man." Putting his natal ASC, the mysterious Scorpio on the MC is fitting for an actor whose first big screen character is known as ?The man with no name.? Mars in his natal chart is strong in domicile and trines the natal MC, an indication of success. In the 1964 solar return Mars is conjunct the co-ruler of the 10th ? Mercury (Virgo intercepted) and Jupiter ruler of the 2nd in both houses. Eastwood did not make a lot of money in his first ?spaghetti western,? but it did establish him as a box office draw and we would all learn subsequently that this and the two Leone movies that followed, would change the genre. Any time we see one of the lights angular in a return, it is important and here the Moon is on the SR ASC. The Moon rules the natal 9th and comes to the first. This movie was filmed in Spain. There are other things in the return that echo the nativity. There is a tight Venus Saturn opposition in the nativity those two planets are in aspect in the return but in trine. Venus is close to her natal position, another indication of influence during the year. The Sun is in the 5th house (five degree rule) and Eastwood?s first child, a daughter, Kimber, was born on June 17, 1964. Not to go to far astray but the lunar returns are read pretty much the same way. The Lunar return in effect when Eastwood?s daughter was born repeats the birth angles within five degrees of exact. Jupiter, lord 5, is almost exactly conjunct the 7th cusp. All in all even this cursory examination is a good example of a way to read solar returns. Not every year in the life stands out; therefore we would not expect every solar return to repeat angles and planetary positions. Feel free to add to the above. Tom Quote Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:04 pm
4 by Tom [Long, but the examples work out well] Read Morin slowly and perhaps several times. He is explaining how to determine the ?ruler of the revolution.? Again the sentences are long and I found it confusing in places, but a discussion will follow: ? ? we may now come to the ruler of the revolution, which is the planet that is more powerful in the figure of the revolution, and that one of the stars which, because of it uniformity in acting, ought to be the ruler of the revolution.? This isn?t too helpful, and more follows, but I think I understand this so far. I?m not real clear on the meaning of ?uniformity in acting.? I am guessing that he means in accordance with the way the planet acts in the nativity, therefore the planet?s ?behavior? is similar to (in uniformity with) what it is in the nativity, and therefore very strong in the particular revolution. ?It may therefore seem that in the nativity, whichever planet is the more powerful from its rulership, exaltation, triplicity, or aspect in the principal places of the geniture, which are [those of] the Sun, the Moon, the ASC, the MC, and the Part of Fortune, that one will be the primary ruler of the revolution.? He seems to be saying that a strong planet the most engages the Sun, Moon, ASC, MC, or part of fortune in the nativity would be the most likely planet we would use as ruler of the revolution. He continues: ?But in revolutions of the Sun, the principal place must logically be that of the Sun, and in revolutions of the Moon that of the Moon.? And not the ASC, MC, or POF. ?Because if two or three planets are found with approximately equal power, that one should be selected which will prevail because of its celestial and terrestrial state, that is the one that is in its own proper essential dignities, oriental to the Sun, swift, direct with strong or multiple aspect to the others, but especially to the Sun or the Moon in their individual revolutions, and also [placed] in the principal angles of the figure; for thus configured, it will act more efficaciously ? but another is in an angle in the first or the tenth house, even if it is in exile or in its fall, that one should nevertheless be selected, since it is stronger by its terrestrial state or determination, by which it has a most powerful effect.? This is confusing, or at least I?m confused. He spends a great deal of ink telling us the importance of choosing an essentially dignified planet, but then says, take a weak one in an angular house if there is are two or more planets of equal strength. We?ll run into this with Eastwood?s solar return. ?For the native, both in his nativity and in a revolution can be equally subject to a malefic ruler of the figure or a benefic ruler, and equally well affected or badly affected by that ruler according to it nature and state. But another planet that is inferior [in state] but near in power, may be taken to be a secondary ruler of the revolution. ?And because the ASC presides over the body, life, habits, and mental ability, but the MC over undertakings, actions, and profession, on which almost all other [facets of life] depend to some extent, therefore the rulers of these angles must be particularly noticed, and after them the Sun in its revolution, and the Moon in a revolution of the Moon. For although the Sun and the Moon are not considered by us with the universal significations attributed to them by the ancients, but only in so far as they are determined in a figure, as is the case with Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, and Mercury, yet both in a nativity and in its revolutions their places (i.e. The Sun and Moon ? tc) must be looked at when selecting the ruler, because they are primary planets primarily arranged around the earth, and [consequently] of primary power among the planets, as experience proves; to one of which, namely the Sun, the governance of years is attributed by nature, and to the Moon the months, but not to any of the other planets, which are merely satellites of the Sun acting as agents in the sub-lunar world.? Minor digression: Morin did not believe that ?universal significations attributed to the planets had value. Many traditionalists, then and now, would look at the Moon, for example, as the universal significator for women in the native?s life. The Moon could represent the native?s mother, his wife, his daughter, and his sister. Morin did not care for that. Although it was entirely possible that the Moon could rule any of these, it could not rule all in the same chart. So if the Moon was in the 7th it would rule the wife, but not the mother, or if the Moon ruled an empty 10th house it would rule the mother but not the wife. His reasoning was that if the Moon truly ruled all these things, that once a transit or direction contacted the Moon, whatever happened to the wife would also happen to the mother, daughter, sister, etc. This we know is not true. His attitude was the same for other planets, e.g. in a woman?s chart the Sun could not simultaneously represent the native?s, father and husband on the same grounds cited above. Morin consistently aims for precision. Back to the topic. What I?m getting from this is that the ruler of the solar return is the strongest planet, by essential and/or accidental dignity, that most engages the Sun. In a lunar return it is the strongest planet that most engages the Moon. If no strong planets engage the light of the revolution, then we need look for other strong planets perhaps Lord ASC or Lord MC. A weak planet in an angle is preferable to another weak planet more poorly placed. Let?s list a couple of rules: 1. The planet most powerful in the place of the Sun, usually its dispositor, but the dispositor, which will be the same every year, will not always be strong every year. If he is not strong then ? 2. A strong planet that engages the Sun, by aspect or reception that is well placed, preferably in an angle. To choose among more than one pick the one that has the most essential dignity, is well placed and engages the ASC, MC, Moon, or part of fortune. 3. A weak angular planet if the only other choice is a weak succedent or cadent planet. 4. The Sun may be chosen, and if the Sun is in Leo it is always chosen, or the Moon in Cancer for a lunar return (presumably), they are with the above exceptions, the last choice. With that in mind, let?s look at the ruler of Clint Eastwood?s 1964 solar return and choose the ruler of the return. Most of us would conclude that not one planet in this chart has any essential dignity. Morin, however, used a different set of triplicity rulers than most. He used his own. The commonly used triplicity rulers are determined by sect, Morin determined his by essential dignity. The day ruler of a triplicity is the planet that has two major dignities in a triplicity, e.g. The Sun rules Leo and has his exaltation in Aries so he is the day ruler of Fire. The night ruler is the ruler of the cardinal sign in the triplicity, so in Fire that would be Mars. The remaining ruler of a fire sign is Jupiter (Sagittarius) so he is the participating ruler. Therefore in this chart Mercury is the day ruler of Earth as he rules and is exalted in Virgo. Saturn is the night ruler as he rules the cardinal sign Capricorn, and Venus is the participating ruler. This is a night chart, but Mercury is in an Earth sign and is the dispositor of the Sun, and he rules the part of fortune (Morin did not reverse), so he is one candidate. He is swift in motion, direct and oriental as well, but cadent. Two planets aspect the Sun: Saturn in Pisces and The Moon in Aquarius. Saturn has no essential dignity at all. He is angular, but he is not in the same sign as the ASC. He is oriental but about to make his station ? so he is slow. I would not consider him a candidate. The Moon trines the Sun and is powerfully placed on the ASC. She is oriental, but not swift in motion. She has no essential dignity, and she does not rule the MC or ASC, in fact the MC is in the sign of her fall. Morin seems to be saying that we should select the Moon as she is tightly conjunct the ASC, but I would give the nod to Mercury, and keep my eye on the Moon, and I have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight. In this year, Eastwood had his first child. The Moon rules the principle of generation, and Mercury rules the 5th house. He also had his first major motion picture success and Mercury is conjunct Mars, Lord MC in the revolution. Mercury co-rules the 10th in the nativity by virtue of Virgo being intercepted there. In the nativity, Mars rules the ASC and the 5th house. Mercury is conjunct his position in the nativity as well further increasing his influence. Finally Mercury in the radix is in the 7th house of the public. Eastwood became wildly popular. That both Moon (public) and Mercury are in fixed signs we can see that the popularity endured. Next: Directing the Solar Return for Prediction Quote Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:09 pm
5 by 3D Hi Tom, thank you for elaborating on Solar Returns. I have neglected them a bit lately because I was having and still have some doubts whether to take the tropical or sidereal/precessed return; the birth place or the actual place at the time of the return. What if it is happening during a business trip in an airplane across the Atlantic (happened to me!). At times, the tropical return seemed more meaningful, at times the sidereal ? or worse, both. I then thought if I have two different charts for the same thing, at least one must be wrong. Let?s compare Clint Eastwood's precessed http://www.astrologix.de/forum/user_fil ... 05ac00.gif and his ?normal? 1964 Solar Return. http://www.astrologix.de/forum/user_fil ... 0d7f9b.gif (thanks to Astrologix for providing server capacity) For his career achievement, I find the precessed chart more meaningful. The Sun, Asc ruler, is in the 10th house. The Sun is the MC ruler of the natal chart. The movie was shot in Spain. It was Eastwood?s first major overseas travel, so one would expect the 9th house to be strong. This is the case in the precessed SR, with Mercury (natal ruler of the 10th, Virgo intercepted), Mars and Jupiter in it, but not in the ?normal? SR without any visible planet in the 9th. Precessed SR Mars right on the MC with ALGOL culminating could symbolize the aggressive and dark/evil character he plays. What I find most stunning is the fixed star VEGA. It was exactly rising when Clint was born: Vega - Rising at the Ascendant orb 00 mins 24 secs - To have charisma, to be a strong influence on others (B. Brady) In the precessed SR chart of 1964, VEGA was setting! (in San Francisco) In this example, I clearly favour the precessed SR chart at the place of birth. What do you think about the general issues and Eastwood?s 1964 return specifically? Best regards Ren? Quote Sat Oct 20, 2007 7:55 pm
6 by Tom Hi 3D, I have to admit I've never given the precessed solar return much thought. There is so much in astrology that something has to give, so I try to stick with a manageable number of techniques within what I hope is a consistent system. I do appreciate your putting up your thoughts and the comparison you made concerning which: The movie was shot in Spain. It was Eastwood?s first major overseas travel, so one would expect the 9th house to be strong. I would have expected either Lord 1 in 9 or Lord 9 in 1 with connection to the radix. In fact we had this: the Moon is the ruler of the radical 9th and is in the 9th but in a different sign (Leo). The Moon in the tropical SR is on the first cusp combining the native (ASC) with a long journey (9th ruler). The Moon is the natural ruler of travel as well so ruling the 9th, being posited in the 9th, and having an affinity with 9th house stuff is a strong indication of travel to me. Oh yeah there is also a direction to the Moon that perfects in 1964 another indication of travel. What I find most stunning is the fixed star VEGA. It was exactly rising when Clint was born: Sidereal? Tropical ASC is 18 Scorpio and Vega is at 15 Capricorn tropical. What do you think about the general issues and Eastwood?s 1964 return specifically? I don't know Eastwood, much less the ins and outs of his life in 1964 - 65. I'm sure there were lots of things going on with him. I do know his daughter was born and this can be seen in the SR and even timed. We also know he made the movie that would define his character that year, but even this puzzles me a bit. A Fistful of Dollars was made in 1964, but not released in the US until 1967. By then the other two movies that made up "THe Dollar Trilogy" (For a Few Dollars MOre, and THe Good the Bad and the Ugly" were already "in the can." In short the second and third motion pictures were made before anyone in the US saw the first one. The first movie was a success waiting to happen in 1964, and perhaps this explains why the SR has all the planets below the horizon. One more point: for all my citing of Morin, I have to admit I am not following one of his more important rules. Morin insists that the return be cast for the location of the native at the time of the return. I have absolutely no idea where Eastwood was on his 34th birthday. It may have been San Francisco or close by or it could have been somewhere else. Finally, and I could be factually in error here, so be careful. The POF is in the 8th house of the SR (Neither Morin nor I reverse). Did death play a role in Eastwood's fortune? Maybe but not until 1966. I have not been able to confirm this online, and I'm gong from memory so bear with me. Eastwood was a co-star in a popular TV Western Rawhide. The star was a man named Eric Fleming. The last episode was aired in January 1966. We know that they did not film Rawhide in the summer months as that is when Eastwood filmed Fistful of Dollars on summer break from the show in 1964. In September of 1966 Fleming drowned in an accident while filming a movie in South America. Was Rawhide canceled as a result of this accident or was the show already canceled prior to the accident? I seem to recall the former but 40 years is a long time. Either way the dropping of the show freed Eastwood to continue with motion pictures and leave TV behind for good. However, the seeds of his popularity were planted in 1964. They did not emerge until 1967 and later. I'll show how directing the return works in a future post. I need to clean it up a bit. Tom Quote Sun Oct 21, 2007 2:27 am
7 by sasha_i Hello Tom, 3D and Kirk, As a personal experience, I use to look also at profectio with reference to Solar return. There is a theory in ancient astrology (and I am refering here to Vettius Valens, who mentions that those charts develop one from another : so direction would emerge from natal chart, also profectio from natal chart; only Solar return is in some degree a system parallel to this rule) that says: we must analyze in solar return the profected elements of the natal chart, not simply the natal chart's elements. So in our case we should profect Asc and Sun (Asc-general significator of life, and Sun for glory, dignity, father) and look for the profected Sun or Asc in Solar return (Solar return would be practically a clock, used to indicate the moment when the potential of the natal chart is realized). Of course as I mentioned it appears that for the ancients, solar return was more a parallel system, used in comparison with natal chart or profectio . It is interesting that Abu Mashar mentions that we must analyze the postion of firdaria ruler of that time in solar return. he analyze also the position of the annual Asc (this method would apply also to other important factors in natal chart: for example Sun/Moon) in reference to its position in natal chart (with particular interests in being in a cadent or angular house in natal chart). What is also interesting is that he mentions that some aspects of life become more active in a certain period of life (he is refering to the ages of life; for ex he says that the third age is ruled by Venus-adolescence), and that these aspects should be analyzed in solar return. Last edited by sasha_i on Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 am, edited 1 time in total. Quote Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:09 am
8 by 3D Hi Tom, Your interpretation makes the tropical return look plausible, too. So I?m in my old dilemma that both returns ? tropical and precessed ? make sense?.. Quote: What I find most stunning is the fixed star VEGA. It was exactly rising when Clint was born: Sidereal? Tropical ASC is 18 Scorpio and Vega is at 15 Capricorn tropical. I mean the actual rise of Vega, not its ecliptic projection. This picture illustrates it. http://www.astrologix.de/forum/user_fil ... df0dd3.gif We are looking to the East in San Francisco at Eastwood?s birth. The yellow line is the Ecliptic, the orange line is the horizon. Ren? Quote Sun Oct 21, 2007 8:15 am
9 by 3D Tom, what direction are you referring to? Oh yeah there is also a direction to the Moon that perfects in 1964 another indication of travel. Thanks Ren? Quote Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:09 am
10 by Tom Sasha writes: ?There is a theory in ancient astrology (and I am referring here to Vettius Valens, who mentions that those charts develop one from another : ?? I?ve mentioned this elsewhere and this is part of Morin?s system, and I think it is valid. It is interesting that Valens is among the first to mention it as Morin may not have known of Valens. To my knowledge he never mentions him. It only makes sense that other charts would flow from the nativity. If they don?t, as Morin points out, there would be little need of the natal chart for prediction. The reason I didn?t go into it in any great detail, I did allude to it here and there, is that it would have taken me too far from the topic. We would first have to discuss in some depth, directions, progressions, the solar and lunar returns and finally transits. If I were to work with a study group devoted to natal prediction, I would do it that way, but on a forum it is usually best to take the easy way. It is interesting that Abu Mashar mentions that we must analyze the position of firdaria ruler of that time in solar return. OK what follows is not thrown out for debate as it takes us too far afield, but just for historical interest. ?Wherefore I also think that artificial division of the year into seven parts, made by the Arabs must be rejected ? that governance of the individual ?sevenths? by the individual planets, that they have called ?rulers of the sevenths? or Alfridaries (sic), [and] prefixing another planet as ruler of the individual years of the sevenths, which they have said to be partner to the Alfridary. For besides that the order of the planets is not preserved, as I have said in opposition to Ptolemy; this division is also lacking in a natural foundation. ? And therefore it need only be said that it is an ingenious figment of the imagination invented and expounded by the Arabs, who were extremely well provided with such [ideas], and badly approved by Cardan ?? That?s Morin: we never know where he stands. His main point is that the firdaria is not part of nature and he believed that all of astrology had to be part of nature and he developed a system consistent with that idea ? that and he didn?t like the Arabs. In lieu of the firdaria, Morin liked to direct the return. He also developed a complex method of doing that ? at least the math is complex, and rejected the idea of taking the Sun?s mean motion, 59? 08? per day and applying it to the planets as he did in primary directions. However a little common sense is in order. We?re talking about 365 days 6 hours. Is it really necessary for the astrologer to get his prediction to the hour or even to the day to be valid? Assuming such a thing could be done, a big assumption, would it be worth hours of math, if an easier but slightly less accurate method were available? I don?t think so, but my Virgo nature is limited. The method Morin rejected is simplicity in itself and he even produced a handy table to make the work easier. Determine the distance in degrees minutes, and seconds of arc (along the ecliptic) between two planets, or a planet and an angle, or a planet and the exact point of an aspect. We can go direct or converse, i.e. following diurnal motion (clockwise) or in the direction of the zodiac. Then turn to the table to convert the distance in arc to the number of days after the solar return. With a little practice the astrologer can even ?eyeball? the time with a reasonable degree of accuracy. I give two examples in a post I?ll put up in a little while. Morin?s method has to do with determining the Moon?s elongation from the Sun and I?m not sure what the astrologer gains that makes the effort worthwhile. If I predict something will happen on August 15 and it occurs on the 13th or 17th, I?ll be satisfied. 3D asks: what direction are you referring to? I'm using Naibod in zodiac: Saturn is directed to a trine of the Moon right about the time of the 1964 solar return. Mundane directions produce the same hit a few days earlier Tom Last edited by Tom on Sun Oct 21, 2007 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total. Quote Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:51 am
11 by Tom Directing the Solar Return We?ll now look at directing the return. Morin asks the following question: if we can direct the nativity using the Sun?s diurnal motion in right ascension (59 minutes 08 seconds per day equals one year of life), can we also direct the revolution similarly so that we might more accurately predict events in the coming year? He answers yes we can, but we need to use a different measurement. He cites Cardan as stating the 59? 08? measurement is not accurate, but notes Alchabitius uses it and then helpfully gives his readers a table of that which he disapproves. The method to which he gives his approval is complex and somehow I doubt it is any more accurate. It would be nice to be able to foretell events to the day, but that doesn?t seem possible to get that consistently correct. Besides, if we can pinpoint an event within even a few weeks with a solar return or other method, that should be good enough. In other words I?m going to take the easy way out and use Cardan?s simple table despite both Morin?s and Cardan?s disapproval, and further agitate their memory by not working things out to the second. If 59? 08? equals one day in the year, each degree of arc in the chart in zodiac, equals one 24 hour day and 11 minutes. For the first few months of the year we can eyeball the chart. For example, Eastwood?s Sun is near the IC, but heading for it in diurnal motion. 21 degrees 09 minutes Taurus is 18 degrees 41 minutes from 9 Gemini 50, the Sun?s position. Let?s call it 18 degrees and a half. This corresponds to 18 and one-half days roughly. If we add 18 and one half days to May 30, we get June 17, the day Eastwood?s daughter was born. I doubted (and still do) that everything works out this nicely, so I pulled up another. I did John F. Kennedy?s solar return for 1960, the year he was elected President, and within his solar return year, he would also be inaugurated. If we direct Kennedy?s SR Venus, lady of the ASC in the nativity, exaltation ruler of the SR ASC and, ominously, ruler of the 8th in the SR and nativity, to the SR MC it works out roughly to 172 degrees which in accordance with the table is about 170 days from the SR. Nov 8, 1960 was Election Day ? a date predetermined by law (the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November) and it is 168 days from Kennedy?s solar return. Not bad. Considering it was a close election and it was not determined until Nov 9 ? 169 days, and I didn?t include minutes of degrees etc which would put us closer to 170 still. Two examples don?t prove anything, but the fact is I pulled these two charts out at random and they are the only ones I looked at for this thread. I?ve looked at others using Morin?s methods and I keep getting good results. Volume 23 of Astrologia Gallica is probably the most instructive traditional text I?ve ever read. Tom Quote Sun Oct 21, 2007 1:38 pm