I need some help from someone technically proficient with primary directions, although the question is about the terms. He is using great circles as an astrologer using directions would use them. I was asked this question by a German astrologer and I am stumped.

John Worsdale, who used primary directions extensively, wrote the following about the terms in his book Celestial Philosophy.

"The old Tables which contain certain Numbers in the signs of the Zodiac, being the supposed Planetary Terms, are all whimsical notions, and void of Truth; the true Terms arise from clear demonstration, they may be discovered by Calculations in every Nativity ? they are those places where the Benefics and Malefics claim their greatest influence in the Zodiacal and Mundane Circles, and are found by adjusting the difference, as the Stars approach to, or decline from the preceding Angle
at birth?"

Then he gives an example using the chart under discussion.

?? Mars is six degrees 27 minutes from the meridian, and his distance is taken in proportion from the Eastern horizon, which he beholds by a mundane square applying, his terms fall in 7 degrees 23 minutes of Libra ??

Any ideas?

Nativity Female
September 3rd 1801
12:34:14 PM LMT 02:02:12
Latitude 53 15
Lincoln, UK
53 N 14
000 W 33

25 Scorpio 24 rises
19 Virgo 54 on the MC

Moon 18 Cancer 18

The data is rectified on Solar Fire 5.0 from his calculations which will vary somewhat from program to program. He used Placidus cusps.

Tom

Hi Tom!

Let's see if we can work this out without technical proficiency in primary directions, using mere additive and subtractive arithmetic.

I checked the Khaldea.com ephemeris.

If we read off from this by sight without calculating precisely, just after mid-day on September 3rd 1801, Mars appears to have been almost exactly at 26 degrees 35' Virgo.

Unsure about time zones in early September back in 1801, I decided to check by running the chart using your rectified data through astro.com, which produced the same result (26 deg 35').

However, the claimed position of the MC at 19 degrees 54' Virgo is not (as Worsdale appears to assert) exactly 6 deg 27' from Mars's position at 26 deg 35' Virgo, but rather 6 deg 41'. Therefore I am wondering whether Worsdale has made a simple mistake of subtraction here, or whether the MC data was provided by the rectified chart rather than by him, in which case, presuming that he did not use a wildly inaccurate ephemeris resulting in his miscalculating the position of Mars by 14' of a degree, it would appear more logical that the native was born about a minute later, giving a position of MC around 20 deg 08' Virgo.

I ran the chart through astro.com again a couple of times until I could get this exact MC. A birth time of 12:35 and 06 seconds would produce it exactly. This would then produce an Ascendant of 25 deg 33' Scorpio, however. Presuming this was not the figure given by Worsdale, and that he did give the figure of 25 deg 24' that you state, there is only one reasonable conclusion, which is that his calculation of the distance from the MC to Mars was incorrect, whatever the reason.

The challenge now is to work out how with either set of figures he could possibly have come up with the term of Mars being in 7 deg 23' Libra.

Let's presume that he used the figures of the Ascendant and MC that you provided. The one he gives for the term of Mars is 10 deg 48' from the position of Mars, 17 deg 29' from the position of the MC, and 48 deg 01' from the position of the ASC.

It is not immediately obvious to me at all how he could have calculated the term of Mars from any combination of the positions of Mars, the ASC or the MC. I presume it was not to you either and that is why you asked the question.

Perhaps some conceptual investigation may shed some light on the required procedure (then again, perhaps not!)?

Worsdale talks of 'adjusting the difference, as the stars approach to or decline from the preceding angle at birth'. This is a very unclear wording to say the least. A difference has to be a difference between two numerically valued things, and he has not stated which things. Also he has not stated what form of adjustment should be carried out to that distance, leaving us flailing around in the speculative darkness, for now at least. It is probably safe for us to presume that by 'stars' he means to include all the conventional astrological 'planets', but this is only a start.

Then we have to ask what does he mean by the 'preceding angle at birth' and what exactly does he imply by 'approach to or decline from'. If Mars is at 26 deg 35' Virgo in the 10th house, rising towards the MC, then the preceding angle at birth as measured by time, meaning the last angle that Mars crossed before the birth moment, would be the Ascendant, would it not?

Yet Mars has been neither approaching to nor (in mundane terms) declining (in elevation) from the previous angle at birth. It has been rising from it. So this interpretation is questionable. And if the 'preceding' angle indeed refers to preceding in time, then it is in any case impossible for a planet to be approaching that angle at the moment of birth. So logically he cannot mean 'preceding' in the sense of time at all.

Mars is approaching the next angle (here, the MC) in terms of time, at the time of birth. For this to be designated the 'preceding angle', precedence must instead be measured by zodiacal longitude. In this sense only can Mars be said to approach (in time) the preceding (in longitude) angle.

Yet could Worsdale have been referring entirely to longitude and not to time at all? In this case, Mars would be approaching the next (in longitude) angle, meaning the Ascendant, and declining from the previous angle, meaning the MC. Since the angles are going to be speeding through the zodiac much faster than Mars can ever give chase, this interpretation seems to defy common astrological reason, and, I would presume, can therefore be safely eliminated.

Reverting to the second interpretation, that of planets approaching in time the preceding angle in longitude, this still falls flat when one considers that Worsdale stated 'approaching to or declining from'. While Mars is approaching in time the preceding angle (MC) by zodiacal longitude, it would be impossible for any planet to decline in proximity with the advance of time from the preceding angle by zodiacal longitude. It can only decline in proximity through time from (ie move further away from) the next angle by zodiacal longitude, or the preceding angle measured by time. In this case that would be the ASC.

There appears therefore to be no logical coherence in Worsdale's reference to the 'preceding angle at birth' that would definitively indicate which angle he is referring to.

Could it then be that he is very clumsily referring not to one angle but to both the preceding and the successive angles (while completely failing to mention the latter in his prose) in time, and that he means to imply the planets declining from the one in distance (through time) and approaching to the next?

If this is so, then we can presume that in the case of Mars it is approaching to the Midheaven and 'declining from' (in terms of proximity through time, not elevation) the Ascendant.

Next question then, following this working hypothesis, is precisely what does he mean by the 'difference'?

The difference between Mars's longitudinal distances from the Midheaven and the Ascendant would be easy to calculate:

1. Firstly, presuming that Worsdale miscalculated the distance from Mars to the MC but provided the correct positions for the MC and ASC:

Mars at 26 deg 35' Virgo is 58 degrees 49' from ASC at 25 deg 24' Scorpio, as well as being 6 deg 41' (though Worsdale would seemingly have it at 6 deg 27') from MC at 19 deg 54' Virgo.

Let's suppose firstly that he used the correct distance of 6 deg 41' from Mars to the MC in calculating the terms, even though he appears to have recorded it as 6 deg 27'. The difference between Mars's longitudinal distances from the previous and next angles in this case, and using the same would be: (58 deg 49' - 6 deg 41') 52 deg 08'.

Worsdale talks of 'adjusting the difference'. This is also very unclear. I think it unlikely that he is talking in terms of making arbitrary adjustments to this difference once calculated. In that case, he could do anything he wanted with it to turn it into a particular degree and minute of Libra, or any other part of the zodiac for that matter.

Instead, let's presume he is referring to adjusting another position by that difference. Well, if so, it can't be that of Mars, since adding 52 degrees 08' to the position of Mars would give 18'43' Scorpio, nowhere even close to the position of the term of Mars he has arrived at in Libra.

Nor can it be that of the Midheaven, since adding 52 degrees 08' to the MC at 19 deg 54' Virgo would still produce a position of 12 deg 02' Scorpio.

The Ascendant as a starting point would produce a result a lot further off the map again; and even if we work backwards from the ASC at 25 deg 24' towards the MC in longitude by 52 deg 08', we get a position of 3 deg 16' Libra, well over four degrees off our target.

If Worsdale had used the false distance of 6 deg 27' between the position of Mars and that of the MC (as he stated it) instead of 6 deg 41', this would make only a fractional difference in minutes to the result of the difference calculation, producing a difference of 52 deg 22' instead of 52 deg 08' between the distances of Mars from the MC and ASC. This would have taken the result of the backwards adjustment of the Ascendant calculation further off target to 3 deg 02' Libra.

So but for a significant miscalculation on Worsdale's part, we can fairly comprehensively rule out the hypothesis that he is referring to adjusting the position of Mars, the ASC or the MC by the difference between Mars's longitudinal distances from the previous and next angles.

All of which leaves me feeling I need a break from attacking this puzzle, at least for the time being, while being glad to leave my workings up as inspiration for others to take it further.

It would be disappointing if it turned out that this could not be resolved because of Worsdale making a mistake in calculation or working with faulty data! I hope that won't prove so.

One thought that occurred to me is that he might be referring by 'difference' to the technical value of the Ascensional Difference. This is something I have yet to learn how to calculate and use, but it could make for a much simpler resolution to the problem if it was implicated here.

PS: I have my copy of Worsdale's 'Celestial Philosophy' to hand now, and though encumbered by a heavy two-year-old on my lap, am going to attempt to make a few further observations based on his actual references to this particular nativity.

On pp. 136-, he introduces Natus, Sept. 3rd 1801, 0:35 pm, lat. 53 deg 15'.

He gives Mars as 26 36' Virgo and MC 19 55' Virgo, with ASC 25 24 Scorpio. Thus even according to his own data, the difference in longitude between Mars and MC is clearly 6 deg 41' and not 6 deg 27' as he goes on to claim on p.141!

On p.136 he gives 2 deg 47' as the Ascensional Difference of Mars in this nativity. I'm not convinced that this is going to be very helpful, but it might be worth experimenting with....

I notice he also specifies the term of Saturn. This could be worth looking into in case it sheds new light on his working methods, since he must have used the same method to calculate that of Saturn as he used to calculate that of Mars.

Have to go now as two-year-old is demanding too much supervision, but will hope to return to this strand later!
Philip

Hi Tom

I did try to understand what was going on, but I lost my copy of Wordale's book and after reading that quote several times, it's a complete mystery to me! Good luck to Phillip or anyone else who might be able to help.

Just a couple of points from primary direction practice (I still haven't figured out how he came up with the final value):

The distance in this case is also called the upper meridian distance, and is the difference between the RA of mars and the RAMC, as Tom discovered.

The preceding angle is the last one passed in diurnal motion - in this case the ascendant. "declining" means moving away from it in diurnal motion, and "approaching" means moving towards.

I'm assuming that the adjustment has something to do with proportional division of the distance of mars along its declination circle between the horizon and local meridian, which here would be 90 - 6 17' = 83 43'/90.

At this point, I'm at a loss as to what he's adjusting so that he comes up with a zodiacal longitude of 7 Libra, though. Moving Mars to culmination gives an ascendant of 1 Sag.

I get the same value as Tom and Janus with my program. Are you using the obliquity of the date, or an average value? How accurate are the tools you're using for the trig functions and the other math operations?

Hi Tom,

First of all thank you for the reminder about the different uses of the terms 'Meridian', 'Zenith', 'MC' etc.. I must admit that the last few years I've had precious little time to keep a clear picture of the basic astronomical mechanics of astrology in my head, owing to far too many domestic responsibilities eating away all the time I used to have to study astrology, which is much of the reason why I have had to detach myself from the intensive study and look with more detachment at the literary history the last few years - that's about all I've had time for, and that's no understatement. And in terms of reference works, I basically don't have anything printed after 1950 that is not in storage any more, so I'm pretty much working from rusty memory here! Hence my apologies for any deficiencies in my technical terminology, but equally I much appreciate the revision lesson!

In fact we both came to the same conclusion about Worsdale counting the distance of Mars from the 'Meridian' by right ascension during the day, independently, but I was unable to connect to the Internet until now since shortly after my last post, owing to my wife's taking the modem with her when she went out for the afternoon to make sure I got my due ration of housework done. But I did take a few minutes, away from the computer, to sit down with Worsdale's book, and felt like kicking myself for not getting to it earlier (ie in time for my last post) when I noticed on P. 136 the figures for the right ascension of Mars, the MC and the ASC provided by Worsdale himself, thus:

MC 170 deg 44';
Mars 177 deg 11;
ASC 260 deg 44'.

So yes, then I realised that the 6 deg 27' difference was no mistake by Worsdale at all but the measure in terms of right ascension. It would hardly seem like him to make a glaring blunder in any case in view of how seriously he takes the technical accuracy of his work and the scorn he poured on several earlier English astrologers on account of their perceived lack of the same, so I'm glad this has been satisfactorily resolved.

All the same, I don't think that either of us (or Deb, for that matter) can be reasonably blamed for finding Worsdale's explanation of his 'new' concept of the terms extremely thin and lacking as a satisfactory explanation. Worsdale does not specify that he is measuring the difference in Right Ascension in your original quotation from p. 141; and by stating beforehand that his new 'terms' are the places wherein the malefics have their greatest influence 'in the zodiacal and mundane circles' he leads us reasonably enough, in my view, to believe that unless he should state otherwise, the difference he is referring to may as well be zodiacally measured. Yet as we now know, it is not. But at least we've worked that one out....

And I certainly wouldn't buy the argument (if someone were to put it) that he was writing to informed astrologers who should have known exactly what he was talking about without him having to make his explanation clearer. While he might have been a brilliant technical astrologer, that doesn't automatically mean he was a clear teacher, and the second virtue is really an important one when it comes to putting together a technical text-book of astrology, so I think that we could fairly take him to task on this account here and there.

I must say though that I absolutely love the tables at the back of 'Celestial Philosophy' - especially the Tables of Right Ascension caught my eye today with their values at increments of one degree longitude and one degree latitude (North or South, of the ecliptic I presume) covering two-page spreads for every tropical sign.

While Steven may be the best qualified among those to have posted so far here today to work out this puzzle, and I know I'm certainly not, it may be worth taking a moment to note down the relevant details for Saturn from Worsdale's own figure and table, together with all relevant figures for the angles, and the term he assigns to Saturn:

Saturn: 20 deg 9' Leo longitude; 1 deg 20' N latitude; 151 deg 41' Right Ascension; 18 deg 0' Ascensional Difference
ASC: 25 deg 24' Sco; 260 deg 44' R. A. (Desc precisely opposite in both values)
MC: 19 deg 55' Vir; 170 deg 44' R.A. (IC precisely opposite in both values)
Term of Saturn: 9 deg 41' Libra.

Also we might as well again summarise here the details for Mars, again so that anyone who doesn't have a copy of Worsdale is in an equal position to try to work out the method of arriving at the term he assigns it:

Mars: 26 deg 36' Virgo; 0 deg 47' N latitude; 177 deg 11' R.A.; 2 deg 47' A.D..
Term of Mars: 7 deg 23' Libra

This is practically impossible for me to concentrate on when my daughter is jumping up and down dangerously on the chair and clamouring for attention, so I'm going to leave it here, but look forward to the continuing discussion.

Best to all,

Philip

but I was unable to connect to the Internet until now since shortly after my last post, owing to my wife's taking the modem with her when she went out for the afternoon to make sure I got my due ration of housework done.

I thought this was funny, so I related the story to my wife. She just grinned wickedly at me. I think I just made a serious error in judgment.

Tom

(note: Janus gives the RA of Mars as 177? 11' 15" as Tom gave it in his post. However I question the math programmed into Janus. When I do the long math for all the planets some agree with my calculations and some don't...the program math is inconsistent. The mathematical formula for calculating the RA of a planetary body is:

I took the right ascension directly from Celestial Philosophy. In other words I used Worsdale's calculations. Janus gives the same RA as Kolov's program Placidus, and Solar Fire 5.0. All the computer programs agree with Worsdale.

As to the rest of his work it is very cryptic and without seeing his work, i.e. his math and what he is referring to, it is nearly impossible to know what he is doing.

I'll repost the original quote and what followed in the text. It may help.

"The old Tables which contain certain Numbers in the signs of the Zodiac, being the supposed Planetary Terms, are all whimsical notions, and void of Truth; the true Terms arise from clear demonstration, they may be discovered by Calculations in every Nativity, and those Calculations fully prove their use and power; the fact is they are those places where the Benefics and Malefics claim their greatest influence in the Zodiacal and Mundane Circles, and are found by adjusting the difference, as the Stars approach to, or decline from the preceding Angle
at birth; Mars is six degrees 27 minutes from the meridian, and his distance is taken in proportion from the Eastern horizon, which he beholds by a mundane square applying, his terms fall in 7 degrees 23 minutes of Libra, and those of Saturn in 9 degrees 41 minutes of he same sign. Now in this nativity when the Sun was directed to the Zodiacal Parallel of Mars, for death, the old Terms of Venus followed which by the Ancient Method ought to have preserved life if they wee true, and their Effects of sufficient power.

The Right Ascension of Saturn as given by Worsdale is: 151 degrees 46 minutes. And as indicated in the above quote, he used the Sun as the killing planet - somewhat unusual.

"The distance of the Sun from the Meridian in the preceding Geniture is eight degrees forty-five minutes, by which he claims the Aphetical Dignity, and consequently the time of the native's dissolution must be obtained from his Progressive Motion to the killing Place ..."

Why being 8 degrees 45 minutes from the meridian makes the Sun the apheta is another mystery. It probably has to do with aspects and other accidental debilities in the chart.

Worsdale was ostensibly writing for beginners, although I doubt too many rank beginners started their astrological studies with Worsdale. The sub tittle of his book is: The Only True Method of Calculating Nativities Made Plain and Easy.

With just a "magical" adjustment we can find the "true terms"?

As noted in the subtitle above, Worsdale thought he had a monopoly on truth or the one true way to do astrology. His main astrological source was Ptolemy, and he had harsh words for anyone who veered very far from Worsdale's interpretation of Ptolemy.

There is another possibility here. And that is we are not dealing with Worsdale in this instance but his son. This book has an interesting history. It was first published in, I think 1799 or thereabouts. I'm positive it was before 1800. It was an expanded version of an earlier published work. Worsdale died about 1826. I'm not sure if anyone knows his date of death for certain. In fact a few years ago on this very Forum we discussed him and tried to find his burial place. Some of the events mentioned in this text took place after Worsdale's death. Therefore his son must have added some charts and comments in the last edition of the work. Ascella published a reprint of this last edition. The chart under discussion could not have been in the 1799 edition and since the native died at about age 13 or 1814, it is possible that it is the work of Worsdale junior. But it could have been part of a newer edition edited by Worsdale senior.

As an aside, Worsdale made his own translation of Tetrabiblos. He allowed a select few astrologers to hand copy his work so they would have one in English. One of those who copied Worsdale's translation was Luke Broughton. Although Broughton was born about the same time Worsdale died. Therefore Worsdale's son must have been the one to allow Broughton access to his father's translation.

Thank you all for your thoughtful contributions. If anyone comes up with anything else please post it.

Tom