The Annular Solar Eclipse on January 26th will be just a few minutes from my natal Sun.

I am aware traditional authorities discuss eclipses being less powerful 'below the earth'. Can I take this to equate with astronomical reality? In other words since this annular eclipse's path will only be observable in the southern hemisphere it is less significant for northern hemisphere nativities? Consequently, in my Solar return chart this eclipse is 'below the earth' in the 3rd house.

On the other hand the Eclipse is 'above the earth' in terms of falling in my natal 10th house (Whole sign/Alcabitius/Koch), or 11th (Placidus /Regiomontanus).

I am wondering which criteria the traditional authorities were referring to?

My apologies if this question appears quite dumb!

MarkC wrote:The Annular Solar Eclipse on January 26th will be just a few minutes from my natal Sun.

Consequently, in my Solar return chart this eclipse is 'below the earth' in the 3rd house.
On the other hand the Eclipse is 'above the earth' in terms of falling in my natal 10th house (Whole sign/Alcabitius/Koch), or 11th (Placidus /Regiomontanus).

Happy to read you in Skyscript forum.

I understand like that: this eclipse will be not visible where I am - hopefully this is the same place where I was born so there is no influence in my life.

Whatever house this eclipse falls it is not important to me, because it's the influence of Sun light that causes a material effect. No eclipse, no influence.

Cardano says in his comment to Tetrabiblos talking about the influence of eclipses in nativities: "Everything I wrote, as Haly right suggests, concerns just men of the city under the eclipse. "

Margherita

Hi, Mark
As marguerita said, most of the quotes from the ancients are to be used on eclipses visible on the region.

But, my personal observation is that there are a lot of mundane effects that eclipses can do, that are quite dramatic, even if they are not visible on a region. One is by choreography, of course, but effects on the ecliptic seems to have also a saying.

In your personal case i would remember that if you are going to have the sun eclipsed it also mean that you are suffering a transit of the nodes to the sun. Even if the eclipse don?t make a thing to you, the nodes will have their effect.

Hi Margherita/Yuzuru

So as far as Cardano is concerned its the visibility of the eclipse the makes it have effect. That approach certainly has the benefit of both practical and philosophical simplicity.

Still we often work with things that cannot be seen such as the Parts/Lots. . The 'invisible' outer planets are equally used by many traditional astrologers such Deb Houlding, Bernadette Brady, Robert Hand etc.

In your personal case i would remember that if you are going to have the sun eclipsed it also mean that you are suffering a transit of the nodes to the sun. Even if the eclipse don?t make a thing to you, the nodes will have their effect.

Thats a point worth noting. I assume as the forthcoming annular eclipse is North Node it effects can be seen as more favourable?

I am not a vedic astrologer, but my PERSONAL view on this is based on the jyiotish interpretation: both the nodes always afflicts the two lights. Other astrologers have different views. Dr H, for instance, would probably say that the north node eclipse will increase anything that the sun signifies in your chart.

Best regards

MarkC wrote:
Still we often work with things that cannot be seen such as the Parts/Lots.

Still, according Ptolemy Parts are like horoscopes, i.e. Ascendants taken from a planet, so they are like angles, not invisible points.
And the same for Placidus.

Margherita

Still, according Ptolemy Parts are like horoscopes, i.e. Ascendants taken from a planet, so they are like angles, not invisible points.
And the same for Placidus.

Mmm if Ptolemy fully embraced that view I wonder why he was so sceptical about most of the lots ( excluding the POF). Your pouint is better made by other hellenistic sources like Vettius Valens. I take your point that these all have a planetary basis but the connection sometimes seems quite tenuous.

The naturalistic vs symbolic seems to be one of the recurrent themes separating astrologers from the outset. I would suggest Ptolemy along with Morinus is closer to the naturalistic end of the spectrum. I am not claiming this approach is better just different in its outlook.

MarkC wrote: Mmm if Ptolemy fully embraced that view I wonder why he was so sceptical about most of the lots ( excluding the POF).

Hello Mark

I don't know if he was right or wrong, but surely Ptolemy embraced this theory: "The part of Fortune is ascertained by computing the number of degrees between the Sun and the Moon; and it is placed at an equal number of degrees distant from the ascendant, in the order of the signs. It is in all cases, both by night and day, to be so computed and set down, that the Moon may hold with it the same relation as that which the Sun may hold with the ascendant; and it thus becomes, as it were, a lunar horoscope or ascendant" Tetr. III,13
And Placidus - like many other things - calculated Part of Fortune "in mundo." I have the text, maybe I will translate soon or later, but I admit I use parts in longitude.

Your pouint is better made by other hellenistic sources like Vettius Valens. I take your point that these all have a planetary basis but the connection sometimes seems quite tenuous.

Well, I never believed my explanation was better than whatever hellenist astrologer.
But for example Paulus of Alexandria mentions "considering every sign of 30 degrees." Why he should mention something so obvious? So some think he is mentioning ascensions, not longitudes.
Anyway as I told, in theory I could calculate Parts in mundo, I have formulae for it, still I prefer using longitudes. Not just because I'm lazy
Because the only sure news we have about this is Placidus.What before him?

The naturalistic vs symbolic seems to be one of the recurrent themes separating astrologers from the outset. I would suggest Ptolemy along with Morinus is closer to the naturalistic end of the spectrum. I am not claiming this approach is better just different in its outlook.

For what I understand Morin is very different from Ptolemy, he is not very loved between Ptolemy followers, but I don't know him so well to give my opinion.

But Ptolemy, yes, considers just real phenomena in the sky. Son in the case of your eclipse surely he would not consider it. There is no alteration of light in UK for the day of the eclipse so no influence.

And yes, it is very difficult for us putting together different approaches, I agree completely.

Margherita

Hello Gjiada,

I take your point that Ptolemy used and supported the POF in his astrology. I never disputed this fact. Indeed I mentioned this in my post. My point though was that he dismissed numerous other Hellenistic techniques as 'superstition'. This puts him in contrast to someone like Vettius Valens who relied heavily on the lots. Its often commented that Ptolemy preferred a more 'scientitific' or naturalistic approach to astrology. He stands out in contrast to the rest of his contemporaries in hellenistic astrology in that respect.

So what I was suggesting was something of a spectrum with Kepler or Morin the most clear cut examples of a more naturalistic approach. At the other extreme might be Vettius Valens who had little concern whether his techniques conformed to a naturalistic astrology.

I accept this is a complex area to wade into. Comparison of astrologers in such distant cultures using contrasting philosophical paradigms is only of limited value. There are so many caveats to such generalizations they can lose much of their interpretative power.

What is nauralistic or 'scientific' differed depending on the period in question. Placidus introduced in mundo aspects and supported the new Keplerian aspects that conformed to his understanding of musical theory. This could be seen as a reference back to Ptolemy or an anticipation of later harmonic theory.

In the case of Morin the probable underlying reason for his rejection of the lots was a basic hostility to what he perceived as Islamic ideas that had 'corrupted' the pristine western astrology. We find such religious prejudice pervading much of 17th century astrology. Morin would never find out that the Parts/lots were found in all the hellenistic sources!

Mark

MarkC wrote: In the case of Morin the probable underlying reason for his rejection of the lots was a basic hostility to what he perceived as Islamic ideas that had 'corrupted' the pristine western astrology. We find such religious prejudice pervading much of 17th century astrology. Morin would never find out that the Parts/lots were found in all the hellenistic sources! Mark

Yes, i agree with almost everything - still I try to judge just visible eclipses.

I don't know if Morin had problems with Muslims, Tom surely knows better than me.
I think it's more than this. Since the second half of the 15th century philosophers and astrologers were debating about philological correctness of Arab translations of astrological texts like Pontano with Centiloquium or Pico della Mirandola with his Disputationes or later Cardano.

Their works were very influential: for example all the first part of Kepler book about the nova of 1603 tries to demolish Pico's book, which was written more than a century before.

Then maybe it could be that Morin was a racist, it is possible, but I think it was more because the old medieval astrology - which was Arab astrology - was dying.

Margherita