Graham Fox wrote:If you're looking at when something sets or culminates in real life or with an astronomy animation (with secondary motion built in, to boot), 4 minutes = 1yr is easier than 3,9891 minutes.

Yes, I do that all the time myself.

I was told by my teacher Denis Labour? that the early astrologers used primaries to define the beginning of a period (rather than a point in time) which lasted until the next major direction of the same type (I didn't study them in detail with him, so not sure what is considered as "same type": maybe he was talking just about conjucntions to the angles). Do you agree with this?

That is in fact what Ptolemy says (if by 'same type' we mean 'to the same significator'), but with the terms thrown in as well:

In the first place, we must give the rulership of the times in each prorogation to the star that is actually upon the prorogatory degree or in aspect to it, or, if this condition does not exist, to the one that most nearly precedes, until we come to another which is in aspect with the next following degree in the order of the signs; then to this as far as the next following, and so on; and the planets which govern the terms are to be given a part of the rulership.

(Tetrabiblos IV.10, Robbins p. 451)

Anyway, for the time being I still find Naibod (1? sidereal=1.01456 yrs, or 4.0582' of time =1yr)) seems to work best, though I'm now uncertain of its rationale.

E. C. K?hr gave this rationale:

In the space of a mean solar day, however, the duration of which we equate with a year of life in directions, all places move 360? + 59? 8.33? [?] Thus, in primary directions the daily rotation of the circle = 360? is not considered, but only the constant daily increment of 59? 8.33? is employed as the directional motion [?]

(Berechnung der Ereigniszeiten p. 264, my translation)

Martin
Thanks for K?hr's explanation, which is the best I've seen for Naibod.
Graham

Hi Steven

By same type we are speaking of the same type circumbambulation! I'm using this term because there are different types of "circumambulations" described by the ancients: primary directions are just one.

So you mean that a direction "of the same type" is not one to the same significator, as Martin says, but simply "the next primary direction" as opposed to something indicated by another system of circumambulation (e.g. a secondary direction).
If so, how do we decide which of the many primary conjunctions, aspects etc are to be considered? Or perhaps you mean the same type of circumambulation (e.g. primary) to the same significator, taking the latter for granted?
Graham

(Point taken about the danger of desperately seeking more and more precision; I'm rather trying to find a principle for a primary key which I find symbolically coherent, so that I can feel comfortable using the key, not because I think it will suddenly pinpoint everything to the day)

Graham Fox wrote:Eddy: I agree with your reasoning about the solar day, and the various a:b=b:c etc ratios you give, but I don't follow when you say

Anyway, the key I would apply in this case is taking the return of the Sun in the Meridian (or in the same angle to it) as 365.242? years. This return is 360? because the Meridian now is fixed and not moving through the ecliptic which now has gone out of sight. The key then would be 365.242? : 360 = 1.01456?

That key is simply Naibod, based on the sidereal ("rotation with respect to VP") year. To make it inot a key WRT the solar year, we have to multiply it by 360/361 = a key of 1.01175122 yrs =1?. The difference in results is of course small, about 1 month per 25 yrs of life.

A few minutes ago I lost the long reply with an example I had written . Now the smoke out of my ears has disappeared and I'll try to say briefly what I had meant. I think the difference between the two is that when the planets are fixed to earth instead to the ecliptic the effects of secondary motion of the planets are involved and therefore the motion of the Sun will become a 'Naibod' one.

I was told by my teacher Denis Labour? that the early astrologers used primaries to define the beginning of a period (rather than a point in time) which lasted until the next major direction of the same type (I didn't study them in detail with him, so not sure what is considered as "same type": maybe he was talking just about conjucntions to the angles). Do you agree with this? If so, we should in fact notice if our periods start systematically a couple of months early in later life.

I find this a bit confusing. I appears that throughout the ages primary directions have been used for birthtime correction by means of looking at past accidents and for predicting future 'accidents' or events. How wide was the margin of the classical astrologers?

I can imagine that there is a margin of a couple of months. The mathematical part isn't necessary for calculating the exact day but since in some cases the differences can be huge for the different methods it still is necessary to have some rationale for the system one uses, notwithstanding wich one. If for example in one method the directed Moon requires a multiplication of a factor 1.05 as a key and in the other only 1? = 1 year then at a directed 60? the difference is three years. This should get noticed.

steven wrote:I am on the same page with Martin

Phew!

imagine that astrologers began being overly concerned about exact days when they directed and nothing happened on the day the direction occured. Disappointed they started "improving" the method of directions and in fact were straining over gnats and swallowing camels!

But how about Ptolemy's method of calculating the length of life (Tetr.III 10)? In a philosophical one can see death as a change of period from the physical life to the afterlife in the Hades. Yet the change (moment of death is a 'moment' in life. Death can occur in a slow manner by a chronic disease or in a sudden way, stroke, heartattack.

It seems reasonable to allow for several months to a year to be 'off' the exact calculation, but deviating several years leads to the risk that the predictions become rather guesswork. Furthermore with wide allowances there can be no question of rectifying a birthtime with primary directions.

Please don't understand me wrong here. I'm not attacking the primary directions (and secondary progressions). It is just an expression of my confusion. I've calculated primary directions in several ways. I share the disappointment of the camelswallowers for until now I didn't manage to find convincing dates with either 1?=1 year or with more "scientifized" methods. Moreover when I dig deep enough in my memory I rather find events or significant periods for any kind of direction even if I calculate them using a wrong time of birth.

Many times I threw away my calculations, only to start again out of curiosity. My attraction to primary directions can be compared with falling in love with a very attractive mysterious woman. Unfathomable and giving me doubts if she's the good one to rely on. Often giving it up, trying to forget her and going for the transits only.

Eddy wrote:But how about Ptolemy's method of calculating the length of life (Tetr.III 10)? In a philosophical one can see death as a change of period from the physical life to the afterlife in the Hades. Yet the change (moment of death is a 'moment' in life.

I think this is a very valid point. Obviously death would be a 'moment' even to the ancients, and there can be little doubt that their methods of predicting longevity aimed at defining this moment as closely as possible. And there were in fact techniques (as I mentioned before) meant to define the chronocrators or 'rulers of times' even down to a given day. It just wasn't all done (as Steven points out) by primary direction. In Ptolemy's scheme, as in much medieval and Renaissance astrology, directions were given most weight; but other techniques were used to fill in the details.

Having said that, I think the tendency of later authors (with improving tools of astronomical observation and calculation) to test the limits of directions themselves, to see how great precision they are capable of, is a natural and sound one, as long as it doesn't result in babies being thrown out with the bath-water.

As an interesting aside, Ptolemy (and later authors following him) consider directions occurring after the fatal one as describing the nature and circumstances of death.

My attraction to primary directions can be compared with falling in love with a very attractive mysterious woman. Unfathomable and giving me doubts if she's the good one to rely on. Often giving it up, trying to forget her and going for the transits only.

This made me laugh. Don't throw yourself away on the transits; they will break your heart, rarely turning up when they promised to, and not delivering the goods when they do show up. The mysterious lady will prove more rewarding in the end.

Maybe I?m an oddity, but I?ve never been able to understand the dismissal of transits. They are absolutely ?the thing? in my opinion. (Though, of course Martin, Primary Directions are THE thing).
But it?s this same point again ? nothing was intended to be used in isolation. Like an artist drawing a picture you start with the broad outlines (firdaria & planetary periods), then you get the main details (primary directions, profections, etc) and then when you have a year that shows a particular theme, you narrow down the timing by transits, lunations or progressions. The system drills down to the Moon?s transit being able to show the day in the month, or if you are working with a very good chart and bring in the angles too, the time of the day. I have seen this work in my children?s charts, which are perfectly timed, to the extent that I could set my clock by the astrology of what was going to happen. But if you take a transit in isolation, rather than part of the bigger theme, then I could see why it would be very ?hit and miss?.

Quote:
My attraction to primary directions can be compared with falling in love with a very attractive mysterious woman. Unfathomable and giving me doubts if she's the good one to rely on. Often giving it up, trying to forget her and going for the transits only.

But I like this too. I?m sure it is some kind of archetypal astrological experience

I'll come and take transit lessons with you, Deb!

It will have to be a 2-day course - the calculation is so complex

Maybe I?m an oddity, but I?ve never been able to understand the dismissal of transits. They are absolutely ?the thing? in my opinion. (Though, of course Martin, Primary Directions are THE thing).

And to me solar returns are "THE thing." I would bet that if asked to name THE thing, Robert Zoller would pick profections and firdaria. Dr. H likes directing through the bounds. The larger point is most important - nothing was meant to be used alone.

Tom

"In fact, I've often found that events occur just prior to a new "handing over" at the end of the period rather than at the beginning."

John Frawley also said that, and after some testing, I also found that to be very reliable. Even the secondary progressed sun, when in the ending of a egyptian term, usually shows an important moment, but more with the directed angles.