Therese Hamilton wrote:Yes, this was Cyril Fagan's big discovery, the sidereal solar return. (SSR)

Right. Perhaps 'western solar return' is a little too generic a term for this, even on the sidereal forum. Incidentally, the idea of using sidereal revolutions goes back a long way even in the west ? see the quotation from Francesco Giuntini here.

The Persians, who developed the technique of annual revolutions, used a sidereal year, and that is the year definition still present in some works preserved in the Latin, such as The Book of Aristotle.

As I don't have time to check the texts right now, did these revolutons focus on which natal planets came to the solar return angles?

No, I would say that the main traditional focus was on identifying the ruler of the year and examining its position both in the radix and in the revolution ? though there were many other considerations as well, and planets on the angles have always been considered important.

I've been finding these posts very interesting. Particularly that the profected lord of the ascendant finds itself by transit on the 8th house cusp.

One thing I find odd is that the Arabic authors did not write about the lord of the ascendant preferably aspecting the ascendant etc (unless I misunderstood this). I do not know about profections but they certainly make this point for, as an example, horary.

Paul wrote:One thing I find odd is that the Arabic authors did not write about the lord of the ascendant preferably aspecting the ascendant etc (unless I misunderstood this). I do not know about profections but they certainly make this point for, as an example, horary.

Yes, it is a little odd. The procedure preserved in the Indian sources is based on concepts like sect and triplicities, which are not part of pre-Islamic Indian astrology, so it seems clear that it is of non-Indian origin. It reminds me of methods for determining the hyleg (another concept that didn't make it to India, or didn't survive there).

Martin Gansten wrote:

Therese Hamilton wrote:Yes, this was Cyril Fagan's big discovery, the sidereal solar return. (SSR)

Right. Perhaps 'western solar return' is a little too generic a term for this, even on the sidereal forum.

This is one of the differences between America and Europe. SSR (Sidereal Solar Return) is automatically associated with Cyril Fagan's sidereal methods in this country. Traditional astrology is referred to as "classical." But from now on if I'm referring to Fagan's methods, I'll identify them as such.

Incidentally, the idea of using sidereal revolutions goes back a long way even in the west ? see the quotation from Francesco Giuntini here.

Nice web site!! I do have all of Ben Dykes translations except for Bonatti, as well as Morin's book on Revolutions, plus the Project Hindsigjht translations, but (...sigh...) not enough time for reading and studying and more studying. But we have an expert right here to fill us in.

The Persians, who developed the technique of annual revolutions, used a sidereal year, and that is the year definition still present in some works preserved in the Latin, such as The Book of Aristotle.

Book of Aristotle: First on my study list. I was quite thrilled to see that translation, but it is still sitting on my reading table yet to be read except for a few pages here and there.

The Persians, who developed the technique of annual revolutions, used a sidereal year, and that is the year definition still present in some works preserved in the Latin, such as The Book of Aristotle.

On the web address :

http://www.apotelesma.it/upload/DimitarKozhuharov.pdf

was published my research based on the one ancient Arabic manuscript and many other scientific papers, where I showed that until the early 9th Century Arab and Persian astrologers used a sidereal solar return.After 830 AD began widespread use of tropical solar return.
The article was published by courtesy of Lucia Belicia(Genoa) and Margherita Fiorelllo(Roma).

Thank you for that link, Dimitar. As the paper was translated into Italian by Margherita, may I ask in what language it was originally written?

In English.

astroart wrote:In English.

Is there a link to the article in English?

Sorry, but currently there is not an electronic publication of my article in English.

delete

Varuna, shouldn't your post be placed in the Indian and Asian section of the forum? That part of the forum could use a few new posts.

Martin Gansten wrote:
The medieval Indian version of Perso-Arabic astrology, known as Tajika, seems to have preserved some teachings which have not come down to us through the Arabic authors translated into Latin. One of these is a more sophisticated version of selecting the Ruler of the Year, stressing the importance of this ruler aspecting the ascendant of the revolution. If none of the candidates aspects the ascendant, this is seen as an indication of misfortune.
.

This is interesting, and reminds me of something I've read recently at Umar:

"And for knowing the [lesser] condition of the father every day, you will direct from the degree of the fathers [in the revolution] (that is, from the degree of the 4th house) to the bodies of the fortunes, the bad ones, and their rays, and you will put one day for every 59' 8". And in what befalls [him], it will be described according to the quantity of the bad ones and the good ones, and the fortunes in which they were, and [according to] the places in which they were, and what pertains to their places through [their] rulership of the twelve signs: because each planet conveys the nature of its own sign, provided that it aspects the sign. But one which did not aspect the sign [does not convey] the likeness of its nature by vision and desire and thought, if God wills".
(Umar Al-Tabari, Benjamin Dykes PhD trans., p.34-35 PN II, emphasis mine)

This is very intriguing passage. We know that the vision, i.e. aspect of the planet to its own domicile is of great importance in regard of that planet having, to say it, organizational dominion over the matters of the house which rules. But in this particular place Umar speaks of the conveying the nature of the planet's own sign, if happens to aspect it. If not, then "it does not convey".
Masha'allah in his treatise on Reception speaks about some kind of "mitigating" of aversion through a planet which actually aspects that sign and to which this lord [of that particular sign] is joined. It is interesting to see that in a few paragraphs before the one I quoted above, Umar is showing disagreements with Masha'allah on a subject of choosing
from which planet to direct or profect. Masha'allah [according to Umar] advised to direct from the Lord of the Exaltation of Ascendant [or Lot of Father or Mother and etc.], from the Lord of the Triplicity or from the Lord of the Bound, "namely, from the rays of the one whose aspect [into the rising sign] was closer to the degree of the Ascendant".

But Umar says that this opinion is not valid, because it can happens that no one of this would aspect the Ascendant, Lot of Father or Mother [and etc].

The reason I'm drawing attention to this particular place in Umar's work is that it reminds me of the thing Martin expressed in the quote above and in this one:

There are slightly different rules for 'problem cases' in different texts, but the basic five candidates are:

1. the domicile ruler of the profected ascendant;
2. the domicile ruler of the ascendant of the revolution;
3. the (main) triplicity ruler of the ascendant of the revolution;
4. the domicile ruler of the sect luminary of the revolution;
5. the domicile ruler of the ascendant of the radix.

A planet aspecting the ascendant of the revolution is always preferred to one not aspecting it. If several planets aspect, the one that is stronger and/or has more testimonies is preferred.

It seems out, that in what we have from the works of the Perso-Arabian period, the teaching about the rulers not being able to see the ascendant of the Revolution are here, but in some scattered and non ordered way. From the hints we are getting in the particular passages in these authors, we can see that they stressed the importance of the optical connection between the ruler and the sign: But one which did not aspect the sign [does not convey] the likeness of its nature by vision and desire and thought; though we still don't have the full picture of their own practice, and it is exciting that we are learning something new about this every day.