hi tzadde,

the ascendant ruler is a part of the group of planets in the 7th house. the ruler of those sag planets is also conjoined,(want to watch out for the grammar police here, lol) the midheaven as well. the moon is applying to the sun and separating from venus, so more fuel to the idea that this area - 7th house and 9th sign - sag are a prominent feature to the chart. mutual reception of jupiter/saturn in aq/sag is another part of it.

as for marrying a foreigner between the age of 18-20, i find it helpful to have the rationale for these ideas shared with fellow astrologers, but often it is not given.. as i understand it, the rationale is that sag is a sign representing a foreigner.. 18 is the degree distance between saturn and venus both in the 7th house area of the chart. 18 is also about the degree difference of ascendant to sun by opposition as well.. perhaps GR would like to offer the rationale for tossing that out..

in so far as sharing a chart might help clarify an ongoing question, i think tzadde's chart is helpful and would confirm my own bias on the answer here.

Tzadde wrote:Too much talk. Let's do some practice. What do you (all posters) say about this chart?

#

You are 26 years old so this idea that, in the long term, Venus will counter act the negative effects of Saturn might take a few more decades to assess.

Venus is also only in the 7th by Whole sign which I don't think Morin used?, so presumably his idea would not be applicable here anyway.

Am I missing something as regards the rationale for posting it on this thread?

Tzadde wrote:As far as I know, Morin disliked traditional astrology, so he was among the first modern astrologers in the history, if not the first.

Not Ptolmey then, who was also allegedly a touch irreverant as regards the 'tradition'?

tzadde,

Well I wasn't too far off. You're welcome.
so it was more of a impersonal long distance communication than foreign. Probably the influence of the Mercury-Saturn synod (conjunction). Sorry about the job troubles, sadly you're not alone in that regard. I wonder, have you emigrated from your birthplace? Not just a town over, I mean like a different country/state altogether. Or are you planing to?

James,

I was using the rationale of Jupiter being in the 9th place and in a domicile of Saturn. Also the profection of the Ascendant comes to the 9th at age 20(and the 7th before that at age 18), so I figured those would be good times for a relationship to manifest. Since the native is focused on relationships and other matters of the seventh house, as both the sect light and domicile lord of the ascendant are there, it made a good place to start riffing on.

Nixx wrote:Am I missing something as regards the rationale for posting it on this thread?

I have already responded this question in the first post of this page. My reply to GR, to be exact.

Nixx wrote:Not Ptolmey then, who was also allegedly a touch irreverant as regards the 'tradition'?

I guess we both have to admit that we don't know for sure whether he was following the tradition of his time or not. From reading articles for years, I think that he took the so-called "ptolemaic" terms from a very old manuscript, while he rationalized the entire astrology from a philosophical viewpoint, with little practical examples (or none at all). So there are arguments for Ptolemy being both traditional and innovative in his time, which are reasons for that controversy. I'd rather stay away from that.

GR wrote:so it was more of a impersonal long distance communication than foreign

Actually, we have met face to face after a session of chat. We have fallen in love in that moment, at first sight and first touch. We both live in the same city.
Before this, at 16-17 (high school time), I actually had a long distance communication with another person, the first who told me "I love you" by text chat... and that person lived in another city.

GR wrote:I wonder, have you emigrated from your birthplace? Not just a town over, I mean like a different country/state altogether. Or are you planing to?

Very close. Yes and no. Yes when I was 4 y.o. and I went back to my country when I was 6. In the meanwhile, I was moving through Europe, especially in France and Switzerland. And no, because after 6 y.o. I never went to another country (in 2008 I visited Austria just once).
I have to say, though, at 4 I was beginning to speak and my first words were in French, but now I don't know French at all. Well, because of this, most of my locals, when they hear me for the first time, believe I am a foreigner with that accent.
No, I don't plan to move to another country, I feel pretty comfy here, especially when I visited Austria I decided to stay here, in my home. I actually live in the same home since birth.

WHOA!! I did not receive any e-mail notes and had no idea there was so much activity on this thread until 3 minutes ago. I have a lot of reading to do, but I must take care of this first;

Kirk wrote:

I'm not trying to cleanse you of modern influences but am pointing out how they often still retain their hold upon us and influence us in ways we aren't aware of.

Allow me to disabuse you of your notions that I have gone soft and/or modern. The idea that having many planets in a house makes the house more important in the life isn't modern. I was paraphrasing Morin. There are two points to this. One is that having many planets in a house is going to catch the eye and if it does so, it does so for a reason - that might be modern. But that wasn't Morin's point.

Morin taught that position was more important than rulership. His reasoning was that if a planet in a house is hit by a direction or transit, the area of life most directly affected was not the house ruled by the planet but rather the house that held the planet. So if Venus is in the 2nd ruling the 5th and Venus is hit by a primary direction, the native will feel the effects primarily in the 2nd house area or wealth and 5th house stuff secondarily. So maybe your children (5th house) give you a lot of money (2nd house). Or you'll inherit money from the father (5th is the 2nd of the 4th).

Now if I have multiple planets in the second I am going to have one hit after the other in the second by direction, progression, or transit and my wealth or finances are going to feel it for a long time. If the rest of the planets are scattered in my chart, it isn't that nothing important will happen in those areas, or even that the most important event in my life won't happen in those areas, it's just that those areas will not feel the intensity and duration as the 2nd house will.


Anyone is, of course free to disagree with any of this, but it is not modern in the sense that we usually use that word, and there is something behind it.

I'm doing some business travel and will get to the other stuff as time permits. I'm glad for the interest.

Morin taught that position was more important than rulership. His reasoning was that if a planet in a house is hit by a direction or transit, the area of life most directly affected was not the house ruled by the planet but rather the house that held the planet.
. . .
Now if I have multiple planets in the second I am going to have one hit after the other in the second by direction, progression, or transit and my wealth or finances are going to feel it for a long time. If the rest of the planets are scattered in my chart, it isn't that nothing important will happen in those areas, or even that the most important event in my life won't happen in those areas, it's just that those areas will not feel the intensity and duration as the 2nd house will.

I see now, Tom, that you have kept yourself 'pure' from corrupting modern influences. You appear to be simply looking at importance through quantity and duration of events in the life. I thought you might be saying something along the lines of an emphasized 3rd, 6th, or 8th house showing the chart native to somehow be a 3rd, 6th, or 8th house person ? which commonly these days would also lead to the mistaken notion of an emphasis of air (3rd/Gemini), earth (6th/Virgo), or water (8th/Scorpio) because of the incorrect 'natural' association of signs and houses. It looks like Morin simply saw the potential for a lot of activity in that area of a person's life through events. In the current era many astrologers and astrology students also may see the potential for such activity regarding the emphasized house but in addition they assign personal qualities to the person through that house. The houses have become thoroughly 'psychologized', with all houses being used as sources of descriptive personal information that was previously the domain of the 1st house. For this reason an emphasized house is brought to the delineation foreground.

Anyway, that's what I was going on about. In the wider non-traditional astrology world a busy house now usually attracts the same attention and treatment as the Sun sign, Moon sign and rising sign. The difference between signs and houses is blurred, confused, distorted and corrupted [sigh].

Morin is at the end of 'traditional' astrology. Did earlier authors bother mentioning multiple planets in a house or were they secure enough in the belief that everyone would assume that more planets meant more activity? Maybe that Morin guy felt he had to spell it out for us.

I haven't read the other stuff on the thread yet. I just got back last night. Also, I have some advice, if, in a weak moment you consider removing your old wall to wall carpet and either replace it or decide to finish the wood floors - DON"T. Live with what you have otherwise, like me, you'll be trying to put 80% of your furniture into 20% of your living space. I expect to be offline in an hour or so and maybe not back for a few days.

Morin is at the end of 'traditional' astrology. Did earlier authors bother mentioning multiple planets in a house or were they secure enough in the belief that everyone would assume that more planets meant more activity? Maybe that Morin guy felt he had to spell it out for us.

I didn't want the thread to become one about Morin (but I would gladly start one about him if others might be interested), but these observations are worth discussing. I have this mental defense of Morin that I carry around, which is a response to the broadsides he usually endures. This is not to say that Kirk's remarks are included in this group. I'm just sayin' And this is not to say I think he is the only astrologer worth studying or that one cannot have a solid background in astrology without ever hearing of him. I do believe that some of the observations and criticisms of him are at times, inaccurate so I try to clear up things when I think I can.

Yes he died in 1656 and a lot of us use the arbitrary date of 1700 as sort of the "end" of traditional astrology, so in that sense he came at the end. And this may be part of the reason some people, not saying Kirk is one of them, believe he is not "traditional." I disagree with that profoundly, but a full defense is out of place here. He does, when we first encounter him, seem to go his own way and in some areas he definitely does, but he wasn't the first to do that nor the last. But being placed at the "end" of traditional astrology and looking at things a bit differently (but in my opinion still within the tradition), he could easily be mistaken for a radical. We also have to keep in mind that while his work was published in 1661, posthumously, it went largely ignored until the beginning of the 20th century, by which time the worldview that existed when it was written had long since disappeared.

What he does do in Astrologia Gallica is organize as many situations that he can that an astrologer is likely to encounter when reading charts. I don't know that any other astrologer ever did this. We can infer from other astrologers' writings how they thought we should delineate a house with many planets, but Morin discusses the topic specifically. I think this is one of his great strengths. We don't have to guess or infer how he would go about this. He tells us.

I'll pick on Lilly for a counterpoint. If we look at CA Book III on nativities, Lilly doesn't do this. He tells us about the houses individually, and what to look for. For example the 10th house: Both Lilly and Morin agree that the 10th house is where we look for honors (Morin) or preferment (Lilly). Lilly tells us of the effects of the different planets in the house, as well as what it means when no planets are in the house. But nowhere that I know of, does he tell his students how to delineate the 10th or any other if there are multiple planets in the house. The student is expected to work that out for himself perhaps using the many (for his day) charts and examples found throughout the book in conjunction with what he says specifically about the house.

Morin's approach is not to discuss the effects of each planet or a method of delineating that applies to one planet, many planets or no planets, but rather how to organize your thinking so that the effects of the planets makes sense. Again, I am not arguing one method of teaching is better than the other. The things that stick with me the most are the ones I've had to figure out myself. I am not arguing one astrologer is better than the other. The two men might have more in common than we think at first glance. Morin gives us a system. Lilly gives us practical experience. Knowledge of both can only help.

The earlier writers concentrated more on theory than on practice. The works written before the invention of the printing press tend to be, understandably, short. Rob Hand once opined that they might be study guides rather than self contained texts. The contemporary student has a lot of thinking to do with them in order to apply the ideas. There are very few example charts, and the writing style is, by contemporary standards, ponderous and frankly, dull. Since scribes had to copy the work over and over, there wasn't a lot of room for editorializing that we see in later works. And there is less room for specificity.

Lilly's approach is similar to Bonatti's. Bonatti did write prior to the invention of the printing press and he did write extensively, and in great detail. But I cannot find anything like the approach of Morin in his work although there is probably great similarity in general theory.

One thing Morin does that Bonatti and earlier Persian astrologers did was to work with hierarchy. Lilly does this too, but to me he seems more subtle about it. For example in a solar return, many old authors would select a ruler of the year, and emphasize the importance of that planet that year. In a nativity, the Lord of the Geniture or what moderns would call a "chart ruler" would be selected and that planet given special emphasis in any delineation. This hierarchy is also seen in Morin's approach to multiple planets in a house. Find the planet that is strongest. The other planets are subordinate to it. Then see how things work out in that area of life. Lilly spend a lot of time working with essential and accidental dignity and even gives us a chart on how to quantify it. Morin teaches us how to use it.

I think much of what Morin teaches specifically is in other authors work, but it is up to the student to pull it out and make use of it.

Gotta run. The unpaid mover (my son) is due shortly.

@Johnannes:

Tom wrote:
Morin says:
?? if a benefic follows a malefic the evil will also occur but the native will ultimately be freed from it.?

Tom, could you please, if possible and at hand, give the book of AG and the page of your quotation? Thanks a lot in advance.

Book 21 Section II Chapter 3 More Than One Planet in a House, page 53, Baldwin Translation AFA.My copy of Baldwin is dated 1974. I understand a new edition is available, and I don't know if the pagination follows the 1974 edition or not. IF not it is close to the end of the chapter about the third paragraph from the end.