PFN wrote:Martin and Margherita, I'd like to ask when the use of AC and MC as promissors was first introduced in the history of Primary Directions. Has it always been there, is old or relatively new?

Just to be clear on the terminology, the angles can never be promissors in the traditional sense, that is, the active element in a direction. But I think you use 'promissor' to mean 'the point carried along with the primary motion' (the way Rumen Kolev does) -- correct?

The earliest examples of someone directing the natal degrees of the angles that I can recall seeing derive from ar-Rij?l (Haly Abenragel) in the 11th century. He directs the cusps of the intermediate houses in the same way. There may well have been others before him, but the practice has definitely been around for the past millennium.

Martin Gansten wrote: Just to be clear on the terminology, the angles can never be promissors in the traditional sense, that is, the active element in a direction. But I think you use 'promissor' to mean 'the point carried along with the primary motion' (the way Rumen Kolev does) -- correct?

I guess this should be because angles are generally considered like fixed, cardines (in English you have this word? there is no better way to explain this idea like the Italian cardine) of the sky.

When we are in the Eastern side - the direct direction according Ptolemy, we move planets towards the Ascendant or MC- planets move - promissors- and angles are unmovable. When we are in the Western side- the horimea- we move the significator (of life) to the Descendant - which again remains fixed.

Angles are like pillars of the chart in every sense.

margherita

Thanks Martin, you grasped what I was trying to ask correctly.

Thanks Steven for this informations as well, I was wondering why not direct house cusps and parts since the MC and AC could be directed according to some source, and as you explained, it can be done, and there is a history to back it up.

And thanks Margherita for your insights as well.

margherita wrote:I guess this should be because angles are generally considered like fixed, cardines (in English you have this word? there is no better way to explain this idea like the Italian cardine) of the sky.

(....)

Angles are like pillars of the chart in every sense.

They are for the direct experience of how we see the skies. Perhaps in a more 'earthy' or materialized/manifestated way (concrete events). However in most astrology I prefer to see the 0?Aries/Libra and the ecliptic as the pillars of the chart, because it serves as the basis for synastry, transits, progressions and for the movement of MC and Asc and as I see it hence also for the primary directions.

'Cardinal' is also used for the signs I believe.

Good evening,

Since Cyril Fagan's mundoscope has been cited, perhaps one may dare refer to other heretics who used clockwise houses, e.g. Jacques Dorsan, Luc Audy and Marie Delclos, all of whom work with so-called 'sidereal' zodiacs of equal signs. They partially based the use of clockwise houses on the work of another heretic, Michel Gauquelin, whose research showed that planetary effects are most powerful just before and, above all, after the angles in diurnal clockwise motion, i.e. in counter-clockwise cadent houses.

Here, one might consider applying Ptolemy's five degree rule but on the other side of the angles. Jacques Dorsan preferred Campanus houses but explicitly mentioned the issue of planets rising, culminating etc. in mundo whilst situated before these places in zodiaco, or vice versa.

Cyril Fagan discussed the octotopon eight house clockwise system using Hellenistic delineations. Dr. Patrice Guinard developed an eight house clockwise system with modern psychological delineations. Reinhard Ebertin dispensed with houses altogether and relied on the natural significations of the planets for topical delineations.

Two more astrological 'heretics', Dr. med. Editha Torsson, a German physician/astrologer, and Maria Thun, a German astrologer specialised in mundane agro-astrology, (deceased 2012) work(ed) with the unequal astronomic constellations instead of equal signs (tropical or 'sidereal'). Aur?as astrology software (Paris) supports unequal constellations and houses based thereon.

My humble experience to date has been that, if one wishes to use houses at all, whole sign counter-clockwise houses work well but not when used clockwise. Of the 12-house quadrant systems, Campanus and Regiomontanus work well clockwise, Alcabitius and Porphyry less. When planets are near angles, one should of course check the in mundo positions. If one uses symbolism originally derived from the constellations, e.g. bi-corporeal, human, forward- or backward-looking etc., delineation of planets in constellations is the most accurate. Border positions of planets between two constellations are in themselves worthy of special delineation. Comparing the planets' heliocentric positions in constellations ('prototype') to the geocentric ones ('production') gives useful additional insight.

Of course the unequal astronomic constellations are, except for ingresses, ill suited for timing purposes. Moreover, many if not most people are very attached to symmetry, order and the like (Pythagorism and Platonism) and find unequal constellations, Black Moons, Centaurs and similar rather eccentric and irregular phenomena antipathetic.

Best regards,

lihin

Dear Sir,

If as Moderator you wish to transfer my post to another section, i would have no objections. Previously in the thread there have been several posts mentioning astrological heretics and their ideas, so i presumed that my post would not be off topic. Even up to say the early 19th century (e.g. John Worsdale) there were already heated, occasionally polemic, differences of opinions amongst astrological authors who considered themselves 'traditional'.

Best regards,

lihin

Good morning,

Fine, we can leave out the current and the 20th, and the portions of 19th century influenced by Mme H. P. Blavatsky et al.

But what exactly is 'traditional' astrology? Is e. g. Babylonian astrology, that differs from Hellenistic in several important respects, 'traditional'?

What about Renaissance innovations?

Etymologically, 'tradition' means transmission by saying, diction, mostly by word of mouth. Some would include transmission by writing but this might exclude a living chain from teacher to pupil.

Best regards,

lihin

lihin wrote: But what exactly is 'traditional' astrology? Is e. g. Babylonian astrology, that differs from Hellenistic in several important respects, 'traditional'?

What about Renaissance innovations?

Etymologically, 'tradition' means transmission by saying, diction, mostly by word of mouth. Some would include transmission by writing but this might exclude a living chain from teacher to pupil.

Lihin

Have you read the sticky thread at the top of the forum, entitled: "Please read before posting in this forum"
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1877

In it, Tom addresses some of these questions. In particular:

Tom wrote:?Traditional astrology? is a pretty broad topic, so we?ll offer a rough definition as follows: the type of astrology practiced prior to 1700 and everything between 1700 and Alan Leo is close enough to count as traditional with a few exceptions. This type of astrology uses the table of dignities, planetary strength, and is somewhat more involved with events in the native?s life than with motivation for behavior.

Good day,

This type of astrology uses the table of dignities ...

If i have understood correctly, both Babylonian and Hellenistic astrologies would be excluded by this definition, as neither includes tables (which would be 'the' table?) of dignities, such systems with allotment of points having been introduced, to the best of my feeble knowledge, during the Mediaeval period.

So, for the purposes of this section of the forum, is 'traditional astrology' limited from Mediaeval until say W. J. Simmonite whilst excluding late 19th century astrologers subject to a pervasive influence of Mme Blavatsky's theosophism?

Best regards,

lihin

lihin wrote:Good day,

This type of astrology uses the table of dignities ...

If i have understood correctly, both Babylonian and Hellenistic astrologies would be excluded by this definition, as neither includes tables (which would be 'the' table?) of dignities, such systems with allotment of points having been introduced, to the best of my feeble knowledge, during the Mediaeval period.

Well what are you considering the hellenistic period to be? Would you accept Ptolemy as being part of the Hellenistic period rather than the Medieval period? If so surely you would accept Ptolemy's Table of dignities? Whilst it's true that there is no 'THE' table of dignities, I think we can all understand what Tom is getting at, which is to distinguish a traditional approach from a modern or psychological one which tends to not use the dignities (other than domicile and from time to time throwing in exaltation).

These examples of using dignities etc, are just that, examples, or as Tom puts it, a guideline. It's possible that you have still not read that post in its entirety. I've already posted what Tom and the forum consider to be tradition, but for the sake of clarity I'll do it again:

Tom wrote:?Traditional astrology? is ...the type of astrology practiced prior to 1700 ... the accuracy of this definition is not important; it is only a guideline.

So anything pre-1700 can be considered more or less traditional, which isn't to say that this tradition isn't rich and complex and evolving and changing from one period to another.