I don't often get open letters. Hi Tom. Hope you're well.

I only have version 6 of Placidus, so I can't replicate what you are doing exactly, but for the direct directions at least I think you should generally get results quite close to those of Worsdale (unless, of course, he bungles it, which he may have done sometimes but not all or most of the time). Do you know if the arcs of direction are different too, or just the hit dates?

Tom wrote:From your book I understand, if I read it correctly, that Worsdale cast Placidan under the pole of the significator directions and I think he used the key of Placidus which is variable.

Yes, that's right. And his tables shouldn't be that wrong either. If you'd like to give an example (perhaps posting an image of the result you get with Kolev's software), I'll try to look into it.

Good evening,

Using Janus 4.3 software i have begun re-casting Mr John Worsdale's charts from his short book with four case studies:

A collection of remarkable nativities. Calculated according to the rules and precepts of Claudius Ptolemy, proving the truth and verity of astrology, in its genethliacal part.

The results differ somewhat, as one can expect due to different ephemerides used, but not so much as Mr Tom has indicated. For example, i had to advance the birth time of Mr Robert Twelves, the first case study, by one minute 47 seconds from 12h37m to 12h38m47s.

Best regards,

lihin

Tom wrote:I'm doing fine thanks and I hope you are too. I appreciate the offer and I"ll take you up on it later today, assuming this isn't the last day. Thanks again.

It is difficult to check by hand because we don't have the value of the promissor under the pole of the significator, so we cannot see how the numbers are rounded.

I see in every case from the examples that the oblique ascension of the planet under its own pole is taken with its latitude. I checked with Morinus.

Let us see your example.
margherita

Good evening,

In his long book

Celestial Philosophy or Genethliacal Astronomy

Mr John Worsdale gave a rather long list of primary directions for each nativity in contrast to the short work mentioned above where he only showed the directions immediately germane to the events discussed in each case study.

For the nativity of Mr Robert Twelves the directions given, the first used to rectify the birth time, are:

The Ascendant directed to the opposition of Saturn

The Sun directed to the parallel of Mars, in the zodiac, the killing direction at age 4 years, 9 months.

Other possible listed killing directions would have occurred later:

The Sun to the parallel of the Moon in mundo, direct motion

The Sun to the parallel of the Moon in mundo, converse direction

The Sun to the quartile of Saturn in the zodiac, direct motion

The Sun to the quartile of Saturn in mundo, direct direction

The Sun conjunct to the fixed star Hercules [Ras Algethi], direct motion.

The Sun is the Epikratetor (hyleg) of the nativity. The above primary directions are listed by Janus when one selects the corresponding options, ex. gr. Placido in mundo or in zodiaco. Since i am studying the short book first like an introduction, i cannot yet assist on the methods used in the long one.

Best regards,

lihin

Tom wrote:OK I learned something. Worsdale?s conception of converse is different than Kolev?s.

Yes. Kolev is a modern in that respect: when he says converse, he means against the primary motion. Worsdale uses the traditional terminology: if the promissor is moved with the primary motion, it's a direct direction; if the significator (e.g., the hyleg) is moved with the primary motion, it's a converse direction. Worsdale never directs against the primary motion.

When I reverse what Worsdale says about what planet is directed to what the results are a lot closer.

Again, in traditional terminology, the significator (planet signifying something) is always said to be directed to the promissor (planet promising something), irrespective of which point is actually moved with the primary motion.

So Moon to Mars direct according to Worsdale is Mars to Moon direct according to Kolev, etc.

Yes.

Placidus? results are further apart when we look to the report as Worsdale describes them but one is direct one is converse. So what gives here?

The ones that Worsdale calls converse, Kolev would call direct, but with significator and promissor swapping places. The ones that Kolev calls converse are simply absent in Worsdale.

Page 65 Nativity of Joseph Kent.

That begins on p. 84 in my facsimile edition. Is it really on p. 65 in the first edition?

I'll post separately on the directions you list.

For some reason I can't get Placidus 6 even to cast the chart correctly (I just get an error message; perhaps it's a bug), so I'll use Morinus instead.

As all the directions listed are mundane conjunctions/aspects, they are based on the actual semi-arc method. You can't calculate mundane aspects with the pole method.

Tom wrote:Worsdale: Moon to the body of Mars in Mundo direct direction: 7 years 0 Months (June 1824) Arc: 7 degrees 6 minutes

Placidus: Moon to the body of Mars Converse in mundo August 8 1825. Arc 8.46
Placidus: Mars to the Moon Direct May 12 May 1824 (7 years 11+ months)

Morinus gives an arc of 7.066 = 7?04? and a hit date in April, 1824. But Joseph Kent would have been just under 7 years in the spring of 1824, not just under 8.

Worsdale: Moon to the body of Saturn in Mundo Converse: 10 yrs 8 months (Feb 1828) arc 10.56)

Placidus Moon to Saturn Direct: Jan 17 1828 arc 11.00
Placidus: Saturn to Moon Converse: April 21 1828 11.27

Morinus gives an arc of 11.017 = 11?01? and a hit date in January, 1828, just like Placidus.

Worsdale: Moon to the square of Mercury in mundo Direct: 1 yr 0 months (June 1818) arc 1 degree 0 minutes.

Placidus: Moon to the square of Mercury in mundo converse: April 10 1819 (arc 1.09)
Placidus: Mercury to the square of the Moon in mundo direct: June 27 1818; age 1 yr 0 months arc 1.09

Morinus gives 1.017 = 1?01? and a hit date in June, 1818, just like Placidus.

Worsdale: Sun to the square of Saturn direct direction: 2 years 0 months (June 1819) Arc: 2 degrees 1 minute.

Placidus: Sun to the square of Saturn converse motion (May 26 1818) Arc: 1.0
Placidus: Saturn to the square of the Sun direct: March 30 1819;1 year 9 months Arc 1.87

Morinus gives 1.996 = 2?00? and a hit date in May, 1818, just like Placidus.

Worsdale: Sun to the square of the Moon in mundo direct: 12 years 6 months (Dec 1829)
Placidus: Sun to the square of the Moon in mundo converse Aug 1828 arc 11.64

Placidus: Moon to the Square of the Sun in mundo direct Oct 18, 1829; 12 years 4 months Arc 12.82

Morinus gives 12.964 = 12?58? and a hit date in December, 1829. I can't say why Placidus differs slightly here.

Good morning,

For information i did a study on differences amongst primary directions data produced by some astrology softwares including Janus, Morinus and Placidus. I brought these differences to the attention of the various developers. Some simply ignored the problem, others got annoyed and said they had been mentored by such-and-such experts. Finally i was able to get matches within two days with two of the three. As Professor Gansten has mentioned, the definitions used in the various programmes for various kinds of primary directions are not identical. Nor are the underlying concepts of 'dates'.

Obviously, since primary directions are extremely time sensitive, such matters in my humble opinion would merit more serious attention.

In addition, not all programmes use the 'Swiss ephemerides'. Generally the differences with the ephemerides used by ex. gr. Phasis are very slight, even negligible, but on some occasions, ex. gr. with the Moon's position a few centuries back, they might be considered significant, especially when working with primary directions when the dates can differ up to one month by experience.

Pesky rough edges nearly everywhere.

Best regards,

lihin

Thank you Martin. The exercise is dong me some good. But this raises another question and it isn't so much a question as it's something I cant sem to get through my thick skull. I understand now that Kolev and Worsdale used different definitions of converse motion. But there is something getting in the way of my ability to understand the older concept.

For example in your book on page 5 under Significator and Promissor you write:

This is the case in every primary direction; there is always one moving point and one and one which remains fixed. Since the Middle Ages astrologers have used the terms promissor (or, less correctly, promittor and significator to differentiate between these two elements of direction. Unfortunately not all writers have employed these terms in the same way.

This is fine. Perfectly understood or so I think.

To older authors a significator (sometimes known as a moderator) is a planet, angle or other chart point signifying a certain area of life, and is considered the more passive element of a direction. ...

[page 6]

The promissor on the other hand is regarded as the active element determining the nature of the event. ....

In this context, however it is important to be aware of a possible source of confusion [I'll say -tc]. As the clockwise primary motion causes the signs of the zodiac to pass over the fixed place of the significator, that place seems to move anti-clockwise or forward in the signs. Classical authors envisioning directions from this point of view of the significator speak of directing a significator to the promissor l(for example the ascendant directed to the Moon [in the example in the book - tc], although it is clear from their examples that they are in fact observing the promissor (the Moon) being carried by the movement of the celestial sphere towards a fixed significator 9the horizon of the ascendant.

OK even this makes sense. The horizon is a point. It doesn't move (from our viewpoint). The zodiac moves over it. Planets however are more complex as they move with the zodiac unless we envision them as fixed and then the zodiac moves over them. Then we move to page 7


Direct and Converse

As already noted, the zodiacal signs are carried clockwise across the significator producing the impression that the significator is moving forward in the zodiac. Ptolemy therefore called this motion 'into the following signs'; later generations of astrologers called this right or direct motion

Still with you.

In the second type of direction, it is the significator which is carried clockwise towards a promissor with the same primary motion from east to west.

Whoa! I thought the signifcator was fixed??? If as stated above astrologers assign one word to an active or moving planet and that word is promissor, and one word to a passive planet, and that word is significator, then how can we "carry" the significator to the promissor? Even if later astrologers reverse the meanings, they should be consistent.

In the examples in the book the Moon, positied below the ASC is directed to the ASC we have an example of the promissor (the Moon) being directed to the ASC (significator) in direct motion. IF we direct the ASC to the Moon, which I understand is converse, how can it be that we are directing in the same order of the zodiac? You reply (sorry if I'm putting incorrect words in your mouth. In fact I probably am but this is the way I understand it and I"m sure I"m understanding it wrong or I wouldn't be writing), we aren't really directing the ASC we're directing the Moon to the ASC. Well then how is converse different from direct, then?

In my mind, and I know this is where my mistake is I just can't figure out how, in order for the above to be possible, the Moon has to switch from promissor to significator in order to meet the above definitions. But in that case we are moving backwards in the zodiac from the ASC to the Moon. Or if we're still moving from the Moon to the ASC, then there is no difference in the two directions. Yet there are differences in timing as the printout shows in Placidus.

I'm going to stop because I'm not sure that I'm explaining myself as well as I should be able to and hope this makes some sense to you. If not and you want me to try to clarify it, I'll give it a shot. Regardless I genuinely appreciate your time and expertise and thank you for answering my previous questions.

I forgot this:

That begins on p. 84 in my facsimile edition. Is it really on p. 65 in the first edition?

No I don't know what happened there: probably a typo or I was looking at the wrong book. My desk is usually a mess. I don't use the original for work - only display or if I can't read the facsimile. I use the Ascella edition for work. However the Ascella edition does not contain the tables and a few other things that are in the back of the original. In the original, the chart for Joseph Kent is on page 84.