Good evening,

I share Ms Margherita's scepsis (although this word does not exist in the English language, 'scepticism' implies something more than what i wish to express). In any case it seems to me that, should software makers wish to include this technique of Placido, it would better be as a complement rather than a replacement.

Best regards,

lihin

Worsdale's logic could be much simpler.

If a signifactor is being moved to a place that is neither it's own or that of the promittor,then, why tether it to its own pole.Let it have the latitude of the said degree which answers to the declination of the promittor.

PD

pankajdubey wrote:Worsdale's logic could be much simpler.

If a signifactor is being moved to a place that is neither it's own or that of the promittor,then, why tether it to its own pole.Let it have the latitude of the said degree which answers to the declination of the promittor.

PD

The method followed by Morinus/Phasis/Placidus gives the same declination too, but being "zodiacal" gives latitude 0, the point is taken on the ecliptic.

Good morning,

Placido di Titi was the author of this method of zodiacal parallels directions, not Mr John Worsdale, who applied it, although the latter, like Placido, claimed to follow Klaudios Ptolomaios. If we wish to simplify someone's logic, Placido would be the likely candidate.

Mr Worsdale, (a Christian protestant Englishman) who scarcely mentioned Placido (a Christian Roman Catholic Italian), perhaps due at least partially to pervasive theological-religious influences, published his poetic eulogy of Ptolemy on pages xix - xx, To the Memory of the Immortal Ptolemy.

Mr Worsdale listed the direction as Moon to the Parallel of Mars in the Zodiac. The Moon, Hilaj (Epikratetor), clearly the Significatrix, is directed to the (contra-)parallel of Declination of Mars, the Promittor, as Placido described. In the translation quoted by Professor Gansten, the "declination of the promittor" is stated to determine the latitude and longitude of the parallel. From Mr Petr's calculations we indeed see that the Significatrix Moon was directed to the contra-parallel of declination of the Promittor Mars. Did Placido not distinguish between parallels and contra-parallels of declination?

Perhaps Professor Gansten would like to comment on the 'multiple innovations' included in this method of Placido.

Best regards,

lihin

margherita wrote:

pankajdubey wrote:Worsdale's logic could be much simpler.

If a signifactor is being moved to a place that is neither it's own or that of the promittor,then, why tether it to its own pole.Let it have the latitude of the said degree which answers to the declination of the promittor.

PD

The method followed by Morinus/Phasis/Placidus gives the same declination too, but being "zodiacal" gives latitude 0, the point is taken on the ecliptic.

Is Worsdale trying to confuse us between a "terrestrial latitude" and a "celestial latitude" or is he mixing the two ?

It seems MarkC,Maurice McCann , Astrojin and Kirk etc have been at it before:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... c&start=15

There was a Declination Special Group as well.

http://www.astrologer.com/aanet/pub/jou ... inners.htm

In a nutshell, declination is a form of latitude rather than longitude. It is the measurement of planets north or south of the celestial equator, which is the Earth"s equator extended into space. It is worth remembering that when we talk of an exact conjunction of planets in a zodiac sign?for example the Moon and Saturn in Leo?these would not necessarily be conjunct in the sky. They would be conjunct by longitude (maybe appearing one above the other) but not necessarily conjunct by latitude or declination.* Similarly, the Moon and Saturn may be conjunct by declination (parallel to each other) but from different zodiac signs and therefore not conjunct by longitude. Separately either of these types of "conjunction" (longitude conjunction, declination parallel) has an equal force, but the strongest possible conjunction in astrology is when two planets are conjunct by longitude and parallel by declination at the same time. They would then appear to be conjunct in the sky. This may also help to explain why some transits seem stronger than others.

I have Martin Lewicki's CD on and would have to go through it -again.

pankajdubey wrote:Is Worsdale trying to confuse us between a "terrestrial latitude" and a "celestial latitude" or is he mixing the two ?

No, he's not mixing them. If you can articulate what it is you find confusing, perhaps I can explain it.

Martin Gansten wrote:

pankajdubey wrote:Is Worsdale trying to confuse us between a "terrestrial latitude" and a "celestial latitude" or is he mixing the two ?

No, he's not mixing them. If you can articulate what it is you find confusing, perhaps I can explain it.

I was thinking that if Declination is a form of Latitude than longitude ,then, is Worsdale converting the declination to longitude so that he can find a latitude for directing Zodiacally with latitude(rather than take it as a Zero).

And

p222 and 223 of Appendix of his book:

various have hitherto been the....by Ptolemy and followed by the learned Placidus who says That the Moderators whose Motion is latitudinal whilst they are moved by the Direction advance above their true and real Way which is that of its successive Latitude I say successive Latitude by Reason that it is not always the same in the Nativity or in the Beginning of the Direction's Motion but is changed according as such Prorogators vary the Distance from their Nodes from which Words I conceive sufficient may be gathered to assure us that in such cases we are always to find the Place of the Direction according to Longitude and Latitude that is according to the Latitude of the Significator in the Direction's s Place and this Method of Calculation is certainly agreeable to Reason and also Experience Here follow the Directions with the Measure of Timea

pankajdubey wrote:I was thinking that if Declination is a form of Latitude than longitude ,then, is Worsdale converting the declination to longitude so that he can find a latitude for directing Zodiacally with latitude(rather than take it as a Zero).

No, it's nothing like that. I don't know who said that declination is 'a form of latitude', but all s/he meant was probably that declination is measured above and below a great circle (like latitude) rather than along a great circle (like longitude). Right ascension and declination relate to the equator like longitude and latitude relate to the ecliptic.

What Worsdale is doing, following Placidus, is quite simple, albeit somewhat contra-intuitive: he finds out where the Moon will actually be in the sky when (by its proper or secondary motion) it reaches the natal declination of Mars, and then he uses that point as promissor in the direction. The contra-intuitive thing about this is that the direction, which was completed within half an hour of birth, has a promissor defined by a motion that took place several days later. But then Placidus' equation of time (key) works after the same principle.

lihin wrote: From Mr Petr's calculations we indeed see that the Significatrix Moon was directed to the contra-parallel of declination of the Promittor Mars.

In effect here (both in the standard method without latitude or in this method with latitude) the promissor is not Mars.

The promissor is a point which has Mars declination, but another longitude, which depends on the fact we use a latitude or we take it on the ecliptic, without latitude

margherita

Good morning,

Ms Margherita, would you agree that, if the Promittor is not Mars, it is nevertheless determined by Mars and has his qualities?

If not, what or who is the Promittor and what could be its symbolic meaning?

Sig. Placido di Titi and Mr John Worsdale as far as i can see would have considered or did consider Mars as the Promittor in the direction we are studying. Mr Worsdale included it amongst the three killing directions.

Of course a case could can be made to consider this type of directions to parallels a rather artificial construction.

Best regards,

lihin

lihin wrote:Good morning,

Ms Margherita, would you agree that, if the Promittor is not Mars, it is nevertheless determined by Mars and has his qualities?

Obviously yes. I just meant that the point which we move is somewhere else.

And personally I'm not fond of parallels, neither in nativities or directions. We have already so many points to use...

margherita

Good evening,

I agree with Ms Margherita and also use no parallels of declination in practice. (Also i do not use nodes of any kind as to include the nodes of one wandering star to the exclusion of the others would not be a coherent approach and the inclusion of all of them would be beyond my mental capabilities.) However, if Mr John Worsdale in following Sig. Placido di Titi made consistent, coherent use of them as part of his methods of primary directions, one can scarcely object. One can simply attempt to follow the author to understand his astrological system and how well it works within its own framework. For me personally, the forest of primary directions generated by Mr Worsdale's system is too thick.

Concerning ecliptical latitude, not parallels of it, Klaudios Ptolomaios stated that a conjunction should be recognised only when all the participating bodies have northern or southern ecliptical latitude. Here is the relevant text from Tetrabiblos, Book I, Section 24, in the English translation by Professor Frank Robbins, emphasis added:

24. "Of Applications and Separations and the Other Powers.

In general those which precede 127 are said to "apply" 128 to those which follow, and those that follow to "be separated" from those that precede, when the interval between them is not great. 129 Such a relation is taken to exist whether it happens by bodily conjunction 130 or through one of the traditional aspects, except that with respect to the bodily applications and separations of the heavenly bodies it is of use also to observe their latitudes, in order that only those passages may be accepted which are found to be on the same side of the ecliptic. 131 In the case of applications and separations by aspect, however, such a practice is superfluous, because all rays always fall and similarly converge from every direction upon the same point, that is, the centre of the earth. 132"

For example, in the geniture of Master Joseph Kent, both Moon and Saturn have southern ecliptical latitude, 4? 53' and 1? 34' respectively, validating the separating conjunction. One could comment on the delineations of these latitudes but this would drift off topic.

Mr J M Ashmand's translation with the footnote give us, however, a somewhat different understanding than the above translation:

"... except that, in the application and separation of the bodily conjunction, it is also essential to observe the actual latitudes of the bodies, in order to receive and consider only such a transit as may be made in the same parts of the zodiac. 3

3 On this, Whalley says that "the less the difference of latitude of the planets in conjunction, the more powerful will be the influence: for if two planets in conjunction have each considerable latitude of different denomination, the influence of such conjunction will be much lessened."

The original ancient Greek text is HERE. Perhaps someone fluent in this language and in astrology will inform us concerning the translations.

Of course, ecliptical latitude and equatorial declination relate to different coordinate systems. Nevertheless, the celestial bodies do not change positions because one expresses them in various coordinates.

Best regards,

lihin