james_m wrote:thanks paul. that is true, but i don't think all time lords are implied with only profections.. that was what i was trying to say. it is certainly not how i think of how indian astrologers are using these terms. as a matter of fact, i haven't read any use of profections in indian astrology. maybe they do use profections, but i see the use of the word firdaria and vedic dasas and think time lords more then i think of a profection lord for the year.. maybe curtis or someone else more knowledgeable can comment..

Hi James

Apologies if I was unclear, I was advising to pay attention to when a planet becomes any time lord. I had in mind one particular type of time lord, namely profections. But I didn't want to specify one in particular as the same concept applies broadly to any of them.

I hope that makes more sense. Martin's post should provide additional insight into this as well. Really it's a simple idea, any planet which 'rules' over a time period is a time lord. Annual Profections include the concept of a Lord of the Year, a planet which has rulership over a year, and is one kind of time lord system.

thanks paul and martin,

so how does one figure out which one is the '''top dog'' time lord? perhaps the more knowledgeable members who uses these different systems of defining time lords can comment. thanks.

james_m wrote:so how does one figure out which one is the '''top dog'' time lord? perhaps the more knowledgeable members who uses these different systems of defining time lords can comment. thanks.

To Ptolemy and the many astrologers who followed his system (with variations and elaborations) throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance, primary directions are definitely at the top. (Actually, the 'seven ages of man' are at the very top, but they are quite generic in nature -- basically they're a way of astrologizing the universal human experience of growing up and growing old.) Then annual profections, then monthly and daily profections (if you bother with those); and transits are relevant in relation to all of these.

martin,

thanks. i realize we are moving the conversation in a different direction, but i think skyscript readers here will find this interesting.. do you consider the primary directions in effect for a certain period of time the same as time lords? is that how ptolemy or valens would have thought of reading primary directions in relation to the idea of the chronocrat?r?

for anyone interested in the 'seven ages of man' comment of martins - it seems to be a reference to shakespeare's 'as you like it' reference which in turn is from the concept of planetary ages of man which i do recall reading about over the many years in astrological literature.. both are contained in this link below which gives the different lengths of times the planets are said to rule over..

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/dictiona ... of-man.php

Link to a good explanation of Ptolemy's use of 'Seven ages of man':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrabiblo ... dentals.29
(Begins 4th para down from top of this link)

Thanks for the link, Deb.

james_m wrote:do you consider the primary directions in effect for a certain period of time the same as time lords? is that how ptolemy or valens would have thought of reading primary directions in relation to the idea of the chronocrat?r?

Valens doesn't use primary directions as described by Ptolemy but describes a bewildering (at least to me) array of other chronocrator systems which I'll leave to others to sort out. But yes, Ptolemy considered the promissors by direction to be rulers of periods of time. If a significator -- say, the ascendant -- is directed to the body or aspect of any planet, then that planet would be considered to govern the significator in question until it is directed to the next planet by body or aspect; and the rulers of the terms (or bounds) in which these directions take place are given part of the rulership.

Later authors (possibly following Dorotheus, who of course was earlier than Ptolemy) emphasize the terms more than Ptolemy does. To them, the important questions are [1] which planet rules the current terms of the significator (that planet is called the divisor) and [2] which planet or planets occupy or cast their rays into those terms. The combination of two or more planets sets the tone of the period. These authors would not typically consider an earlier promissor still to be a chronocrator, unless (as al-Qab??? says) it is 'in the division [= terms] or near the position before it'.

Martin, Valens does describe the use of 'Circumambulations' (directing using the rising times of the signs) to determine the length of life. It is basically the same concept as directing the Hyleg through the bounds though obviously the method of calculation is different. It is described in book III, ch. 3.

Konrad wrote:Martin, Valens does describe the use of 'Circumambulations' (directing using the rising times of the signs) to determine the length of life. It is basically the same concept as directing the Hyleg through the bounds though obviously the method of calculation is different.

Yes. Ptolemy explicitly rejects that calculation as over-simplified. But of course the idea of some sort of motion through the terms is similar.

As you mention the hyleg (or aphetes, to give it its Greek name), perhaps we should also point out that Ptolemy and later astrologers following him directed not only the chief hyleg (significator of life), but all the major significators: the ascendant, midheaven, Sun, Moon and Lot of Fortune. Some also directed the planets as significators, and various other Lots.

thanks for the wiki link deb.. i see your name is even mentioned in the long article itself and that one of the footnotes leads to an article you wrote for a publication in 94.. obviously you are into astro history!

martin - thanks! now i am confused as i get the impression there can be many time lords in operation at the same time. i do recall reading the dykes translations and rulers of the terms having rulership over certain times based on different factors.. do i have that right that there can be a number of signifactors in operation at the same time? i think there can be, but i have to ask..

what i do find fascinating is the thought that some of these systems established for time lords did or didn't continue on for different reasons.. also, i always thought ptolemy was before dorotheus, not after.. maybe i read your post wrong or just didn't know this.

james_m wrote:martin - thanks! now i am confused as i get the impression there can be many time lords in operation at the same time. i do recall reading the dykes translations and rulers of the terms having rulership over certain times based on different factors.. do i have that right that there can be a number of signifactors in operation at the same time? i think there can be, but i have to ask..

Yes. In the Ptolemaic/medieval model, there are several significators (most importantly, the lights, angles, and Lot of Fortune). Each significator represents certain areas of life (though in practice, there is some overlapping). At any given time of life, each significator may be under the influence of one, two or even more chronocrators (time lords, including the divisor and promissor), which give malefic, benefic or mixed results. This is why your health may be poor while your finances are good and your love life middling, etc. In those relatively rare periods when most or all major significators are simultaneously under the sway of benefics (or malefics), almost every aspect of life will appear rosy (or dreadful).

also, i always thought ptolemy was before dorotheus, not after.. maybe i read your post wrong or just didn't know this.

No, Dorotheus wrote in the 1st century and Ptolemy in the 2nd. However, the Greek original of Dorotheus' work has not survived (except in fragments), so that the version we have is an interpolated third-hand translation that postdates Ptolemy by more than half a millennium.

thanks martin,

do you see the system you have outlined as competing with other systems or concepts of time lords that some in the astrological community are trying to re-introduce based on hellenistic literature that has been made available more recently? i am mostly thinking of curtis manwarrings software and the time lords that he has mentioned in passing here a few times. it seems to me the planetary ages of man or whatever one calls those time frames given in the link deb shared from wikipedia would have been a general system of time lords that are not as specific as the ones either you or curtis have talked about. thanks for elaborating anymore if you feel you have personal views on any of this that you'd like to share and thanks for what you have shared!

James,

here is an article by Bezza which outlines a coherent methodolgy designed to use the Hylegical points outlined by Martin, the profected ASC and revolutions as a hierarchy of time-lords: http://www.cieloeterra.it/eng/eng.artic ... zione.html