Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hello Tom,

Thank you for your complete answer! By the way, Ed Falis also gave me an answer about Regio's pole calculation on alt.astrology.moderated (which I calculation wrongly!) and then mentioned Kolev software and books (and of course, his'). So they are on my "whish list"!

Now, I have just had an email from G?rard Laffont today, an astrologer who worked with Henri-Joseph Gouchon from the 1970's until his death in 1978 (following a bad car accident, while he was finishing the writting of his "Pr?visions ? Longue ?ch?ance") and now extensively collaborate with Andr? Barbault (mundane astrology and cyclic patterns). He confirmed about the historical use of Naibod conversion rate.

For the History, Henri-Joseph Gouchon began to work with Naibod's rate and he experimentally ended using (Simmonite's?) radix speed of the Sun...

Francois,

My program doesn't have to be on your wish list: it's free.

I consider Rumen a teacher of mine.

- Ed

Ed F wrote:My program doesn't have to be on your wish list: it's free. I consider Rumen a teacher of mine.

Hello Ed,

Thanks to remaind it. I already downloaded it with its update, and use for few years now. Since I rather use Regio under the pole actually, I use Astroframes less often. Still, it is a great freeware, worth to use.

Ah, I understand now. Cheers!

Hi Wolfgang and all others,

I really appreciate your posting Rumen's comments here.
It helped me a lot, however after reading M.J. Makransky's book on Primary Directions(http://www.dearbrutus.com , click on books) I am a little bit confused.

Rumen said that the ancient and medieval astrologers directed the aspects:
"they take the TRINE of VENUS and move it with the
turning of the celestial sphere UNTIL it comes in a
'mundo' conjunction with THE SUN"
so the aspects are promissors.

In Makransy's "Primary Directions" book he says that there are
Mundane Aspectual Directions and Zodiacal Aspectual Directions (Page 29, first pdf).
"In a Mundane Aspectual Direction(MAD) the promissor is directed to a
point in mundane aspect to the significator, i.e., the number of
degrees in the aspect is added to the significator's mundane position
to obtain the mundane position of the aspect point."
"In a Zodiacal Aspectual Direction(ZAD) a zodiacal aspect of the
promissor (an ecliptic point) is directed to mundane conjunction with
the significator, i.e., the number of degrees in the aspect is added
to the promissor's longitude to obtain the longitude of the aspect
point."

So, according to M.J. Makransky(if I have interpreted his words well)
once he directs the aspects of promissors
to significators(MAD) and once he directs the promissor to the aspects
of significators(ZAD).
From Rumen's comments it seems that he (and the ancient and
medieval astrologers) always directed the aspects of the promissors to
significators and not the promissors to the aspects of the
significators. Should we make a distinction between MAD and ZAD like
Mr. Makransky did?

I sent this question to Rumen too, I am waiting for his answer and will post his reply here, but I am intereted in your opinions also.

Best regards,
Rob

rob wrote:From Rumen's comments it seems that he (and the ancient and medieval astrologers) always directed the aspects of the promissors to significators and not the promissors to the aspects of the
significators. Should we make a distinction between MAD and ZAD like
Mr. Makransky did?

Your quotation from Rumen Kolev describes the direction of zodiacal aspects, which were the only kind used prior to the 17th century. As far as I know, mundane angles ('aspects'), based on proportional semiarcs, were invented by Placidus. Kolev himself does use mundane aspects.

Traditional astrologers typically used aspects only as promissors. This ultimately goes back to the distinction between dexter and sinister aspects in Hellenistic astrology. A related discussion is found here:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3549

Your quotation from Rumen Kolev describes the direction of zodiacal aspects, which were the only kind used prior to the 17th century. As far as I know, mundane angles ('aspects'), based on proportional semiarcs, were invented by Placidus. Kolev himself does use mundane aspects.

Hi Martin

I have only very quickly skimmed this thread so I hope I am not misunderstanding your point, but I just noticed this comment and I am copying over something I wrote in another post a few years ago, in case it contributes something worthwhile to the discussion:


"The late 2nd century astrologer Antiochus, in part 15 of his Thesaurus, makes it clear there were three ways to determine aspects, the first of which is to determine them by degree, "in accordance with the Handy Canon of Ptolemy".

The second is the determination of ?temporal aspects? (ie, aspects ?in mundo? used by many traditional astrologers and particularly championed by Placidus de Titus). These, Antiochus says, can be traced to the doctrines of Antigonus (3rd cent. BC) and Phanes the Egyptian, showing that they have a very long heritage. Mundane aspects certainly don?t rely upon the relationships of the signs; they often contradict them because they are calculated by right ascension - so it is possible to have, say, a 'mundane square' between two planets which would be in trine or sextile according to zodiac definition.

The third, Antiochus says, ?is the zodiacal or common and universal differentia, in relation to which we are all in doubt?. Note the reference to ?doubt? which points to some element of widespread confusion. Rob Hand suggests ?he is addressing the question of the use of aspects by sign when they are beyond partile?.

The conclusion is that aspects could be determined by degree, by temporal ascension or by sign..?

(From the 4th page of an old thread on Combustion)

Martin Gansten wrote:Your quotation from Rumen Kolev describes the direction of zodiacal aspects, which were the only kind used prior to the 17th century. As far as I know, mundane angles ('aspects'), based on proportional semiarcs, were invented by Placidus. Kolev himself does use mundane aspects.

Thanks, zodiacal aspects are getting clearer now but I would also like to understand mundane aspects. I haven't managed to figure it out from Deb's comments. I wonder, is there a logical explanation why the promissor is directed to aspect of significator in mundo and not the aspect of promissor to significator in mundo?
Of course, the answer can be simply that this is the tradition. I suspect that a rationale can be given because for some reason the mundane-aspects belong to the significator but the zodiacal ones to the promissor.

I have just received Kolev's three booklets and have been avidly skimming through them. I will not pretend to be conversant with much of the maths involved but his explanations are clear enough on the basic principles. Its obvious Kolev comes out in favour of Placidean in mundo directions and I am in no position to disagree.

I know this might seem like trying to fly before I can crawl but one thing I didn't notice reference to in the Kolev booklets was directing to fixed stars? This seems to have been an important technique for medieval and renaissance astrologers. This certainly increases the number of important directions that might occur in a chart throughout a lifetime.

I have been reading this article by Anton Grigoryev on the subject.

http://www.worldastrology.net/articles/stardir.html

He concludes that Lilly was only directing zodically to the projected positions of the stars along the ecliptic. He , suggests Lilly had altered the method of Andrea Argolus which he claimed to be following by using zodiacal rather than in mundo directions. This is not that surprising as Lilly along with most of the early modern English astrologers seemed to exclusively project the stars position on to ecliptic and ignore their actual latitude.

However, Grigoryev calculates Argolus was actually using in mundo directions to fixed stars by calculating the planets and stars in mundo position. Very impressive I must say!

I suppose what I am wondering is what the Primary directions software out there can do in regards fixed stars? I can imagine how one might be able to calulate zodiacal directions to fixed stars if you knew the position of a planet/angle and used Lilly's method of simply projecting the position of the star on to the ecliptic. However, considering in mundo positions for both would seem a more complex but ultimately, more powerful way of directing to the fixed stars. Is there any software that sophisticated yet?

Hi Deb,

Thanks for the highly interesting link!

The second is the determination of ?temporal aspects? (ie, aspects ?in mundo? used by many traditional astrologers and particularly championed by Placidus de Titus). These, Antiochus says, can be traced to the doctrines of Antigonus (3rd cent. BC) and Phanes the Egyptian, showing that they have a very long heritage.

If this truly is a reference to mundane aspects as later used by Placidus, it is of immense importance. I have never heard of it before, nor am I aware of any medieval or Renaissance astrologer (prior to Placidus) using such aspects. I don't have the Thesaurus myself -- would it be possible for you to provide the exact quotation, or if not, at least the exact place? Many thanks in advance!

rob wrote:I wonder, is there a logical explanation why the promissor is directed to aspect of significator in mundo and not the aspect of promissor to significator in mundo? Of course, the answer can be simply that this is the tradition.

There isn't much of a tradition for mundane directions -- not when compared to zodiacal ones, anyway.

Mundane 'aspects' aren't really aspects in the usual sense, but rather proportions in the respective semi-arcs of two planets. There is no mundane 'aspect point' which can be directed, the way a zodiacal aspect point (i.e., a certain degree on the ecliptic) can. Rather, as the promissor reaches a point in its semi-arc (which is divided into three Placidean houses) corresponding to the position of the significator in its own semi-arc, they are considered to be in aspect. A distance of two houses is a sextile; of three houses, a square; etc.

MarkC wrote:I suppose what I am wondering is what the Primary directions software out there can do in regards fixed stars? I can imagine how one might be able to calulate zodiacal directions to fixed stars if you knew the position of a planet/angle and used Lilly's method of simply projecting the position of the star on to the ecliptic. However, considering in mundo positions for both would seem a more complex but ultimately, more powerful way of directing to the fixed stars. Is there any software that sophisticated yet?

I am not aware of any software that does this yet, but Anton Grigoryev mentioned some time ago that a new and rather comprehensive program for primary directions is under development in Russia. Fingers crossed!