Skyscript Astrology Forum

Posted: **Tue Aug 19, 2008 1:07 pm**

Deb wrote:But as I read Ptolemy's passage again with your comments in mind, it now makes perfect sense.

I am glad to hear it.

It has taken me a while to understand the various aspects of primary directions and their historical development. I hope that my book will help others 'with much ease to receive the benefit of my hard studies' -- as someone once put it.

Posted: **Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:50 pm**

Tom wrote:..
I think Ed knows Rumen Kolev, if Ed doesn't know, perhaps Kolev could shed some light on this subject.

Tom

I don't know the answer myself - I'm not much of an historian. Unfortunately, I have not had contact with Rumen in several years. I don't think from his books that he has any problem with using them, but that doesn't resolve the historical question of their provenance.

Posted: **Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:55 pm**

Martin Gansten wrote:
Deb wrote:But as I read Ptolemy's passage again with your comments in mind, it now makes perfect sense.
I am glad to hear it. It has taken me a while to understand the various aspects of primary directions and their historical development. I hope that my book will help others 'with much ease to receive the benefit of my hard studies' -- as someone once put it.

I think your explanation makes perfect sense as well.

Posted: **Tue Aug 19, 2008 9:36 pm**

Hi Martin,

Thanks for he clarification. I've never been comfortable going against primary motion either. Hell that's why we use the term primary directions. However, Morin et al didn't use that term. They simply said "directions." The term "primary directions" possibly came to use in order to differentiate them from secondary progressions. That is just a guess. But it would be out of character for Morin to use converse directions as we understand them. I think Worsdale used them though, both in zodiac and in mundo, but that was late 18th - early 19th century.

As Ed noted, Kolev doesn't have a problem with converse directions, and neither does Dr. H who directs both ways and has said his studies show that converse directions do produce results. Let's Look at a 12th house or 11th house Sun, the converse direction, in the modern sense, would be Sun to the ASC. What the astrologer would be determining, if he didn't have a computer to do it for him, is how much time prior to the birth was the Sun on the ASC? Whereas if the Sun were in the first house, the astrologer would direct the Sun to the ASC in direct motion and determine how much after the birth would the Sun be on the ASC. I suppose it sounds awfully modern to say it doesn't matter.

Tom

Posted: **Tue Aug 19, 2008 9:55 pm**

Personally, I don't use converse primaries much. Haven't convinced myself that they add much to the direct ones. My program shows both, though, in response to popular demand.

Posted: **Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:26 am**

Hi Tom,

Thanks for he clarification. I've never been comfortable going against primary motion either. Hell that's why we use the term primary directions. However, Morin et al didn't use that term. They simply said "directions." The term "primary directions" possibly came to use in order to differentiate them from secondary progressions. That is just a guess.

As far as I know, it is an accurate guess.

I believe the terms primary/secondary directions originated with Placidus (as did the idea of secondaries itself).

But it would be out of character for Morin to use converse directions as we understand them.

Actually, James Holden pointed out to me that there is at least one explicit reference to the use of ('modern') converse directions for rectification in AG 17. I haven't received my copy of the English translation yet, but I found the Latin here (under 'Problema II'):
http://www.svkol.cz/~petros/astrol/mori ... 010017.jpg
The phrase 'per directionem conversam Horoscopi ad Planetam in duodecima' means 'by the converse direction of the ascendant to a planet in the twelfth', so that seems to settle the matter as far as Morin is concerned.

Posted: **Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:02 am**

Found this in Lilly, Book 3, last paragraph on page 561 (Astrology Classics edition) finishing on page 562. The sentence referred to is on the last line (of a long, single sentence paragraph) of 561 and first line top of 562.

".........., and the time shall be then of his damage from such men or things, or near that time, and herein direct the (pars fortune) Converse and Direct: ...."

Posted: **Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:17 am**

OsirisRisen wrote:".........., and the time shall be then of his damage from such men or things, or near that time, and herein direct the (pars fortune) Converse and Direct: ...."

Thank you. By the late 17th century, there were certainly astrologers using converse directions in the modern sense (directions against the primary motion), which may or may not have been what Lilly meant here. The big question is whether such directions were used prior to the 17th century.

Posted: **Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:59 am**

Found this in Lilly, Book 3, last paragraph on page 561 (Astrology Classics edition) finishing on page 562. The sentence referred to is on the last line (of a long, single sentence paragraph) of 561 and first line top of 562.

".........., and the time shall be then of his damage from such men or things, or near that time, and herein direct the (pars fortune) Converse and Direct: ...."

I also found these two references to converse directions in book III of CA by Lilly, Astrology Classics edition.

Another reference to converse directions of the pars fortune on pg. 780 last row of the tables, far left cell. "Some direct the pars fortune converse, or against the sucession of Signs, you do no more but subtract the Promittor form the Significator, and so go backward."

On pg 589, fourth paragraph or last paragraph before chapter CXXXII. "....; or by direction of the sun, direct and converse to the Body, sextile or trine of the moon or venus ...."

Posted: **Wed Oct 01, 2008 11:26 am**

In two earlier posts, I had written:

Actually, James Holden pointed out to me that there is at least one explicit reference to the use of ('modern') converse directions for rectification in AG 17 [...] so that seems to settle the matter as far as Morin is concerned.
[...]
By the late 17th century, there were certainly astrologers using converse directions in the modern sense (directions against the primary motion) [...]

After some further research, as well as discussions with Rumen Kolev, I have had to revise these views. The so-called converse directions of Morin in Books 17 and 22 are directions with the primary motion. In today's terminology, they would be called direct. What Morin does is not directing a planet in the 12th backward to the horizon, but rather directing the zodiacal degree on the natal ascendant forward to the planet in the 12th. (Half a century later, Partridge takes him severely to task for doing so.)

Moreover, I have been unable to find any author of the 17th, 18th, or early 19th century directing against the primary motion. Among others, I have looked at Placidus, Partridge, Worsdale and Oxley: all use the term 'converse', but never in the modern sense. My preliminary conclusion has to be that directions against the primary motion are an invention of the late 19th or early 20th century, and quite possibly a misunderstanding (like so many others) of older terminology.

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Converse primary directions in Morin and earlier?