Skyscript Astrology Forum

Jogi wrote:This topic is still bothering me and I?m not totally satisfied yet Thus I still could need your help.

If it is the direction in which houses are numbered that bothers you, I believe the solution is very simple: as the sign rising at birth was considered the first place, the second sign to rise would be the second place, and so on. Or do I misunderstand the problem?

Hi Martin,

I believe the solution is very simple: as the sign rising at birth was considered the first place, the second sign to rise would be the second place, and so on.

Yes, this is clear to me since the early astrologers made a sign (zoidion) a place (topos). And since the 1st sign of the zodiac is Aries and the 12th is pieces they numbered the places in this manner too. I don`t have a problem with this so far.

The problems or questions arise when it comes to the delineation of the planets in the places. And together with this the 5? rule can come into play for those astrologers who use it. Because the natural motion of the planets when we observe them is the clockwise primary motion.

Now, e.g. let`s say the ASC is in 15? of Cancer. And let`s say Mercury is in 13? Cancer. Today every astrologer would say that Mercury is on the ASC (on the cusp of the 1st house) and they would delineate Mercury as being a 1st house planet. Additionally they would say that Mercury is very strong because he is in an angle. But when I refer to the primary, diurnal and clockwise motion of Mercury I should say that Mercury already has made his way through the 1st house, indeed he just left the 1st and is going to make his way through the 12th house towards the 11th and so on.
And thus I should say that Mercury is not strong but weak because he already entered the 12th house.

But in practice we`re not doing this. Instead we disregard the natural motion of Mercury and refer to the secondary and counterclockwise movement of Mercury through the signs where he is going to reach 13? then 14? of Cancer and so on.

Now my question is: is this approach for delineating planets in places/houses based on the experience of the ancients and are there some sources where they explain why they use this method?

Why do we neglect the primary motion of the planets - when it comes to their delineation in the houses - after we freeze-framed the celestial constellations in the chart? What is the reason for stressing the secondary motion of the planets regarding there delineation in the houses?

Do you know what I mean?


Hi Astrojin,

This is really an interesting metaphor. Let me think about it for a while.

Jogi wrote:Now, e.g. let`s say the ASC is in 15? of Cancer. And let`s say Mercury is in 13? Cancer. Today every astrologer would say that Mercury is on the ASC (on the cusp of the 1st house) and they would delineate Mercury as being a 1st house planet.

I don't think most modern astrologers would, though -- or did you refer just to traditionalists (since we are in the traditional forum)? Those who follow Ptolemy would treat such a Mercury as a first-house planet, of course. Incidentally, some have used degrees of altitude (or oblique ascension? -- can't remember excactly) for the five-degree rule, though I don't believe that's what Ptolemy intended.

But when I refer to the primary, diurnal and clockwise motion of Mercury I should say that Mercury already has made his way through the 1st house, indeed he just left the 1st and is going to make his way through the 12th house towards the 11th and so on.
And thus I should say that Mercury is not strong but weak because he already entered the 12th house.

I think most astrologers would agree with you, if you just increased the distance by 3-4 degrees.

But in practice we`re not doing this. Instead we disregard the natural motion of Mercury and refer to the secondary and counterclockwise movement of Mercury through the signs where he is going to reach 13? then 14? of Cancer and so on.

Does anyone actually do that? I don't think I have come across that kind of reasoning myself. To me, a planet above the horizon is definitely (in the process of) leaving the first house, not entering it.

Why do we neglect the primary motion of the planets - when it comes to their delineation in the houses - after we freeze-framed the celestial constellations in the chart? What is the reason for stressing the secondary motion of the planets regarding there delineation in the houses?

Could it be a result of abandoning the traditional prognostic tool of directions based on the primary motion in favour of methods based on the secondary motion (secondary directions/progressions, transits, etc)?

The planets have their own orbs by degree as well. leaving a planet's influence to its specific degree is denying its orb. And while yes, it may seem absurd to arbitrarily assign 5 degrees to every planet, it is equally absurd to deny a planet its orb of influence. I was taught by a proponent of the 5 degree rule and I was told not to consider the planet solely in the "next" house. I was taught to consider it "angular" for very specific delineation techniques. As for topical discussion, I see the rule as offering a fine-tuning in the planets testimony. It is still in the house that it occupies, it may have more strength in that house, or it may bring its cadent disposition into the next house, bringing manifestation, but lacking permanence.
"Rules" cannot be applied or denied in every circumstance, unfortunately, it is up to the Astrologer's discernment. And also unfortunate, not every technique is rooted in Astronomical harmony.

Martin Gansten wrote:

But in practice we`re not doing this. Instead we disregard the natural motion of Mercury and refer to the secondary and counterclockwise movement of Mercury through the signs where he is going to reach 13? then 14? of Cancer and so on.

Does anyone actually do that? I don't think I have come across that kind of reasoning myself. To me, a planet above the horizon is definitely (in the process of) leaving the first house, not entering it.

Wow, now I got confused... cause I do that. Well, kind of do that actually...

Let me try to explain myself here. When a planet is in the 1st sign near the AC degree, but not conjunct it yet, there are two possible approaches: 1st, the planet is leaving 1st house by primary motion, 2nd, the planet is entering 1st house by secondary motion.

Now, what's a house? Although traditionalists criticize the modern approach of house = sign, the main problem in this is that they just use the model Aries = 1st, Taurus = 2nd and draw analogies from that, that ties these signs rulers to house = sign = matter = universal significator. As we can see, each chart will have a different AC, meaning that each matter regarding each house can be ruled by a different planet, so house rulership is an accidental matter, not an essential one, contrary to what the modern approach seems to present. I add that 'Aries = beggining' is a philosofical model, not fit to all charts, since the reasoning that Aries or the so called 'natural order' is irrelevant most of the time (not so in mundane, where Aries does mark, at least, a changing of seasons, and it's in a triplicity into which occurs the greatest Saturn/Jupiter conjunction, and since it is the cardinal fire sign we can see why using The Sun ingress into Aries each year). Still, Whole Signs system gives room for one to defend that sign = house, after all.

I mix both whole signs and divisions in my approach in order to reach a consensus for myself. And for that, the whole signs approach does seem to present a more neat solution. As long as a planet is within the rising sign, it does have say in the 1st house, regardless of where the cusp is present. Hence, the 5? rule seems a bit of a stretch to me. Still, the cusp is presented as a point of manifestation, of strength, meaning that from there on the planet is in it's best position to manifest itself in regards to that house meaning. In so being, it's more related to the mundane position than the transits are.

Then, when is primary motion used? In primary directions. So, in both techniques, transits and primary directions, we kind of freeze points in the chart (in transits we freeze the angles often, in primary directions we freeze some bodies/relevant points and planets are carried by primary motion to them). It's all a matter of priority, in one technique we give priority to the primary motion and in others we give it to the secondary, since using both at the same time would be paradoxal. Also, notice, primary motion is fast, so it's better for symbolical use, and secondary motion is slow, so it's convenient for 'real time' manifestation, but theoretically, I believe they can be used, symbolical and real time, for both primary and secondary.

I could be very wrong here, but at first it seems to me that the house concept is derived primarily from secondary motion, rather than from primary. Then it would seem to make little sense talking about houses when speaking of primary motion. Support to that is given when we think that some ancient authorities delineated a chart with the MC degree in houses like the 11th or 9th, for example (correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe to have read this here on skyscript itself, but can't remember exactly where). Contrary to this speculation of mine is that origin of houses can be traced to angular analogy, as presented in Deb's book:

Deb wrote:It is worth noting that originally the 8th house was known as 'the beginning of death', because from its cusp the heavenly sphere falls towards the descendant.

By the same logic, the 2nd is considered a better house cause from there, a planet rises to the 1st.

An approach that have some appeal to me, would be to consider that the whole house's concept are derived from analogies held both to primary and secondary motion, which, by itself, can get pretty contradictory if tied together, since they produce, after all, opposite movements.

Let's not forget that a planet also has an orb. A planet near the AC degree sheds its light on it (which take us back to the 5? rule from another perspective, since from secondary motion that planet is closer to the next house than the one currently posited in). Either way, orb means light to the point (and as a point, a cusp has meaning) a potential to be activated in due time (through a revolution, transit, direction). Obviously the farther alway from the angle, the longer to unfold/less likely/weaker is that potential.

edit:

Martin Gansten wrote:

Why do we neglect the primary motion of the planets - when it comes to their delineation in the houses - after we freeze-framed the celestial constellations in the chart? What is the reason for stressing the secondary motion of the planets regarding there delineation in the houses?

Could it be a result of abandoning the traditional prognostic tool of directions based on the primary motion in favour of methods based on the secondary motion (secondary directions/progressions, transits, etc)?

Sorry Martin, only now did I took the time to read the final part of your post with more care. That does establish the approach some take in a clear fashion, without so much explanation and divagation as my post had.

Thank you Estebon and Paulo for your ideas.

Maybe it`s really about orbs, so that in fact the Planet has just left a house and entered the preceding one - and it is due to its orb that we still delineate it in the house it has been before (as a result of it`s primary motion): e.g. Mercury is 3? before the cusp of the 9th house = then he is actually situated in the 8th house but due to its orb we treat him as a 9th house planet (and sometimes as both a 9th and a 8th house planet).

Another idea (maybe kind of modern) that came to me is that: in the above mentioned example with Mercury in the 8th house but 3? before the cusp of the 9th house, he has traversed the 9th house by reason of his primary motion. Thus he has been "charged" with 9th house experiences and incidents (or maybe energy?). As he just entered the 8th house he is quite unfamiliar with this place and thus the native experiences this Mercury still as a 9th house Mercury. But that sounds almost too modern - doesn`t it

And then there is still the converse approach when we delineate transits where we emphasize the secondary motion while freezing the rest of the chart - and there we say, that the transiting planet which is in the 3rd house and just a few degrees before the DC, is going to enter the 4th house.
So couldn`t we convey this approach to the chart as a whole? What could be said against it?

But in practice we`re not doing this. Instead we disregard the natural motion of Mercury and refer to the secondary and counterclockwise movement of Mercury through the signs where he is going to reach 13? then 14? of Cancer and so on.

Does anyone actually do that? I don't think I have come across that kind of reasoning myself. To me, a planet above the horizon is definitely (in the process of) leaving the first house, not entering it.

Now I"m getting confused. By diurnal motion Mercury has left the first house once it gets above the horizon. No question, but the way transits and progressions are normally used (secondary motion) Mercury is about to enter the 1st. I would think using primary directions in zodiac he is about to enter the first as well. Calculating primary directions in mundo he left the first.

I confuse easily these days, though.

Tom

Tom wrote:Now I"m getting confused. By diurnal motion Mercury has left the first house once it gets above the horizon. No question, but the way transits and progressions are normally used (secondary motion) Mercury is about to enter the 1st. I would think using primary directions in zodiac he is about to enter the first as well. Calculating primary directions in mundo he left the first.

No, all primary directions are based on the primary motion; in zodiaco just means we ignore latitude. Whether the cusps are also the boumdaries of the houses is, to me, a rather trickier issue.

No, all primary directions are based on the primary motion; in zodiaco just means we ignore latitude.

Sorry to get a bit off topic here, but ...What about directing the angles? I know the MC or the ASC is a fixed point and the zodiac moves over those points, but we routinely hear of the MC or the ASC being directed. Morin in Book 23 and probably 22 says he directed the MC to Mars in Gustav Adolphus' chart. If we take him literally, we are directing the MC counterclockwise to Mars in the 12th in that chart. If he means this figuratively, then he is actually directing Mars to the MC and this would be in diurnal motion.

Secondly, if we direct through the bounds, we would have to direct in the direction of the zodiac, wouldn't we?

I probably need to re-read your book.

Tom

Tom: I do deal with this in my book, but I know it's a confusing topic. Mostly it's a matter of semantics. So, briefly:

• When traditional authors speak of 'directing X', all they mean is that X is the significator in the traditional sense of signifying the matter under consideration (nothing to do with which point is moving).
  
  When they speak of 'directing X by direct motion', they mean that X is stationary or treated as stationary, and the other point (the promissor) is moved towards X by the primary motion from east to west. It is called direct because the promissor is ahead of the significator in zodiac.
  
  When they speak of 'directing X by converse motion', they mean that X is moved by the same primary motion from east to west towards the promissor, which is behind it in the zodiac.

In both cases, something is moved with the clockwise primary motion. If it is the promissor, we call it a direct direction; if it is the significator, we call it a converse direction. Nothing was ever really moved anti-clockwise before the end of the 19th century! (I am currently working on an article on the modern reinvention of the concept of 'converse directions', called Back to the Future.)

When Morin directed the MC to Mars in Gustav Adolf's chart, it was Mars that was moving towards the meridian. Similarly, directing the ascendant through the terms/bounds really means watching the terms pass over the eastern horizon. (Morin also directed the angles 'conversely' in the sense of moving their natal zodiacal degrees, again with the primary motion. Others, like Placidus, said that the angles could not be directed conversely.)

I hope that clears things up a bit.

Tom wrote:It will clear things up once I sit down with it and work with it a bit. Thank you for taking the trouble to respond.

Tom

If you make calculations by hands - which I hate - you will see very clearly Martin is right.

Discard directions to angles where it is not evident, but take directions between two planets.

I gave an example in my blog with both calculation by hand and with the software.

http://heavenastrolabe.net/a-short-guid ... irections/

If I say "Sun to sextile of Saturn" we are moving SATURN, not the Sun. You see this because in calculation you use Saturn speed, its TEMPORAL HOUR (ie a portion of its semiarc), not the Sun one.

I used formula as arranged by Marco Fumagalli in "I moti del cielo" - not Kolev way (anyway it's just a different way to arrange numbers, in fact Morinus gives exactly the same result ).

I don't know where Fumagalli took this or if he arranged formula like that by himself- anyway just readers of that book (mentioning it or not) use that method.

In every case whatever example you will see that you always see the same.



margherita