Worsdale gives the value of the Moon: L = 348 ? 38 '
Morinus is accurate (348 ? 40'08 ").
I used only the value of the Worsdale. This is one of the possible causes that results are slightly different for the calculation without latitude.

Manual calculation:
//Mars -> Moon = 2?44? (Morinus 2?39?)
contra//Mars -> Moon = 3?48? ( Morinus 3?50?)

Significator is Moon. Therefore, counting promissor (Mars) under the pole Moon. This means: / / Mars -> Moon

I am using a form of write program Morinus.
/ / Moon -> Mars is a completely different example. That is parallel the Moon under pole of Mars.

Wosdale writes: Moon (significator) to the parallel of Mars (promissor).

Writing Morinus: //Mars D -> Moon 2,644 ( 2?39?) 1819.12.29

Old textbooks say for calculation parallels planet to the Moon, that we have to include the latitude of promissor. That's why I did this calculation.
The above value is the result.
The old calculation was made approximations of the tables. I used modern equation.
I will try to repeat the old calculation method.
I will look also at the value of 11 ? 37 '.

Petr wrote:Worsdale gives the value of the Moon: L = 348 ? 38 '
Morinus is accurate (348 ? 40'08 ").
I used only the value of the Worsdale. This is one of the possible causes that results are slightly different for the calculation without latitude.

I, too, used only Worsdale's own values, so the difference still needs accounting for.

Manual calculation:
//Mars -> Moon = 2?44? (Morinus 2?39?)

I get 2?41' by manual calculation from Worsdale's values.

Significator is Moon. Therefore, counting promissor (Mars) under the pole Moon. This means: / / Mars -> Moon

I am using a form of write program Morinus.
/ / Moon -> Mars is a completely different example. That is parallel the Moon under pole of Mars.

Wosdale writes: Moon (significator) to the parallel of Mars (promissor).

Writing Morinus: //Mars D -> Moon 2,644 ( 2?39?) 1819.12.29

Yes, we're absolutely agreed on this.

Old textbooks say for calculation parallels planet to the Moon, that we have to include the latitude of promissor. That's why I did this calculation.

I find that both surprising and interesting. Could give me some references to the textbooks you are using? Anything in English, German or Latin I can read for myself, though I might need help with Czech.

The old calculation was made approximations of the tables. I used modern equation.
I will try to repeat the old calculation method.
I will look also at the value of 11 ? 37 '.

Thank you. I can't swear to the methods of calculation used by Worsdale in the early 19th century, but I would have said he most probably used logarithms.

Petr wrote:
Manual calculation:
//Mars -> Moon = 2?44? (Morinus 2?39?)
contra//Mars -> Moon = 3?48? ( Morinus 3?50?)

Why now we are focused on this? In your example you explained by hand something else

RA//Mars = arctg(( tgL x cosE ? ( tgB x sinE) / cosL)) = 10?8? + 360? = 370?8?
AD//Mars = arcsin (tg 2?29? x tg 44?51?) = 2?28?
OA//Mars = 370?8? ? 2?28? = 367?40?
ARC = | 360?32' ? 367?40'| = 7?8'

and it does not fit neither with Morinus or Phasis, because here it is obviously Worsdale he did not use the pole of the Moon, here he is using 367.40, which is exactly:
10.07-2.28= 7.39 ie 367.39 (you wrote 367.40)

no pole of the Moon at all!

Or when the Moon is the significator, Wordale does not consider the pole? Why? Which authors works like that? Regiomontanus? But this is a Placidian pole....

margherita

Margherita: as far as I can follow, Petr (in an attempt to reconstruct Worsdale's thinking) is directing under the pole of the Moon, which is 44?54' or thereabouts (Petr gets 44?51'). The thing is that Morinus (and I, and Phasis too?) defines a zodiacal parallel as a point on the ecliptic that shares the declination of a given planet, but Petr suggests that the zodiacal parallel should share the planet's latitude and declination, which of course means it will not be on the ecliptic, and that its longitude will be different.

With the first definition, using Worsdale's values, the Moon will be directed (under its own Placidean pole) to the zodiacal parallel of Mars with an arc around 2?41' (Petr gets 2?44'). With the second definition, Petr tells us that the arc is 7?08'. He seems to think this is close enough to Worsdale's value of 6?59' to suggest that Worsdale used a zodiacal parallel not on the ecliptic. To my mind, a difference of 9 minutes of arc is a little too wide to be entirely convincing.

Martin Gansten wrote:Margherita: as far as I can follow, Petr (in an attempt to reconstruct Worsdale's thinking) is directing under the pole of the Moon, which is 44?54' or thereabouts (Petr gets 44?51').

no, Petr is not doing this because Petr used Mars AO 367.40

Petr wrote:ARC = | 360?32' ? 367?40'| = 7?8'

but as I wrote many posts ago

Mars AO under the pole of the Moon (let us say 45 for 44.51, I have tables, I should round numbers) is 5.20 (something like that).

So, OA of the Moon under its own pole- OA of Mars under the pole of the Moon:

360.32- 365.20= 5.12
which fits with whatever software

There are multiple problems here, but I haven't the time to get into them right now, so for the moment let me just say that your calculation, even disregarding the rounding, is wrong (subtracting the lesser from the greater, we get 365?20' - 360?32' = 4?48', not 5?12'), and also that the direction you have pasted into your post is completely different (namely, Mars to the contraparallel of the Moon) from the one you are trying to calculate.

Have to rush -- more (hopefully) later!

Martin Gansten wrote:There are multiple problems here, but I haven't the time to get into them right now, so for the moment let me just say that your calculation, even disregarding the rounding, is wrong (subtracting the lesser from the greater, we get 365?20' - 360?32' = 4?48', not 5?12'), and also that the direction you have pasted into your post is completely different (namely, Mars to the contraparallel of the Moon) from the one you are trying to calculate.

Have to rush -- more (hopefully) later!

I copied in hurry result, and I wrote decimals as sexagesimal
that is the table latitude 45- pole of the Moon
5.21 = 5?12'

The problem is I have tables, I'm obliged to round!



The problem is that the PROMISSOR SHOULD BE TAKEN UNDER THE POLE OF SIGNIFICATOR, it is the reason it is called like that!

Worsdale did not this, he took Mars OA 7.40 instead of 5.12

margherita

My reasoning was not entirely correct. She uses the correction latitude significator. The procedure is time-consuming. Therefore, a specific procedure tomorrow. I have to check the accuracy of calculations.

My the present results are: Contra / / 6 ? 48 '
/ / 11 ? 53 '

Why all the traditional software should be wrong and Worsdale right?

Phasis (which is not built on Kolev formulae) gives the same result as Morinus

Honestly I don't care anything about what Worsdale does, in a direction under the pole the promissor should be taken under the significator's pole.

Worsdale does? He is right. Worsdale doesn't? He is wrong... In Petr's calculation does not, it's evident for me, he is taking just Mars' OA without considering the pole

Good evening,

Even concentrated on specific parallel (and contra-parallel) primary directions, it seems to me that Ms Margherita has touched an important, alas oft ignored, issue: some ('modern' including Mr John Worsdale?) tendencies towards arbitrariness and confusion regarding 'Promissor' and 'Significator'.

Rather than conceptually and practically clearly distinguishing between the two as was done in Hellenistic and Mediaeval astrologies, one sees them often used interchangeably, with the same conjunctions and aspects from each other to each other, both in 'direct' and 'converse' (as defined by Professor Gansten or by Dr Kolev), having planets act quasi simultaneously as one and the other.

In succumbing to the understandable yearn to 'play with variables' and to generate more directions, it seems that much clarity essential for clean delineations has been lost.

Now we are attempting to sort some of this out, at least concerning Mr Worsdale's use of parallels and contra-parallels.

Perhaps my thinking is muddled by Aristotelian logic , but it seems to me that, in the same chart and configuration to each other, of two planets one cannot simultaneously be 'Promissor' and 'Significator'. These two roles appear mutually exclusive within one specific framework. Thus, if one has defined Mars as Promissor and Moon as Significatrix and the technique requires calculation of a parallel under the pole of the Significator, calculation under the pole of the Promissor would not be consistent.

Best regards,

lihin

At this point I'm confused

margherita

margherita wrote:At this point I'm confused

So am I, mainly about the various snippets from different astrological software (and printed?) tables. I don't quite see what you mean to prove by them. No one has disputed that the parallel of Mars should be directed under the pole of the Moon. To do that, we need to know:
- the Moon's OA under her own pole;
- the OA of the parallel of Mars under the Moon's pole.

The first is easy, and we all agree that it is 0?32? or thereabouts. The problem is with the second value.

Now, I've been a bit slow on the uptake here (lots of distractions), so in trying to grasp what Petr was doing earlier, I missed the fairly obvious fact that of two points that share both the latitude and the declination of a planet, one must also share its longitude. In other words, the 'parallel with latitude' that I understood Petr to advocate is absolutely identical with the body of Mars. This can hardly have been Worsdale's (or anybody's) intention. So as far as I can see, we are back to the definition of a zodiacal parallel as a point on the ecliptic sharing a planet's declination. Those two points, for Mars in the nativity of Joseph Kent, are 6?15? tropical Aries and 23?45? tropical Virgo; and it is the former that concerns us here.

6?15? tropical Aries has an RA of 5?44?. With the same declination as Mars (2?29'), its OA under the Moon's pole will be: 5?44? - arcsin (tan 2?29' tan 44?51?) = 5?44? - 2?28' = 3?16?. Subtracting the Moon's OA under its own pole we get 2?44?. This is all using Worsdale's values, but you will find that Morinus gives a result that is within a few minutes of arc of the above. So Worsdale's own figure of 6?59? is, to me, so far inexplicable.