Pankajdubey wrote:

.. and most of that mobility was out of distress.
The Pilgrim fathers or their likes, or Australian settlers were all in distress of some kind.

To be honest that is a rather anglophile view. British settlement of Australia was not until 1788 and by that time astrology everywhere in Europe was in decline. English setllement of North America also came relatively late (1607) and the initial colony settlement at Jamestown, Virginia was not founded by religious exiles. I was actually thinking more of the cultural impact in Europe of Spanish and Portugese settlement that came long before English colonial ventures in the Americas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_c ... e_Americas

However, as Morin was the first astrologer we know of to suggest relocated returns the impact of French settlement in North America may have been his particular inspiration. In particular the French settlement in places like Quebec from 1608.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_co ... e_Americas

Pankajdubey wrote:

The ones who would move with social enhancement were:

Horoscopes of females who married into wealth family of a distant land.
All those Queens that King Edward married and then chopped them off or horoscopes of Kings who lost and regained their Kingdoms e.g.
: Charles II or Charles De Gaulle,Shah Reza Pahlavi would be helpful.

You have a fair point that the marriage of medieval Queens from other kingdoms would be a good test if such returns were ever relocated. It would be extremely interesting if we could unearth delineations of such a return chart.

Still, I dont think we can really expect the tradition to answer all our questions and this topic is a good example. The best practical example I can think of to test out natal location vs relocated charts are those of people who have moved from say the southern hemisphere to Europe or North America or those who have moved from one end to the other of immense countries like the USA or Canada. Similarly, those who have relocated from one end of Europe to the other. The angles and houses are going to shift dramatically in such examples.

Mark

As for testing for relocation or not, I suppose it all depends on whether you recast a new chart (as Abu Ma'shar did,and seems to be the first who did), or treat the revolution positions as transits to the nativity as the earlier Persians did. The angles of the East of the Year (as Dykes translates it) still have some significance, but I would always pay more attention to the natal angles and the houses derived from the natal ascending sign when talking about where and what each configuration is doing. As far as I understand it, the revolution is an intensification or a remission of certain natal configurations, so the nativity is king. From my experience, the houses counted from the sign of the profected ASC are far more telling than those counted from the East of the Year anyway.

Konrad wrote:As for testing for relocation or not, I suppose it all depends on whether you recast a new chart (as Abu Ma'shar did,and seems to be the first who did), or treat the revolution positions as transits to the nativity as the earlier Persians did.

That, and also whether you use a sidereal year (like M?sh??all?h's Book of Aristotle does) or a tropical one. But although I know that Ben Dykes gives it as his opinon that the Persians prior to Ab? Ma?shar didn't cast full-scale revolution charts, I'm not entirely convinced that that's true. We know they did calculate the actual ascendant for the moment of the revolution, and it seems a bit counter-intuitive to suppose that they did not then go on to consider the planets at the time in relation to that. Even if they didn't calculate any other angles or cusps, that would still be a (whole-sign) figure of the revolution.

Martin Gansten wrote:

Konrad wrote:As for testing for relocation or not, I suppose it all depends on whether you recast a new chart (as Abu Ma'shar did,and seems to be the first who did), or treat the revolution positions as transits to the nativity as the earlier Persians did.

That, and also whether you use a sidereal year (like M?sh??all?h's Book of Aristotle does) or a tropical one. But although I know that Ben Dykes gives it as his opinon that the Persians prior to Ab? Ma?shar didn't cast full-scale revolution charts, I'm not entirely convinced that that's true. We know they did calculate the actual ascendant for the moment of the revolution, and it seems a bit counter-intuitive to suppose that they did not then go on to consider the planets at the time in relation to that. Even if they didn't calculate any other angles or cusps, that would still be a (whole-sign) figure of the revolution.

I get that, it isn't a great leap. However, I'm just not seeing it in the sources we have though I accept they are paltry in number and in depth. Masha'allah doesn't mention places counted from the East of the Year until his consideration of the Lots (which is 7 of 9). For the other considerations, he talks only of the natal root.

Konrad wrote:

As for testing for relocation or not, I suppose it all depends on whether you recast a new chart (as Abu Ma'shar did,and seems to be the first who did), or treat the revolution positions as transits to the nativity as the earlier Persians did. The angles of the East of the Year (as Dykes translates it) still have some significance, but I would always pay more attention to the natal angles and the houses derived from the natal ascending sign when talking about where and what each configuration is doing. As far as I understand it, the revolution is an intensification or a remission of certain natal configurations, so the nativity is king. From my experience, the houses counted from the sign of the profected ASC are far more telling than those counted from the East of the Year anyway.

Well put. In practical terms I would agree with all of that. I have seen many examples where using the return as an effective transit chart was more accurate in reflecting the year than as a stand alone chart. I would only add that the annual position of the profected sect light by WSH can be equally as revealing as the profected ASC.

Mark