It?s terrible. This morning I lost my calculations I had made this weekend. Six pages of hand calculations, lost probably during a bicycle ride. I could try to search it cycling the 15 kilometers, yet with the risk not to find it anyway, so I didn?t. Yesterday I already had made a start typing it in a document with the Placidus in Mundo, but the rest isn?t there.

Last weekend I made some calculations for Kiev, Ukraine on Tuesday 21-8-2007 at 3:00 East European time (= 0h UT+2h timezone+1h daylight saving time). I chose this time and Kiev to have 0? Aries in the South for a big angle of Asc-MC and the date because Moon and Venus (the directing planets of my choice) had extreme latitudes and were widely separated. The ephemeris I used gave for Moon slightly different results (about 40??) from online ephemerides, which can cause bigger differences in the calculations. Most endresults are rounded off to the arc minute for clarity. I added some easy type directions. The aim is to calculate the directions which result in a sextile between Moon and Venus. For ease, the secondary motion of the planets was ignored.

Kiev, Ukraine : 50?26?N (90?-Lat=39?34?), 30?31?
0h GMT, 3h EET
Sidereal Time Greenwich: 21h55m45s
Sidereal Time Kiev: 21h55m45s + 2h2m4s = 23h57m49s, in degrees: 359?27?15??.
Moon: 27?37?21?? Scorpio, Lat: -5?12?
Venus: 23? 5.5? Leo, Lat: -8?11?
Obliquity Ecliptic: 23?26?18??
Ascendant: 25?18? Cancer
MC: 29?24? Pisces
Ecliptical distance Moon-Venus: 91?19?, using the simplest direction (solar arcs) reach a sextile at 31?19? and 151?19? (slightly different in years because of the Sun?s varying speed).
Meridian/Right ascension-directions:
Positions expressed in equatorial coordinates:
Mo(on): RA: 234? 3? (15h36m13s) decl: -24?42?
Ve(nus): RA: 142?44?38?? (9h30m59s) decl: +6? 5?
Distance: 94?32?. Using Meridian directions, for the sextiles we get 34?32 and 154?32? respectively, 34,5 and 154,5years (from now on every age result in 1?=1y).

For the semi-arc related directions following values were calculated:
a.d ? ascensional difference (sometimes descenscional, but not mentioned)
o.a.- oblique ascenscion (sometimes rather descension, but seemed clear enough)
n.a.- nocturnal arc
d.a.- diurnal arc
o.a/n.a(or d.a.)*180?=position in ?house? degrees in respect to the proportions of the houses.

Placidus Mundane (planet to planet on their proportionate arc)
Mo: a.d. 33?49?; o.a. 178?26?; n.a. 247?39? d.a.112?21? o.a./n.a.*180?=129?41?=9?41?XI
Ve: a.d. 7?25?; o.a. 45?53?; n.a. 165?11? (note difference with Moons?, factor 1.5)
d.a. 194?39?
o.a./n.a.*180?=50? 0?=20? 0?VIII.
Difference: 79?41? (natal planets? position angle from Placidian Mundo perspective)
Direct Moon 19?41? to reach the sextile. Convert from house position back to equatorial arcs (the 1? ?times?of Ptolemy) 19?41?/180?*n.a. Mo= 27? 5?
At age 27y1m (Ptolemy key) Moon reaches to first Venus sextile.
The second sextile:
Direct Moon 139?41? to reach second sextile. Note that this takes two steps. Venus? sextile point is above the horizon. First Moon?s arc to horizon according to n.a. then arc to sextile point with d.a.
Mo: Mo-to horizon=o.a.=178?26 (already given).
Mo on horizon to Ve. Venus? natal ?house degrees? position-60?=20? 0?VI. 10? ?house degrees? difference from horizon. This expressed in equatorial according to Moons d.a.!=10?/180?*d.a Mo = 6?15? add. the Mo. o.a. gives 184?40?
At age 180y8m Moon reaches the second Venus sextile.

A funny addition: What is the mutual distance of sextile before the Moon and the sextile before the Moon. In ecliptical and equatorial it?s easy, they are the same.
In semi-arcs they are different, because the turning of the pole in combination with horizon changes the angle during the day. We saw that the distance was 79?41?. It takes 79?41?/180?*Mo n.a. = 109?38? or 109y8m for the Moon to conjunct Venus in mundo. Substract 60? ?house degrees? or click two houses back and the mutual distance will still be 79?41 in house degrees but the time it takes for the Moon minus sextile point to the Venus minus sextile point will be 102?7? or 102y5m.

Well the other eight calculations were similar to this last one. Moon to Venus+60 and Venus-60, in zodiaco and in mundo. Moon+60 and Moon-60 to Venus, in zodiaco and in mundo. I won?t repeat the calculations, for which you will be understanding I hope. I remember that one in zodiaco gave 30y09m and the one in mundo gave 30y10m (Ptolemy) but I?m not sure about the others. I?m sorry for this. Perhaps I would recognize the other numbers but I don?t remember at the moment. It would have served a lot for the clarifications. Anyhow, the procedure is almost similar to the first in mundo, so those interested could try for themselves using the same method.

zoidsoft wrote:Was it common practice to direct a promissor to a significator as an aspect of itself?

For example the sinister square of the Sun (promissor) to the Sun (bodily) as significator.

How often is it the case that aspects of promissors are directed to aspects of significators? Was this common historical practice?

Also is there anything that should be excluded as being directed to itself? The conjunction to itself at birth is pointless, but 1 diurnal rotation 360 degrees later?

These are legitimate questions, and I?ve also thought about them. Personally I?d say that a directed planet can move to the aspect point of itself. I don?t see why it couldn?t (but I don?t know about traditional practice). For the second question, here is the difference with transits in which those of the fast planets aren?t considered of too much significance, while in directions all planets move more or less at the same speed (1 cycle in 360 years) and all are seen as significant (although Ptolemy mentions only to choose one of them for finding the length of life, nothing else in fact). One diurnal rotation later, and in case one doesn?t use the secondary motion of planets, all planets will the exact positions will repeat. But even with secondary motion, many positions will be more or less the same. Because of humans? lifespan we won?t be able to study on this (in human matters). By the way on the Earth?s equator, aspects of planets to their own original position will occur at about age 60 and 90 which therefore should be very special years for people born over there.

Addition: I calculated the directions according to the traditional methods. Here are also the details of the calculations, while in the friday 4 Feb 15pm post only the answers are posted.

In zodiaco
Situtation A
Mo RA 235.352 decl -19.629 a.d. 25.571 o.a. 171.469 n.a. 231.142 d.a. 128.858 o.a./n.a.*180?= 133.530
Ve+60 RA 201,365 decl -8,975 a.d. 11.019 o.a. 122.930 n.a. 202.039
d.a. 157.961 o.a./n.a.*180?= 109.521
Mo to Ve+60 = 24.009 ? /180*(n.a. Mo) = 30?49?52?
A 30y10m

Situation B
Mo-60 RA 177.818 decl 0.945 a.d. 1.144 o.a. 87.220 n.a. 177.712 d.a. 182.288 o.a./n.a.*180?= 88.343
Ve RA 145.430 decl 13.820 a.d. 17.320 o.a. 38.656 n.a. 145.360 d.a. 214.640 o.a./n.a.*180?= 47.868
Mo-60 to Ve = 40.475 ? /180*(n.a. (Mo-60)) = 39?57?38?
B 40y 0m

In mundo (Bianchini)
Situation C
Mo (lat. -5?12?) RA 234? 3? decl -24?42? a.d. 33.824 o.a. 178.420 n.a. 247.648 d.a. 112.352 o.a./n.a.*180?= 129.682
Ve+60 (lat. -4? 6?) RA 199.808 decl -12.780 a.d. 15.933 o.a. 126.287
n.a. 211.866 d.a. 148.134 o.a./n.a.*180?= 107.292
Mo to Ve+60 = 22.390 ? /180*(n.a. Mo) = 30?48?18?
C 30y10m

Situation D
Mo-60 (lat. -2?36?) RA 176.785 decl -1.440 a.d. 1.743 o.a. 89.074 n.a. 183.487 d.a. 176.513 o.a./n.a.*180?=87.381
Ve (lat. -8?11?) RA 142?44?38?? decl 6? 5? a.d. 7.411 o.a. 45.879 n.a. 165.179 d.a. 194.821 o.a./n.a.*180?=50.000
Mo-60 to Ve = 37.381 ?/180*(n.a. (Mo-60)) = 34?18?13?
D 34y 4m

In zodiaco
Situation E
Mo RA 235.352 decl -19.629 a.d. 25.571 o.a. 171.469 n.a. 231.142 d.a. 128.858 o.a./n.a.*180?= 133.530
Ve-60 RA 82.477 decl 23.258 a.d. 31.343 o.a. -38.320 n.a. 117.315 d.a. 242.685 o.a./d.a.*180?= -28.422 (position in ?house degrees?: 360- 28.422=331.578)
Mo to Ve-60 = 161.952
Attention. As the Moon?s zodiacal degree has to be above the horizon to reach Venus? zodiacal degree which is above the horizon, two calculations have to be made, one for Moon?s nocturnal arc (or simply the o.a.), and the remainder above the horizon to Venus. o.a. Mo = 171.469 ? add 28.422/180*(d.a. Mo)= 20.347 171.469+20.347= 191?48?56?
E 191y10m

Situation F
Mo+60 RA 299.698 decl -20.636 a.d. 27.114 o.a. 3.130 n.a. 234.228 d.a. 125.772 o.a./d.a.*180?= 4.479 (position in ?house degrees?:180+4.479 =184.479)
Ve RA 145.430 decl 13.820 a.d. 17.320 o.a. 38.656 (or 38.656-145.360= -106.704) n.a. 145.360 d.a. 214.640 o.a./n.a.*180?= 47.868 (=-132.132)
Mo+60 to Ve = 136.611
Attention. Moon?s degree above horizon. o.a. Mo = 3.130 ? add (132.132)/180*(n.a. (Mo+60))= 132.132/180*234.228= 171.940
171.940+3.130= 175? 4? 8?
F 175y 1m

In mundo (Bianchini)
Situation G
Mo (lat. -5?12?) RA 234? 3? decl -24?42? a.d. 33.824 o.a. 178.420 n.a. 247.648 d.a. 112.352 o.a./n.a.*180?= 129.682
Ve-60 (lat. -4? 6?) RA 82.703 decl 19.164 a.d. 24.872 o.a. -31.623 n.a. 130.256 d.a. 229.744 o.a./d.a.*180?= -24.776 (position in ?house degrees?: 360-24.776= 335.224)
Mo to Ve-60= 154.458 Venus? degree above horizon. o.a. Mo = 178.420 ?
add (24.776)/180*(d.a. Mo)= 15.465 178.420+15.465= 193?53? 5?
G 193y11m

Situation H
Mo+60 (lat. -2?36?) RA 300.648 decl -24.687 a.d. 33.801 o.a. 2.607 n.a. 247.602 d.a. 112.398 o.a./d.a.*180?= 4.175
Ve (lat. -8?11?) RA 142?44?38?? decl 6? 5? a.d. 7.411 o.a. 45.879 n.a. 165.179 d.a. 194.821 o.a./n.a.*180?= 50.000 (=-130)
Mo+60 to Ve= 134.175. Moons? degree above horizon. o.a. Mo+60 = 2.607 ? add (130)/180*(n.a. Mo+60)= 178.824 178.824+2.607= 181?25?50?
H 182y 5m

zoidsoft wrote:Was it common practice to direct a promissor to a significator as an aspect of itself?

Off the top of my head, the only instance of directing a planet to its own aspect that I can remember seeing in traditional texts is the direction of the hyleg/apheta to its own square. I can't give you chapter and verse for it now, but it occurs quite early, though not everyone accepts it.

How often is it the case that aspects of promissors are directed to aspects of significators? Was this common historical practice?

Never, to my knowledge. An aspect point cannot be a significator.

Also, traditionally speaking (though this was not what you asked about), only planets cast aspects; angles etc do not. I mention this because some software will produce 'false hits' such as Jupiter to the trine of the Asc.

Martin Gansten wrote:Also, traditionally speaking (though this was not what you asked about), only planets cast aspects; angles etc do not. I mention this because some software will produce 'false hits' such as Jupiter to the trine of the Asc.

Thanks. Yes, Schmidt says the same thing because only planets possess the power of "sight". The houses, lots, etc are the things that are "looked at". It's really difficult to filter these out though when you have an array that treats all of these as "points" for the sake of speed through iteration. Getting close to the moment of truth on my primary directions component.

zoidsoft wrote:

Martin Gansten wrote:Also, traditionally speaking (though this was not what you asked about), only planets cast aspects; angles etc do not. I mention this because some software will produce 'false hits' such as Jupiter to the trine of the Asc.

Thanks. Yes, Schmidt says the same thing because only planets possess the power of "sight". The houses, lots, etc are the things that are "looked at". It's really difficult to filter these out though when you have an array that treats all of these as "points" for the sake of speed through iteration. Getting close to the moment of truth on my primary directions component.

This was the most difficult part in my program too, and I started a rather ambitious filtering dialog that I never finished.

- Ed

Martin Gansten wrote:Also, traditionally speaking (though this was not what you asked about), only planets cast aspects; angles etc do not. I mention this because some software will produce 'false hits' such as Jupiter to the trine of the Asc.

Using this example Jupiter on cusp IX or on cusp V is in fact a trine according to the concerned house system. I thought that an accepted explanation of the MC and Ascendant (as well as the Nodes and equinixes) being 'passive' points because not being 'out there' which emphasize the effect of the planet conjunct or aspected to it. Instead of speaking of Jupiter to the trine of the Asc, then rather the trine of Jupiter to the Asc.

Eddy wrote:Using this example Jupiter on cusp IX or on cusp V is in fact a trine according to the concerned house system. I thought that an accepted explanation of the MC and Ascendant (as well as the Nodes and equinixes) being 'passive' points because not being 'out there' which emphasize the effect of the planet conjunct or aspected to it. Instead of speaking of Jupiter to the trine of the Asc, then rather the trine of Jupiter to the Asc.

I am not entirely sure what point you want to make, so please elaborate if you wish. However, one point I should like to make is that 'aspects by house systems' are not traditional, but a 20th-century invention based on analogy with the Placidean system. Placidus used proportional semi-arcs for several purposes: directions (like Ptolemy), house division (like ibn Ezra and others), and 'mundane aspects' (his own invention). In modern times, some authors have assumed that these things must always go together, so that each house system must have its own corresponding set of directions and 'mundane aspects'; but such 'aspects' were never used historically.

Mine were probably some modern views that seeped in. The point I meant to make is that I thought that moving the Ascendant into an aspect of a planet seemed useful. For example natal Ascendant in 10? Pisces and Jupiter in 5? Sagittarius. One of the trines of Jupiter is in 5? Aries and during a certain period Ascendant will reach that degree. Moving from 10? Pisces to 5? Aries is 25? along the ecliptic and for northern hemisphere will be less than 25? (and ditto years) along the equator.

The way I understand Ptolemy (on the length of life) is that if Ascendant might be prorogator, then it can direct into places where aspects of planets are found (like the example above).

But, in the prorogation made into succeeding signs, the places of the malefics, Saturn and Mars, are an?retic, whether meeting the prorogator bodily, or by emission of rays in quartile, from either side, or in opposition: they are also sometimes an?retic, by a sextile ray, if in a sign of equal power, obeying or beholding the sign of the prorogator.

Tetr.Book3, ch.XIV
http://www.sacred-texts.com/astro/ptb/ptb58.htm

edit: I deleted the rest, somewhat irrelevant.

Eddy wrote:The point I meant to make is that I thought that moving the Ascendant into an aspect of a planet seemed useful. For example natal Ascendant in 10? Pisces and Jupiter in 5? Sagittarius. One of the trines of Jupiter is in 5? Aries and during a certain period Ascendant will reach that degree. Moving from 10? Pisces to 5? Aries is 25? along the ecliptic and for northern hemisphere will be less than 25? (and ditto years) along the equator.

Yes, absolutely. Wholly traditional (though rejected by many Placideanists, who do not believe zodiacal aspects to the angles to be meaningful). But, to continue your example, calling 10? Capricorn the 'sextile of the ascendant' and moving it up to Jupiter would not be accepted.

Well I now have primary directions according to the Placidian / Alchabitius semi arc method in Delphic Oracle. Upon first inspection, the direction dates look correct, but I'll want to do more testing here. I also have yet to apply the binary sort algorithm to the list because as it currently stands, it lists in order of calculation. My PD component is just over 1400 lines of code which is pretty good (I expected it to be much larger at this point).

Calculations are faster than I thought they would be and I thought I'd need a progress bar to show between direction calculation, but that could be due to my not adding hypotheticals and minor aspects to the list.

I have finished adding the Themes to primary direction options to group settings together but only have 1 direction type functional at the moment. Here is a screen shot of the options:
Here is another one with image too big for Skyscript screen:

http://www.astrology-x-files.com/images ... ctions.jpg

I'm thinking that it would be good to add some important fixed stars. I think that Gansten's text explained that latitude of stars / planets weren't used in the calculation itself, but rather were used to judge the amplitude of the effect.

zoidsoft wrote:I think that Gansten's text explained that latitude of stars / planets weren't used in the calculation itself, but rather were used to judge the amplitude of the effect.

Ptolemy's calculations make no allowance for latitude, but those of later authors do -- definitely in Renaissance Europe, but possibly much earlier than that. I don't know if Ben Dykes is following this thread, but if so, he may be able to comment, as he is busy translating (at remarkable speed) books which I haven't read in their entirety.

The calculation is correct. But there is a problem. The problem is the difference between the zodiacal direction width latitude and mundo direction. He is not in the settings shown.
Aspect is included the significator in mundo direction. This gives the required difference.

Petr wrote:The calculation is correct. But there is a problem. The problem is the difference between the zodiacal direction width latitude and mundo direction. He is not in the settings shown.
Aspect is included the significator in mundo direction. This gives the required difference.

I haven't done partial latitude yet for zodiacal directions. I have programmed it to show no latitude for both significator or promissor in zodiacal directions, but have to link up Bianchini latitude for both which is why it is not selected in the display. I still need to write partial latitude for zodiacal (where significator has latitude and promissor does not and vice versa). I will have to modify the TDirPoint class to include these partial situations.

I still also have other direction types to cover (Regiomontanus) for instance has a checkbox, but is non functional yet. Placidus under the pole, etc.

I did successfully finish the sorting algorithm - clicking on the header column sorts according to that column.