MarkC wrote:

It is my understanding that apart from the issue of aspects the other clear difference between Simmonite/Robson/Carter and Ebertin/Tyl etc regarding solar arc directions is that the former use the mean daily motion of the sun (applied to Moon and planets) while the latter use the exact daily motion of the Sun which is specific to each nativity?

Mea culpa. I ought to have added that it was Sepharial and Robson who used the mean daily motion of the Sun (rather than solar arcs per se).

As for Simmonite, as Robson notes in his A Students' Text-Book of Astrology:

Simmonite's Method. The Sun's actual daily motion after birth represents one year of life. In other words the increase in the Sun's R.A. from noon on the day of birth to noon on the next day is the measure for the first year; that from noon on the first day after birth to noon on the second is the measure for the second year and so on. A variety of this method is to employ the Sun's actual daily motion in R.A. on the day of birth as a constant measure for the whole of life.

And it was Noel Tyl who wrote:

[Use the Mean measurements and Solar Arc MC, if given the option.]

http://www.noeltyl.com/techniques/000930.html

I hope this helps.

Hi,

I just returned from vacation and haven't had time to digest the resurrection of this thread, but I did catch this:

Quote:
But note that Morin cites Kepler's opinion that the solar arc be 'added to the radical places of the Sun and the Moon'. This is clearly not secondary directions/progressions.


Quote:
Yes, this is correct. This is why Sepharial (unlike Simmonite) uses the Moon's mean motion to substitute for the secondary progressions of the Moon (taken from the ephemeris). See his essay "The Radix System" in his book The Science of Foreknowledge. Of course Sepharial contradicted his own opinions constantly. Before blogs, there were books; more difficult to delete.


Fair enough. I clearly missed the full implication of that. James Holden in his 'History of Horoscopic Astrology' did seem to tentatively suggest Kepler may have originated secondary progressions but he didn't provide any solid source for this conclusion. The quote from Morin does seem quite compelling evidence in support of his use of solar arc directions.

Since last year when this thread started I've spent quite a bit of time with Morin and I think I can say with minimal authority that he would have hanged himself before using solar arc directions. Almost everything Morin did had a basis in nature. Nature is the basis of his astrology as stated in Astrologia Gallica. In fact it was through nature that Morin tried to establish astrology's validity in the face of the rising tide of skepticism and the coming Enlightenment.

More than likely he is referring to primary directions when he talks about the solar arc being added to the Sun and Moon, meaning using the Sun's arc (he used Naibod mean motion 59' 08" per day) to equal one year of life. So for every 59' 08" of arc the Moon moves by primary motion it is the equivalent to one year in the life of the native. I'd have to look at the precise quote to be more specific, but I am nearly certain that he would have had nothing to do with solar arc directions had he been aware of them. He wouldn't use the Lots, except Fortuna, the terms, faces, and nodes as they all lacked a place in nature. So why would he use, much less develop solar arc directions particularly since he so loved primary directions?

Tom

Hello Tom,

Hope you had a good break.

I haven't worked with primary directions so I will defer to those with greater knowledge to respond on your suggestion on Naibod primary directions. Still, it seems to me that the quote provided by Martin is fully compatible with a system of solar arc directions. Moreover, Martin did not suggest Morin used this system or approved of it. On the contrary, he states:

Morin discusses and rejects it in Astrologia Gallica 22

Lets go back to Morin himself:

Kepler ... wants then, if it is required to find where a direction of the Sun and Moon extends to 30 years after birth, to take from the ephemerides the places of the Sun at noon on the day of the nativity and then on the 30th day after the nativity, and subtract the former from the latter, and there will remain the arc of the ecliptic, which, added to the radical places of the Sun and the Moon, will show where the directions of the Sun and the Moon extend to in the ecliptic in that 30th year.
Astrologia Gallica 22 p79 [Translated James Holden)

So do you consider the above quote as consistent with a description of Naibod primaries used by Kepler? Why pick on Kepler in particular? If these are Naibod primaries there would surely be nothing very interesting or noteable in what Kepler was doing? Surely, lots of astrologers were using this system then? Why not refer to Naibod himself? Isn't it far more plausible Morin is identifying and disagreeing with an astrological idiosyncracy of Kepler?

This sounds identical to the system of solar arc directions used by modern astrologers like Ebertin and Tyl based on the daily solar motion representing a year of life rather than the mean solar arc of the sun. If Kepler was using a standardised mean daily motion for the sun as suggested by Naibod why does he need an ephemeris to calculate the position of the Sun after 30 days= 30 years? Moreover, from my reading of this Morin is stating the moon is directed using the same solar arc rate of a day for a year. This surely isn't compatible with either secondary progressions or primary directions is it?

Hello Andrew,

Thank you for all your fascinating input on Simmonite and Sepharial.

I ought to have added that it was Sepharial and Robson who used the mean daily motion of the Sun (rather than solar arcs per se).

Simmonite's Method. The Sun's actual daily motion after birth represents one year of life. In other words the increase in the Sun's R.A. from noon on the day of birth to noon on the next day is the measure for the first year; that from noon on the first day after birth to noon on the second is the measure for the second year and so on. A variety of this method is to employ the Sun's actual daily motion in R.A. on the day of birth as a constant measure for the whole of life.

That makes me even more interested in Simmonite's work as I have found the daily solar arc system more accurate than the mean daily motion of the sun in the charts I have worked with.

Hi Mark,

Let me explain:

So do you consider the above quote as consistent with a description of Naibod primaries used by Kepler?

I don't know how Kepler did primary directions. Naibod's use of the mean motion of the Sun is what Rumen Kolev called a "key." One can use the same "key" with several different primary directions systems. Briefly.

There are two main ways to calculate primary directions: in zodiac and in mundo. In zodiac means directions are cacluated on the ecliptic in celestial longitude. If the astrologer calculates in the order of the signs he is calculating "direct." If he calculates against the order of the signs, he is calculating converse directions.

In mundo calculations are based on the exact position of the planets above and below the equator. Some calculate with latitude some calculate without latitude. Regardless the arc of direction is different in mundo than it is in zodiac.

All astrologers calculated directions to the angles in the same way. But not all astrologers agreed on how to calculate the arc of direction in mundo from planet to planet either by conjunction or aspect. Morin calculated primary directions in the manner of Regiomontanus as did Lilly. There are other methods including Placidus directions, Topocentric, Under the pole of the significator, et al. Now once we settle on the way to determine the arc of direction, we now need to determine the symbolic time that arc indicates. Ptolemy used one degree for one year of life. So if the arc of direction between, say, Mars and Jupiter, regardless of how it is determined, is 37 degrees, Ptolemy would say Mars is directed to a conjunction with Jupiter at age 37. But if we use the Naibod Key of 59' 08" for one year of life the conjunction would take place at a later time than age 37. So we can see that the method as well as the key can result in "Hits" that may occur years apart.

Morin used Regiomontanus' system for directions to aspects and conjunctions and he used the key of Naibod.

Why pick on Kepler in particular?

No reason. Someone else mentioned Kepler before I did. Morin probably had something to say about him though because Morin had something to say about everyone.

If these are Naibod primaries there would surely be nothing very interesting or noteable in what Kepler was doing? Surely, lots of astrologers were using this system then? Why not refer to Naibod himself? Isn't it far more plausible Morin is identifying and disagreeing with an astrological idiosyncracy of Kepler?

I really need to get a handle of what Kepler is doing in order to understand Morin's remarks. I understand how Morin did primary directions. If we can tie the origin, in one way or another, of solar arc directions to Kepler, it is highly likely that Morin would criticize that, if he were aware of it.

The purpose of solar arcs, at least as they are understood today, is not quite the same as the purpose of primary directions. Modern astrology places a great deal of emphasis on aspects in the natal chart. The use of solar arc directions keeps those aspects in tact exactly as they are in the nativity. This is perfectly consistent once we accept the over riding importance of aspects. For example, if we believe that the Jupiter - Mercury square in the chart of native A describes much of his personality, then keeping that most important aspect in tact throughout the life when we do predictions is also very important.

Primary directions on the other hand show the type of events most likely to occur in the life based on a natural planetary motion (allowing for converse directions to be considered "normal" motion - this can be done but not all old astrolgoers directed conversely). It shows how the life unfolds, and used as Morin and others used them, it was part of a predictive system, not the only part. So although there are similarities, we are really dealing with apples and oranges here.

Let me get over my jet lag, and I'll dig into this some more.

Tom

Hi Tom,

Thanks for trying to explain the workings of primaries to me. I know you have gone into this and indeed Morin far more than most of us. Primary directions is definitely next on my list of traditional techniques to study. I have always felt one cannot really call onself a traditional astrologer unless one can do these. I do intend to get Rumen Kolev's books and his software (when my ship comes in!)

I do not have access to my copy of the book right now. I think I better take some time to study the relevant part of Astrologia Gallica myself to understand more of the context of this quote from Morin we are all focusing on.

As things stand though, I still dont get why Morin would look upon this as something particular to Kepler if it was just Naibod directions or indeed any system of primaries as you suggest. That doesn't make much sense to me.

It seems hard to deny that the definition of Kepler's technique, as described by Morin, exactly matches the modern approach to solar arcs?

Hi Tom, Mark, and everyone,

And sorry if my previous posts added to the confusion. Let me state again that Morin definitely did not accept solar arc directions, or indeed any form of symbolic motion. Tom is quite right that he would have scorned to use them.

Solar arcs, however, are what Kepler's comments seem to amount to. Morin brings them up only to refute them, in the context of a discussion on various 'keys' used for primary directions. Morin (as Andrew said) rejected a great deal, but he seems to have had it in for Kepler in particular. There is a lovely passage somewhere in AG where Morin quotes Kepler on the subject of the relationship between angels and planets, and goes on to say something to the effect that 'this shows that Kepler understands as little about angels as he does about astrology'.

On the subject of primary directions, perhaps it will not be out of place to mention that The Wessex Astrologer will publish a full-length book on the subject next years, written for non-mathematicians.

Hello Martin,

I thought your post was clear enough in terms of Morin disagreeing with Kepler here on this technique.

No doubt Kepler's innovations regarding the aspects didn't endear him to Morin either.

On the subject of primary directions, perhaps it will not be out of place to mention that The Wessex Astrologer will publish a full-length book on the subject next years, written for non-mathematicians.

Thats interesting. Do you know who the author is? So far I only have Sepharial's 'Directional Astrology' on the subject. As one of the 'mathematically challenged' this book sounds like it was written for me.

Hello Mark,

I'm afraid I indulged in a bit of self-promotion there. I am working on the last few chapters right now. The working title is Primary Directions: Astrology's Old Master Technique(alluding to the term as used in art history).

Hello Martin,

I'm afraid I indulged in a bit of self-promotion there. I am working on the last few chapters right now. The working title is Primary Directions: Astrology's Old Master Technique(alluding to the term as used in art history).

Hardly any need to apologise! This is exciting news. I am sure there is a small army of traditional enthusiasts like myself who would really welcome a book like yours covering the basic groundwork on primary directions. I have always felt it was one of the more elusive areas of the art.

When do you expect your book to be published next year?

I do hope skyscript get a complementary copy so we can see a review on the site next year too.

Good luck with your final chapters!

When do you expect your book to be published next year?

No date has been set, but hopefully early in the year.

I do hope skyscript get a complementary copy so we can see a review on the site next year too.

I shall talk to the publisher about it. Thanks for your good wishes!

MarkC wrote:... I do intend to get Rumen Kolev's books and his software (when my ship comes in!)

Don't forget that my free program does Placidus mundo and zodiacal directions using Rumen's formulations:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze6qirr/myindex.html

His program is of course much more flexible and covers many other kinds of primaries. But for the ones mine does, the results are the same as his.

...It seems hard to deny that the definition of Kepler's technique, as described by Morin, exactly matches the modern approach to solar arcs?

From what I've read as translation on this thread so far, I have to agree with you. But I haven't read Morin directly.

- Ed