Oh my Lord, I don't know where I had got the 11.00 time for me by Trutina Hermetis, I calculated it again and got either 10.34 (earlier time) or 11.45 (later time).

But what I've been thinking about this method is, that it means that there are only certain moments during the day when people can be born. Any midwife can tell us that this is not true in real life. So, if we use Trutina Hermetis, we must take it as a metaphysical time of birth, not the actual physical one. It would also mean that souls would be kind of "pulsating" into the world in groups. Anyone born in the same day and same place than I between 10.34 and 11.45 o'clock have exactly the same horoscope when rectified (backwards) with Trutina Hermetis. And what about those who have been born prematurely...? But I?m not denying that it might still be an interesting idea.

Hi to all

I'd like to say something about the difference between the "real" hour and the "rectified" hour of nativity. It depends on the orography of the terrain, which will let the light impact the baby earlier or later. This is why it is always necessary to rectify the nativity, even if we were looking at the watch when the baby was born.

Also, we have to think that the important thing is not exactly the moment when one is born, but the moment when one stops being synchronised with the universe of his mother and synchronises with the macrocosmos.

According to traditional astrology, the astrological effect is produced through Light and Air. And these two aspects impact the baby at one particular moment: when she/he breathes for the first time. At that moment, the Air fills his lungs and two valves of his heart close and other two open, and the circulation of his blood switches from horizontal to vertical. In that moment, too, the Light of the universe impacts him, and conditions his body to work in a particular way.

As I said, this Light will impact him earlier or later depending on the relief of zone. A great mass of earth like a big mountain can delay that moment, for example.

Hope the explanation wasn't too long!

I forgot! Thanks for the explanations of the Trutina and the Anymodar. They've been so useful for me!

Rectification with Animodar in my case yields a pretty good result...my birth was preceded by a full Moon(16.9.1978.); the Moon was a planet above the earth, the ruler of the syzygy is thus Jupiter,Almuten is Mars.
Natally, according to the recorded time of birth from a birth certificate and my mother's memory, I have ASC 4*22 Vir(18.9.1978,3:55 AM Karlovac, Croatia).
Ruler of the syzygy,Jupiter i closer to the ASC degree, so it points out that my ASC should really be at 2*20 Vir...if I take Mars, my MC should be at 28*50' Tau(according to Deb's article on Animodar as it was used by Galileo...)

But it is still highly confusing.

Lilly himself starts the confusion - first he says that one ought to take the Almuten of the syzygy degree(in the chart of the English merchant, this would have been Saturn at 9*Tau). But then, instead of doing just that, he chooses the lady of that degree("as some would do"-which means...?)Venus. And there you go-the rectification by Animodar gives a "strange concurrence" with ASC degree he has come up with doing his rectification by "accidents" via primary directions.

Regulus Astrology,in his posts on criminals on his forum, uses rectification by Animodar on a regular basis, and the results have been quite impressive so far(at least for me). Now, in his delineations he takes the degree of the ruler of the syzygy as he is posited in the chart of the SYZYGY, and NOT its later position in the natal chart. Lilly uses the degree position of the syzygy ruler as it is given in a NATAL CHART.

Can someone shed some light on this issue,please? Any comments which would help to clarify this mess are MOST welcome.

I tried wrestling with the Tritune of Hermes method this morning, and while I was trying to follow Deb's and Lilly's respective example charts I realized that -- I think -- Deb made a small but crucial mistake in calculating Tom's Tritune data, which Ida later followed. (Pointing this out is almost as frightening to me as the math involved.)

In Lilly's Table of the Mon(e)ths, the dates beside the months refer to the final day of that month, not the first. January's is 31, then February's 59. In calculating Tom's data (February 20, 1948), Deb took 60 for February (leap year) and then added a further 20 to it, yielding 80 as the number for the day of birth -- but according to Lilly's instructions, it should really be 51. We labeled this B for convenience.

If A = 269 and B = 51, and we add one year for calculation ease as Deb suggests, we end up with 148 or 147 depending on whether we've added a normal 365 or 366 for a leap year. (Tom was born in a leap year. I haven't the faintest idea which is more appropriate.) Comparing this to Lilly's Table of Months, we find the closest match is bisextill 152, sitting beside May (and representing the last day in May). If we subtract 4 or 5 days from the end of May, Tom was conceived on May 26 or 27, 1947 -- when the Moon was in Leo, or had moved into the first 2 degrees of Virgo by midnight. His ascendant is 29 Leo, so it seems the method works!

Ida's chart, if recalculated, shows that she was conceived on February 13, 1963, when the Moon had just shifted from Virgo into the first degree of Libra. She has said she has a Virgo ascendant -- so perhaps either the method is inexact, or she is truly an early Libra ascendant?

I tried the method on my own chart, and three others I had close to hand with verified birth times, and it worked for all four. I don't understand it, but it's fascinating.

Papretis wrote:Hello Estebongone and others,


Yuzuru, what you said about in vitro concepted babies is an interesting thought. Wondering if anyone has done that kind of research...

But in vitro conception there's not so much chance. So I don't know what part would the "energy of the moment" play there in define the actual genetic constitution (which in part affects our body and our looks: the things that are traditionally associated with the ascendant) - but of course it would have an effect to the success of the conception; so parents interested in astrology might well like to elect the conception moment.

I have about 50-70 in vitro dates from a clinic. I got the information from the the Clincboss for a study. But I have not finished this research.- A problem is also to definite the conception, is it the time of the in vitro act, or the time where the ouval is given back to the women body? But still I have the dates of the in vitro times, this was always in the morning at 8 am.
May I will find more time to finish this study. But anyway, I found an important point in Hermeswaage (Trutine of Hemes). It is important where the conception was!!!! The Place is important. AS is changing! Realy I have good evidences for this.

Wolfgang

cor scorpii wrote:
Regulus Astrology,in his posts on criminals on his forum, uses rectification by Animodar on a regular basis, and the results have been quite impressive so far(at least for me). Now, in his delineations he takes the degree of the ruler of the syzygy as he is posited in the chart of the SYZYGY, and NOT its later position in the natal chart. Lilly uses the degree position of the syzygy ruler as it is given in a NATAL CHART.

Can someone shed some light on this issue,please? Any comments which would help to clarify this mess are MOST welcome.

I don't know about Regulus.
In CieloeTerra they consider both the ruler of the sizigy and the following angle, i.e. the angle from which the sigizy is separating - taken in the diurnal motion.

From what I understand they consider the ruler in both charts, but especially in the natal one.

They consider even a Renaissance variant proposed by Placido Titi and discussed by Gerolamo Vitali in his Lexicon.

As usually Placido considered everything "in mundo", according their hourly distance.

I wrote an example of it with Obama chart- last winter if I well remember. This is the link:

http://heavenastrolabe.net/?s=animodar

this site is a little slow, I don't know the reason, I hope that soon it will work better.

Margherita

Thank you very much,Margherita. The article is very good and I will surely use the information provided in my future delineations.

cor scorpii wrote:Thank you very much,Margherita. The article is very good and I will surely use the information provided in my future delineations.

Well, thanks.
I just wanted to add that Placidus used the hourly distances of the three minor aspects too- quintile, bi-quintile and sesquiquadrate, introduced by Kepler
It's me who discarded them in my example about Obama.

In every case I'm sure that in CieloeTerra they prefer rectify by accidents, by primary directions.

Margherita

cor scorpii wrote:Regulus Astrology,in his posts on criminals on his forum, uses rectification by Animodar on a regular basis, and the results have been quite impressive so far(at least for me). Now, in his delineations he takes the degree of the ruler of the syzygy as he is posited in the chart of the SYZYGY, and NOT its later position in the natal chart. Lilly uses the degree position of the syzygy ruler as it is given in a NATAL CHART.

I emailed Helena and Luis from the Tradition Journal who are doing the big Animodar research project right now. From what they have seen traditional sources, like Lilly which you mention, take the position of the ruler of the syzygy in the natal chart. I have edited my posts on criminals just now, presenting the positions for the rulers in both syzygy and natal for comparison. I also show results for the exalted ruler when appropriate.

In the limited number of cases I have looked at so far, the ruler's position in the syzygy appears to win out, but this is not a statistical conclusion.

In general, I prefer to rectify by accidents with primary directions. The main problem with the animodar I have is the wide number of permutations given that the ruler's degree can match the degree of EITHER Ascendant OR Midheaven. One would have to run a Monte Carlo simulation to be sure, but I suspect that anything outside of 5-6 degrees of either angle is not statistically significant.

And there is no guarantee that the animodar works in all cases. Why bother when rectification by accidents can at least be tested on an out-of-sample basis and corrected/fine-tuned as necessary?

I have been including Animodar results for criminals out of pure curiousity, not as an endorsement of the technique.

Best wishes,

Well, this does clarify(at least some) of the issues concerning Animodar. Thanks,Dr.H

However, there's still this question of whether to take the Almuten of the syzygy degree or just its domicile ruler.Lilly, as it is well known, had the same kind of problem since he mentions Almuten but takes the ruler instead.
But then, if we follow Ptolemy, it seems that he suggests pretty clearly we should take the Almuten of the syzygy degree into consideration...and its position in the NATAL chart.

It remains to be seen and tested. Thank you guys for your time and help