Skyscript Astrology Forum

Apart from one isolated instance in Gaurico (which I believe is simply a miscalculation), I am not aware of any astrologer prior to the 19th century directing against the primary motion/against time. To ar-Rijal (Abenragel) and others of his time, 'converse' meant something entirely different.

Here I will post one very interesting passage from Haly Abenragel(Haly Abenragel, De iudiciis astrorum, Basel, 1551, p.158):

"According to Ptolemy and those who agree with him when we want to move a Hyleg with Tasyir and if he is located in VIII and IX houses, then the Tasyir is against the order of signs . But other sages disagree and [they] do it [Tasyir] in direct way."

Good morning

astroart wrote:
"According to Ptolemy and those who agree with him when we want to move a Hyleg with Tasyir and if he is located in VIII and IX houses, then the Tasyir is against the order of signs . But other sages disagree and [they] do it [Tasyir] in direct way."

I believe the reason is nobody know how they should direct. So "when in doubt abstain."
Haly says the same in his comment to Tetrabiblos, (I've a partial translation)-

margherita

astroart wrote:Here I will post one very interesting passage from Haly Abenragel(Haly Abenragel, De iudiciis astrorum, Basel, 1551, p.158):

"According to Ptolemy and those who agree with him when we want to move a Hyleg with Tasyir and if he is located in VIII and IX houses, then the Tasyir is against the order of signs . But other sages disagree and [they] do it [Tasyir] in direct way."

Yes, the terms 'converse' and 'against the order of the signs' go a long way back, all the way to Ptolemy; but if you read the texts carefully you will see that they meant something very different than they do today. The distinction related to the relative positions of significator and promissor in the zodiac -- whether the promissor was ahead of the significator or behind it -- but the directing was always done with the primary motion. Ar-Rijal is no exception to this rule.

Hello

I am trying to understand this direction, not from a historical, but from a logical point of view.

You cannot move the Moon at 5? Libra to the square of Saturn at 9? Sagittarius, because this movement goes against the primary motion.

And you cannot move the square of Saturn at 9? Sagittarius to the Moon at 5? Libra, because the 9? Sagittarius is an aspect point. When the 9? Sagittarius point is brought by the primary motion to the conjunction of the natal Moon, it is no longer square to the natal Saturn, so it has no meaning.

You can move a planet but not an aspect point. Is that correct ?

Regards

Martine wrote: And you cannot move the square of Saturn at 9? Sagittarius to the Moon at 5? Libra, because the 9? Sagittarius is an aspect point.

no, no to me this should be correct, promissor (Saturn square) is going to significator of life, Moon according the daily motion.

It's not correct just because Boulin was alive and kicking in 1960s

at least this is what i understood,
margherita

Martine wrote:I am trying to understand this direction, not from a historical, but from a logical point of view.

The two aren't mutually exclusive, though. A historical understanding often helps bring out the logic of a technique.

You cannot move the Moon at 5? Libra to the square of Saturn at 9? Sagittarius, because this movement goes against the primary motion.

Correct (or at least that is what astrologers prior to c. 1850 would have said).

And you cannot move the square of Saturn at 9? Sagittarius to the Moon at 5? Libra, because the 9? Sagittarius is an aspect point. When the 9? Sagittarius point is brought by the primary motion to the conjunction of the natal Moon, it is no longer square to the natal Saturn, so it has no meaning.

Certainly you can move an aspect point. Even if you want to take secondary (zodiacal) motion into consideration, how much does Saturn move in a few hours?

Thank you Margherita and Martin for this clarification.

Regards

There is this direction I mentioned in the beginning :

- dexter square Mars direct Part of Hyleg 20 Oct 1979 (Zodiacal Placidus semi-arc with Kepler key).

I think that we have a problem with the direction of Pars of Hyleg. The root of the problem lies in this passage(Haly Abenragel, De iudiciis astrorum, Basel, 1551, same p.158):


"Know that the Tasyir of the Hyleg and planets is in the order of the signs from the beginning to the end except the pars and the retrograde planets.Their Tasyir is against of the order of signs, starting from the end of the sign and finishing to his beginning."

Hi Astroart

You wrote

I think that we have a problem with the direction of Pars of Hyleg. The root of the problem lies in this passage(Haly Abenragel, De iudiciis astrorum, Basel, 1551, same p.158):


"Know that the Tasyir of the Hyleg and planets is in the order of the signs from the beginning to the end except the pars and the retrograde planets.Their Tasyir is against of the order of signs, starting from the end of the sign and finishing to his beginning."

I don't know the meaning of the word "Tasyir".

The calculation of the part of hyleg made by Janus is the most usual calculation. It is also traditional. I know that some astrologers calculate the parts using the primary motion, but I don't.

It seems to me that there is evidence to show that 1?) the birth hour given is not very different from the true one and 2?) the directions to the part of hyleg, calculated as usual, are important in this chart.For instance, looking the chart given by Margherita, showing the natal positions and the directions for the date of death, I find :

- Directed Neptune at 29?09 Libra falls on the natal 8th cusp Alchabitius at 29?02 Libra. This tends to confirme the birth time, as Neptune shows the conditions of death.

- Directed Saturn falls at 8?32 Sagittarius, opposite the natal part of hyleg at 8?42 Gemini.

Using two different systems of directions, we find therefore two deadly directions to the same part of hyleg : the square of Mars I mentioned before, with one method, and an opposition of Saturn with the other. This seems too much for just a coincidence.

There are different ways to get to the truth and I suppose Haly Abenragel's is one of them. But I don't understand it. So I am keeping to the methods I know, especially as they seem to work satisfactorily. But it is always interesting, of course, to hear about other techniques.

Regards

Hi Martine,

Tasyir or projecting of rays is Arabic term and analogue of the Greek term ?????? which in this passage means primary directions.Later I will explain in details where is the problem with this direction (according to the opinion of Haly Abenragel).

astroart wrote:
Tasyir or projecting of rays is Arabic term and analogue of the Greek term ?????? which in this passage means primary directions.Later I will explain in details where is the problem with this direction (according to the opinion of Haly Abenragel).

Yes, do it please.

For me it's quite obvious why retrograde planets can be considered in the other sense, but about Pars Hyleg, i cannot guess,

margherita

Hi Martine and Margherita,

As Martin Gansten correctly notes, the phrases ?from the beginning of the sign to the end? and ?from the end of the sign to the beginning? don?t means direct or converse motion of the planets-they means the position of the promitor in relation to the significator.In medieval astrology the first term- ?in the order of the signs?(secundum ordinem signorum-lat.)means that promitors are situated in counterclockwise direction in respect of the significator in order of increasing of their zodiacal longitude.First direction is with the promittor( planet or aspect point) with the smallest longitude, next direction is with promittor with the next longitude and etc.For this purpose before starting calculations of directions must be prepared a special table(speculum-lat.) in which in ascending order are placed the promittors (according to their zodiacal longitudes).It is nothing more than the traditional primary directions of promitors(moved points) to the significator or apheta(fixed point) in the direction of diurnal motion(clockwise).
In this case significator(apheta) stay fixed and promitors(planets or aspects of planets) are moved.Direction is clockwise-a diurnal motion.

The next term ??against the order of the signs?(contra ordinem signorum-lat.) means somethning very interesting:-)))
In this case the promitors(planets or their aspects) are situated in clockwise direction in relation to significator (apheta) or in the order against of the signs.First direction is with planet or aspect point with largest zodiacal longitude(in this order),second direction is with next largest point and so on.
In this case apheta is moved to the planets or their aspects which are fixed(promitors are fixed, apheta is moved).The direction is a diurnal motion-clockwise.

Very good example how old astrolgers have worked is the horoscope of emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus(see ?Arcana mundi? Milan,1995, pp.936-946).

In our case, dexter square Mars direct Pars of Hyleg, Pars of Hyleg is in 8Gemini44 and square of Mars is in 4Leo21.Haly Abenragel claims:

"Know that the Tasyir of the Hyleg and planets is in the order of the signs from the beginning to the end except the pars and the retrograde planets.Their Tasyir is against of the order of signs, starting from the end of the sign and finishing to his beginning."

Because the direction is with the pars, we have a primary directions from the second variant-??against the order of the signs?(contra ordinem signorum).In this case the promitor-square of Mars- must be situated before(in order of signs) the significator-Pars of Hyleg.Therefore this direction is impossible (according to the Arabic tradition).

Same situation is with the other direction -converse direction of Moon to square of Saturn with hit date 30th October 1979-this direction too is impossible.