Skyscript Astrology Forum

johannes susato wrote:
I find two guidelines above the topics but cannot find anything written by Tom (Pre 20th Century Western Astrology) comparing to your words. Instead I read this for exmple:
"This particular forum exists to learn, apply, and exchange techniques and ideas regarding traditional and ancient astrology and astrologers."

Johannes

In my book that is just another way of putting it. Mine was a bit more poetic, or cutting to the chase, perhaps. Either way it seems clear enough in principle.

Nixx wrote:In my book that is just another way of putting it. Mine was a bit more poetic, or cutting to the chase, perhaps. Either way it seems clear enough in principle.

I think we'd have to agree to disagree on that, Tom's wording puts the focus on learning and applying traditional techniques, yours on schisms and dogmas - obviously the two are not the same in focus.

In any event we're probably getting off topic now.


Another question regarding interpretive problems with multiple planets in a house may crop up with profections.
Something I've been trying to figure out for a while now and which may have some relevance to the idea of multiple planets in houses is a section from Vettius Valens on profections.

In Book IV, pg79 of Mark Riley's translation, he says:

If one transmission is found in a nativity (i.e. if all stars happen to come to one sign). /177K/ they themselves will transmit zodiacally. The nativity will share whatever overall quality this mixture indicates
for it with every star. Say three or four stars are found in one sign, one or two in another: in this case the one in dominant aspect in its degree-position <to> will allot the chronocratorship (i.e. the one
with the lowest degree-position of degrees will receive the chronocratorship <first>.) Then the star next in order <will>. The same is true for the receivers <?>. Even though the distribution is complicated, if one pays attention he will not go wrong.

Do the first part of this is easy to understand, if there are is than one planet in a given house, then the chronocratorship hands over to the one earliest in degree in that given sign/house.

But what does the latter bit mean - 'then the star next in order will receive'? Does it mean that the next period (ie 12 years later) the next planet will receive the chronocratorship rather than the one earliest in degree?

Paul wrote:

Nixx wrote:In my book that is just another way of putting it. Mine was a bit more poetic, or cutting to the chase, perhaps. Either way it seems clear enough in principle.

I think we'd have to agree to disagree on that, Tom's wording puts the focus on learning and applying traditional techniques, yours on schisms and dogmas - obviously the two are not the same in focus.

In my opinion it is not only "not the same in focus" but a complete no go to give one's own words anotherone's name.

Paul wrote:In any event we're probably getting off topic now.

Right you are, Paul.

Johannes

Paul wrote:[...] Vettius Valens on profections.

In Book IV, pg79 of Mark Riley's translation, he says:

If one transmission is found in a nativity (i.e. if all stars happen to come to one sign). /177K/ they themselves will transmit zodiacally. The nativity will share whatever overall quality this mixture indicates
for it with every star. Say three or four stars are found in one sign, one or two in another: in this case the one in dominant aspect in its degree-position <to> will allot the chronocratorship (i.e. the one
with the lowest degree-position of degrees will receive the chronocratorship <first>.) Then the star next in order <will>. The same is true for the receivers <?>. Even though the distribution is complicated, if one pays attention he will not go wrong.

Do the first part of this is easy to understand, if there are is than one planet in a given house, then the chronocratorship hands over to the one earliest in degree in that given sign/house.

But what does the latter bit mean - 'then the star next in order will receive'? Does it mean that the next period (ie 12 years later) the next planet will receive the chronocratorship rather than the one earliest in degree?

In addition my understanding of this quotation is, that Valens stresses that every single star transmits "whatever overall quality this mixture of stars indicates". Whenever a star is affected by whatever, the whole number of stars in the same signe/house is affected - and affects (!) - because this mixture of stars indicates a certain overall quality.

Johannes

Hopefully I am allowed by English grammar, to read the Valens-sentence:
"The nativity will share whatever overall quality this mixture indicates
for it with every star."

also in this word order:
"The nativity will share with every star whatever overall quality this mixture indicates for it."

or in this order too:
"Whatever overall quality this mixture indicates
the nativity will share for it with every star."

If not so, please let me know.

Johannes

johannes susato wrote:Hopefully I am allowed by English grammar, to read the Valens-sentence:
"The nativity will share whatever overall quality this mixture indicates
for it with every star."

also in this word order:
"The nativity will share with every star whatever overall quality this mixture indicates for it."

or in this order too:
"Whatever overall quality this mixture indicates
the nativity will share for it with every star."

If not so, please let me know.

Johannes

I don't mean that bit actually, I meant the latter part, which is "Then the star next in order <will>."

When will it? What does it mean? The next star will do what? Will it be the chronocrator the next time we come to that profection place?

If a house has multiple planets - how does this affect profections?

Too much talk. Let's do some practice. What do you (all posters) say about this chart?

Kirk wrote:

james_m wrote:hi kirk - do you agree with morin or not? i am curious..

I don't know. Probably not.

thanks kirk! i like the first part of your answer.

let me ask you and the board another question that i think is related -

do you think having more planets in a particular sign puts greater emphasis on that sign?

Tzadde wrote:Too much talk. Let's do some practice. What do you (all posters) say about this chart?

Look at the pretty colors. :-P

This is getting close to a "Read My Chart" things, which is something the mods here would like to avoid. Also, think is a vague request, as there are lots of ways to go about talking about a life & the nativity that is a representation of such a life.

But I'll go about blindly and see how it goes. Apologies if it's totally off base, I'm out of practice. Were you "married" to a foreigner around 18-20? Did it come about through your work, and have there been problems with professional income and siblings/locals due to marriage?

GR wrote:Look at the pretty colors. :-P

Thanks.

GR wrote:This is getting close to a "Read My Chart" things, which is something the mods here would like to avoid.

Yes, I reckon this is a bit of a problem, because I wanted to look for a chart that isn't mine, and that should belong to someone I know so I can confirm whether the delineation is true or not. Because I didn't find any, I had to come up with my own.

GR wrote:Also, think is a vague request, as there are lots of ways to go about talking about a life & the nativity that is a representation of such a life.

Indeed, it was vague on purpose, but the context is here: how would you read a stellium in a chart? Especially in a traditional stand?

GR wrote:But I'll go about blindly and see how it goes. Apologies if it's totally off base, I'm out of practice. Were you "married" to a foreigner around 18-20? Did it come about through your work, and have there been problems with professional income and siblings/locals due to marriage?

Thanks for trying. I have met my first love when I was 19 and it was terrific. No, there was no foreign person and the first meeting was by a chatroom. Unfortunately, it didn't long last, I "divorced" after two or three years.
Well, I did try to find a workplace twice, but never had a good outcome. So I have finally given up, because there were weird occurrences. All these in the same 18-20 years old time frame. Now I'm just self-employed and yes, there are problems with my income. Luckily, there is someone I can rely on. I have my share of misunderstandings with my sibling, especially when the love life of the sibling is involved. About locals, no problems, just some nasty rumours about myself in the neighbourhood, in the past (especially when I was a teenager).

I think you were pretty close.

james_m wrote:
do you think having more planets in a particular sign puts greater emphasis on that sign?

I'm not sure what Morin would have said here.

With his analogical approach I assume the ''emphasis'' on a sign increases where planets feel more at home, in the way he conceptualised this.

Was he ploughing new ground here or is there more of a lineage for his ideas in this respect ?

As far as I know, Morin disliked traditional astrology, so he was among the first modern astrologers in the history, if not the first.