Skyscript Astrology Forum

Tom wrote:
In one of his booklets on Primary Directions, Rumen Kolev expressed it perfectly when he said something like this: "For the math phobic primary directions must seem like the hell itself."

not hell, but purgatory , especially Placidean stuff

As long ago promised but until now not delivered, what follows is a discussion of Worsdale?s remarks regarding the secondary directions, i.e., to us ?progressions,? in Joseph Kent?s chart. The chart is not in Celestial Philosophy, but the one calculated by Solar Fire is consistent with his remarks. Calculation of secondary progressions is so simple it is hard to believe there could be much difference between what follows and what he used. I believe he is using the progressions as a check on the directions, the method he preferred, so less attention is paid to the difference between applying and separating aspects.




In this chart Worsdale uses techniques besides primary directions. He writes (my comments in red):

By secondary motion the Sun was in conjunction with Mercury [The Sun is slightly more than a full degree from the natal position of Mercury, according to Solar Fire. This is the equivalent of a full year of life], and the Moon the giver of life had nearly arrived at the place of the Sun in the nativity [The Moon is nearly two full degrees from the natal Sun, but given the Moon?s speed this is only a few months from perfection], and was applying to the square of her radical position [True, but this would perfect about 6 months after his death], and likewise to the rays of Mars [Not natal Mars. The Moon is three degrees past the position of natal Mars about three months time in the real world. Progressed Moon is however applying to the square of progressed Mars roughly a two-degree orb] the chief mortal promittor in the geniture, these obnoxious applications, compared with the violence of the progression [I?m tempted to do a little mind reading here. Progressed Mars is only 4 minutes of arc from a square to the natal Sun. Curiously, he doesn?t mention that] considerably increase the baneful power of the Anaretical Directions to the prorogator.

The last sentence is the first time he labels Mars as the chief instrument of death. While the directions and progressions clearly implicate Mars, it is not his position that makes him deadly. It seems to be the fact that all this other stuff relates to the body and/or the life and if you pile up all that stuff on Mars, you die. Morinus noted on occasion, that Mars, by itself cannot bring death. It indicates the kind of death. However Morinus did not use things like hyleg and anareta. He used the ASC. The French astrologer had something of an aversion to Arab astrologers and their techniques.

The next installment will discuss the solar return for the year of death.

Tom wrote:Calculation of secondary progressions is so simple it is hard to believe there could be much difference between what follows and what he used. I believe he is using the progressions as a check on the directions [...]

He is, following Placidus, to whom secondary directions were truly secondary and subordinate to the primary directions. (Placidus based this on Ptolemy's hierarchy of primary directions, annual profections and monthly profections; but he substituted secondary directions and [minor] progressions for the latter two, saying that that was what Ptolemy probably meant!)

As far as calculation is concerned, Worsdale probably used solar arc in RA rather than in longitude as you have; but it appears to make little or no difference here. He wouldn't have cast a chart, because properly speaking there is no chart for secondary directions: the angles and cusps shown in our software charts are really based on primary (not secondary) direction. It was only with Alan Leo's invention of the 'progressed horoscope' that people began combining the two techniques in a single chart.

There is another important difference, though:

I?m tempted to do a little mind reading here. Progressed Mars is only 4 minutes of arc from a square to the natal Sun. Curiously, he doesn?t mention that

Exactly. That is because Mars is not a Ptolemaic significator, only a promissor; and Placidus and his followers, including Worsdale, only followed the secondary motion of the significators in the zodiac, that is, the Sun and the Moon.

Thanks Martin for your comments.

He wouldn't have cast a chart, because properly speaking there is no chart for secondary directions:

I thought as much, but many of our modern counterparts think of secondaries in terms of a chart. I could have posted a bi-wheel and perhaps next time I will in order to make that point more clear. Also I can create one using solar arc in RA so I'll do that, too.

What follows is the revolution of the year for Master Kent or as we know it, his solar return. The chart follows then I?ve posted Worsdale?s remarks plus my own.

In the revolutional (sic) figure for the seventh year of the native?s age, the Moon was in a violent part of the Heavens and separating from the opposite place of Mars in the nativity ??

He threw me a curve here. ?? the seventh year" begins at the 6th birthday and on that birthday the Moon was conjunct Algol, but is not separating from natal Mars. On the 7th revolution the Moon is, according to Solar Fire at 15 Libra 27 and of course does separate from natal Mars at 10 Aries. But I?m not sure how violent this area of heaven is, even using his fairly wide orbs for fixed stars. The Moon is conjunct Seginus, a nasty 3rd magnitude star but according to Robson, not violent. The Moon is four degrees from Algorab a star of the nature of Mars and Mercury. Robson does say ?It gives destructiveness, malevolence, fiendishness, repulsiveness, and lying, and is connected with scavenging.? We don?t know exactly how young Kent died or what his personality was like. We know he drowned, but how it happened is not revealed. I didn?t notice any other stars in the area of the Moon. It is in the 12th house, but I don?t think Worsdale was referring to the 12th house placement as violent. Worsdale is a lot more generous with orbs to stars than most contemporary astrologers.

? ? Jupiter was also in square to the place of Mars , and that malefic was applying to the opposition of his own radical station.?

This is mildly puzzling. Jupiter in the nativity is strong in his domicile, Sagittarius, and rules the MC. Jupiter in the revolution is exalted in Cancer. It looks like, to me anyway, an intervening benefic, but he does not intervene in the directions. Cancer is intercepted in the revolution, but holds the 6th house in the nativity (accidents?). The Moon on violent fixed stars plus the exaltation ruler of the natal 6th square a dangerous malefic, might be what is on his mind.

Furthermore Mars is applying (10-degree orb) to the opposition of his natal position. Pretty far, but Worsdale?s observation of applying aspects regardless of distance seems to be consistent within his technique.

Saturn and Venus were conjoined in a subterranean position, among violent fixed stars ??

Saturn and Venus are conjunct but in the 8th house. That is not the usual meaning of ?subterranean.? That word would be more likely to indicate below the horizon. Calculation error? Not impossible. Luke Broughton made a doozy with George Washington?s chart and had the Moon nearly opposite where it really was. Worsdale gives us no chart or chart data for his calculations.

Nevertheless in a death chart having Saturn, Venus, Mercury, and the Sun in the 8th house is enough to give anyone the willies. Venus rules the natal 8th and Saturn the natal 1st. These planets are in the Pleiades and the Prima Hyadum, a dangerous place in the heavens for sure.

? ? those planets [are] with Mercury having nearly the same declination.?

Mercury is in his domicile, but in the 8th and hanging around a couple of bad actors. His being in the same declination as Venus and Saturn seems to indicate to Worsdale that Mercury despite his power in domicile is an accidental malefic (as would be Venus). The Sun, giver of life, in the 8th should raise an eyebrow or two, but Worsdale doesn?t mention it.

He quickly mentions transits and I?ll put those in next time (text only). Then we?ll try one more of his before moving on to a more recent death.

Tom wrote:He threw me a curve here. ?? the seventh year" begins at the 6th birthday

This is really puzzling in the literature. My understanding is the same as yours, Tom:

The 7th year of life begins with the 6th celebration of being born, the 6th birthday. I am then six years old. And this is the end of the 6th revolution of the Sun and this would show the events of the 7th year of life.

But obviously the authors have other terms or another timing.

And what at all is the 'revolution' for the first year of life, the time between being borne and the first birthday's celebration. There is none as yet . . . ?
So no revolution for the first year of life?

Johannes

We do the same sort of thing today: we use cardinal numbers (one, two three etc) and ordinal numbers (first second third) more or less interchangeably. When we go back to Lilly et al we find they tended to think in ordinal numbers pretty consistently, but not exclusively. I do recall reading an English traditional author, but not which one, that used, once in a while, an ordinal as a cardinal the way Worsdale uses them in this case.

We have to be careful. In this case, due to the chart reference and our ability to calculate charts with a keystroke, we know what Worsdale meant.

So no revolution for the first year of life?

A revolution implies a return to the place of birth. The first revolution, logically is at on the first birthday but it begins the second year. Cardinal numbers are easier for us to understand.

Tom wrote: In this chart Worsdale uses techniques besides primary directions. He writes (my comments in red):

By secondary motion the Sun was in conjunction with Mercury [The Sun is slightly more than a full degree from the natal position of Mercury, according to Solar Fire. This is the equivalent of a full year of life], and the Moon the giver of life had nearly arrived at the place of the Sun in the nativity [The Moon is nearly two full degrees from the natal Sun, but given the Moon?s speed this is only a few months from perfection], and was applying to the square of her radical position [True, but this would perfect about 6 months after his death], and likewise to the rays of Mars [Not natal Mars. The Moon is three degrees past the position of natal Mars about three months time in the real world. Progressed Moon is however applying to the square of progressed Mars roughly a two-degree orb] the chief mortal promittor in the geniture, these obnoxious applications, compared with the violence of the progression [I?m tempted to do a little mind reading here. Progressed Mars is only 4 minutes of arc from a square to the natal Sun. Curiously, he doesn?t mention that] considerably increase the baneful power of the Anaretical Directions to the prorogator.

The last sentence is the first time he labels Mars as the chief instrument of death. While the directions and progressions clearly implicate Mars, it is not his position that makes him deadly. It seems to be the fact that all this other stuff relates to the body and/or the life and if you pile up all that stuff on Mars, you die.

photo uploader

that would be sec prog mars close to an exact sextile, not square to natal sun. at the same time sec prog midheaven is making a close opposition to the sun.. i understand the secondary progression of the angles to be the most important consideration when using this predictive tool as a guide. sec prog ascendant also happens to square natal venus, but as was said up thread by worsdale "the benefics were afflicted in the Nativity; Venus is also retrograde, near the Pleiades, and in exact parallel with Mercury in mundo where she becomes posited in the terms of both the enemies.?

any emphasis on the midheaven puts an emphasis on the i.c. it's opposite point which would be making an exact conjunction to his natal sun in this chart at the time of his death. some folks like morin make a connection with the i.c. point and death.. say what you want about secondary progressions, they seem to have relevance in this particular example and i can see why worsdale would include them here to emphasize a viewpoint.

Tom wrote:
Moon to the Parallel of Mars in Zodiac* 6 years 10 months

*Parallels in zodiac are what we call antiscion, but he may not mean that. The Moon in the nativity is about a degree away from the contra antiscion of Mars. He lists an arc of direction of 6 degrees 59 minutes. It isn?t that much in the nativity. I?m not sure what he is referring to here.

"Antisicia are thus clearly connected to parallels and contraparallels, but the correspondence is exact only when both of the bodies involved are in the plane of the ecliptic. This of course, is not usually the case. Most of the time, one or both bodies (unless they are the Sun) will not be exactly on the ecliptic. That is, they will have a celestial latitude other then 0 degree.... For this reason we cannot assume that bodies in each others antiscia will always (or even usually) be in an exact parallel or contraparallel." page 166 'Horoscope Symbols' by Robert Hand.

i note the moons declination in kents natal chart at - 8 degree 59' while mars declination is +2 degree 28' - the difference being 6 degree 31'.. this would be the difference in contraparallel, not parallel as i understand the data..

Tom wrote:What follows is the revolution of the year for Master Kent or as we know it, his solar return. The chart follows then I?ve posted Worsdale?s remarks plus my own.

In the revolutional (sic) figure for the seventh year of the native?s age, the Moon was in a violent part of the Heavens and separating from the opposite place of Mars in the nativity ??

james quote - via combusta.." Literally fiery way; refers to a section of fixed stars that falls between 15? Libra and 15? Scorpio. Used primarily in horary astrology as an indication of unfortunate or ineffectual situations."

He threw me a curve here. ?? the seventh year" begins at the 6th birthday and on that birthday the Moon was conjunct Algol, but is not separating from natal Mars. On the 7th revolution the Moon is, according to Solar Fire at 15 Libra 27 and of course does separate from natal Mars at 10 Aries. But I?m not sure how violent this area of heaven is, even using his fairly wide orbs for fixed stars. The Moon is conjunct Seginus, a nasty 3rd magnitude star but according to Robson, not violent. The Moon is four degrees from Algorab a star of the nature of Mars and Mercury. Robson does say ?It gives destructiveness, malevolence, fiendishness, repulsiveness, and lying, and is connected with scavenging.? We don?t know exactly how young Kent died or what his personality was like. We know he drowned, but how it happened is not revealed. I didn?t notice any other stars in the area of the Moon. It is in the 12th house, but I don?t think Worsdale was referring to the 12th house placement as violent. Worsdale is a lot more generous with orbs to stars than most contemporary astrologers.

? ? Jupiter was also in square to the place of Mars , and that malefic was applying to the opposition of his own radical station.?

This is mildly puzzling. Jupiter in the nativity is strong in his domicile, Sagittarius, and rules the MC. Jupiter in the revolution is exalted in Cancer. It looks like, to me anyway, an intervening benefic, but he does not intervene in the directions. Cancer is intercepted in the revolution, but holds the 6th house in the nativity (accidents?). The Moon on violent fixed stars plus the exaltation ruler of the natal 6th square a dangerous malefic, might be what is on his mind.

Furthermore Mars is applying (10-degree orb) to the opposition of his natal position. Pretty far, but Worsdale?s observation of applying aspects regardless of distance seems to be consistent within his technique.

james quote - remember what you quoted in your first post from worsdale? also remember that the revolution is superseded by what is going on in the primary directions. "Worsdale does have this to say:

? ? and though the giver of life applied to the sextile of Venus and trine of Jupiter, yet those applications could not produce any important assistance because both the benefics were afflicted in the Nativity; for Jupiter is retrograde, near the heart of the Scorpion (Antares-tc), in square of Saturn and in mundane parallel to the Sun and applying to his opposition."

Saturn and Venus were conjoined in a subterranean position, among violent fixed stars ??

Saturn and Venus are conjunct but in the 8th house. That is not the usual meaning of ?subterranean.? That word would be more likely to indicate below the horizon. Calculation error? Not impossible. Luke Broughton made a doozy with George Washington?s chart and had the Moon nearly opposite where it really was. Worsdale gives us no chart or chart data for his calculations.

Nevertheless in a death chart having Saturn, Venus, Mercury, and the Sun in the 8th house is enough to give anyone the willies. Venus rules the natal 8th and Saturn the natal 1st. These planets are in the Pleiades and the Prima Hyadum, a dangerous place in the heavens for sure.

james quote - venus and saturn are conjoined down near the i.c. point when using the natal chart as the basis, instead of the revolution chart.. perhaps this is why he refers to venus/saturn conjunction for the relovution as "subterranean".

? ? those planets [are] with Mercury having nearly the same declination.?

Mercury is in his domicile, but in the 8th and hanging around a couple of bad actors. His being in the same declination as Venus and Saturn seems to indicate to Worsdale that Mercury despite his power in domicile is an accidental malefic (as would be Venus). The Sun, giver of life, in the 8th should raise an eyebrow or two, but Worsdale doesn?t mention it.

He quickly mentions transits and I?ll put those in next time (text only). Then we?ll try one more of his before moving on to a more recent death.

i look forward to reading any viewpoints on the transits for kents death.. thanks tom!

james_m wrote:that would be sec prog mars close to an exact sextile, not square to natal sun.

I don't think either Worsdale or Tom said it was a square. Worsdale just says the rays of Mars, without specifying the aspect.

any emphasis on the midheaven puts an emphasis on the i.c. it's opposite point which would be making an exact conjunction to his natal sun in this chart at the time of his death. some folks like morin make a connection with the i.c. point and death.. say what you want about secondary progressions, they seem to have relevance in this particular example

Please note that the angles are not progressed by secondary motion (they have none), but by primary motion. In other words, the midheaven to the opposition of the natal Sun is a primary direction. Worsdale used secondary directions the Placidean way, focusing only on the secondary motion of the luminaries.

i note the moons declination in kents natal chart at - 8 degree 59' while mars declination is +2 degree 28' - the difference being 6 degree 31'.. this would be the difference in contraparallel, not parallel as i understand the data..

This particular direction sparked a separate thread (if I may be excused for mixing metaphors). It was Petr who correctly identified the method used by Worsdale; see his last post on this page.

Martin Gansten wrote:

james_m wrote:that would be sec prog mars close to an exact sextile, not square to natal sun.

I don't think either Worsdale or Tom said it was a square. Worsdale just says the rays of Mars, without specifying the aspect.

hi martin,

tom mentioned this and you quoted him on it later, which is why i'm pointing it out! sextile, not square...

Tom wrote: [I?m tempted to do a little mind reading here. Progressed Mars is only 4 minutes of arc from a square to the natal Sun. Curiously, he doesn?t mention that] considerably increase the baneful power of the Anaretical Directions to the prorogator.

[/quote]

Martin Gansten wrote: There is another important difference, though:

I?m tempted to do a little mind reading here. Progressed Mars is only 4 minutes of arc from a square to the natal Sun. Curiously, he doesn?t mention that

Exactly. That is because Mars is not a Ptolemaic significator, only a promissor; and Placidus and his followers, including Worsdale, only followed the secondary motion of the significators in the zodiac, that is, the Sun and the Moon.

as for my comment on the secondary progression of the midheaven and the way that it was done in the past - thanks for pointing that out. i only point out that an astrologer today using secondary progressions would put emphasis on the sp angles especially and in this particular example they confirm the nature of the event as i see it.

Martin Gansten wrote: Please note that the angles are not progressed by secondary motion (they have none), but by primary motion. In other words, the midheaven to the opposition of the natal Sun is a primary direction. Worsdale used secondary directions the Placidean way, focusing only on the secondary motion of the luminaries.

thanks also for reminding me of the thread where petr explains the process.. i see how the declination of these planets is a critical ingredient to the process, but it is more complicated then i thought.

james_m wrote:tom mentioned this and you quoted him on it later, which is why i'm pointing it out! sextile, not square...

Oh, you're speaking of the aspect that Worsdale didn't mention. Sorry, I missed that.

as for my comment on the secondary progression of the midheaven and the way that it was done in the past - thanks for pointing that out. i only point out that an astrologer today using secondary progressions would put emphasis on the sp angles especially and in this particular example they confirm the nature of the event as i see it.

I think you're missing my point here, which is that there are no secondary progressed angles. When you see the angles making contact with natal planets, those are really primary directions.