Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hello Dimitri

astroart wrote: 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.

I read Martin book, it's very beautiful...

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

I read that, at a quick look it seems to me that they are all direct directions in traditional sense, because with a Libra ascendant all the promissors fall in Scorpio and Sagittarius (but mine was a very quick look....)
And keep Bezza's Arcana Mundi with care because I don't think it will be ever in print.

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:
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).

Obviously, because here the motion of primum mobile brings the square of Mars to Gemini, not the opposite.

But why in your opinion partes move converse - even if in a traditional way? Retrograde planets are obvious because they move backward ab origine,

interesting post, thanks,

margherita

Now these are discussed here, I have a technical question about partes.

What do you do with them in the movement of the direction? Since they relate to the relative position to the Ascendant they don't mov througout the day like planets do.

Example: Birth Asc.= 0? Aries. Sun-Moon Aspect = 120?. Thus Pars Fortunae = 0? Leo. If after a directed time 0? Gemini is Asc. Let's neglect the Moon's movement in this case and keep 120? as the Sun Moon distance. The Pars Fortunae now will be 0? Libra. A 'normal' point like aplanet would have moved with the motion but the part won't.

Or are the parts only used as fixed on the earth's globe (just like the Ascendant and MC) with planets moving over them in their diurnal cycle?

I have no special intention with this question because I don't use them myself and therefore wouldn't have really a personal opinion about which technique to use, but I just wonder how the technical approach is.

In Astrologia Gallica, Book 22, p. 11, Morin writes

But in directing, the astrologer does not attend to the wandering planet's places, which are continually varied by their motion, but only to the places they occupy at the time of the nativity, which are the fixed termini of the directions, and the parts of the primum mobile determined by the planets. So then the astrologer, making a judgment by means of the celestial influx on things past, present or future that concern the native, contemplates the genethliacal figure, i.e., the constitution of the caelum at the moment of the nativity, as something established by God, or by nature, or rather by Divine Providence through natural causes - a fixed decree, in which through its natural characteristics the fate of the native is produced, recognizable only to astrologers.

So, in the opinion of Morin, what is moved by the primary motion is not the planets or cusps, or the lot of fortune, but the points of the ecliptic on which they were in the natal figure. These points are more important than the actual planets you can see in the sky during the hours following the birth, because it is the natal figure and not the actual sky, which contains the fate of the native.

Following this, I don't think you need to recalculate a part for directing it. The position of the part, calculated for the time of birth, gives a point to be then directed, like any other point.

I also don't think that the parts and the retrograde planets deserve a special treatments, as Haly Abenragel says. The calculations do not depend on the nature of the object nor on its secondary motion, only on its position. If we must discard some of the results given by these calculations, we should have a good reason for it.

Regards

Thanks for the explanation Martine. I don't make use of secondary motion either. In fact I only use directed MC and Asc. to the radix positions of natal planets in the zodiac. Perhaps secondary motion is somewhat modern or was promoted by Placidus?

Eddy wrote :

. Perhaps secondary motion is somewhat modern or was promoted by Placidus?

Secondary motion is the yearly movement of the Earth around the Sun. I think you mean secondary directions, also called progressions. Yes, they are modern. J. Holden, in his History of Horoscopic Astrology (p. 173), says that Kepler may have been the first to use them.

Eddy wrote: Perhaps secondary motion is somewhat modern or was promoted by Placidus?

Placido used them.

In Placido's article I translated for my blog from Bezza's Arcana Mundi "The revolt of Masaniello" he used them (at the end of it).
In fact he compares the progressed planets for the day of revolt with the birthdate of Masaniello.

(I hate always mentioning my articles, but it's because I choose the ones I think are relevant, so forgive me, I wanted just to give a quote)

margherita

Martine wrote:Eddy wrote :

. Perhaps secondary motion is somewhat modern or was promoted by Placidus?

Secondary motion is the yearly movement of the Earth around the Sun. I think you mean secondary directions, also called progressions.

No I really meant secondary motion. An example to be sure we are talking about the same thing :
If for a certain chart the (ecliptical projected) point of radix Moon would be at MC after 4 hours (let's say this would be 60 years) then here only the primary motion (Earth's rotation around the axis) is used. If in those 4 hours the Moon would have moved 2? then this is the secondary motion. If we would use this then the (on the ecliptic projected point of the) Moon would be MC about 8 minutes later thus the direction would be 62 years. This is what I understand as the use of secondary motion in primary directions.

If this would be used in parts then if for example one has 0? Aquarius as Ascendant and Sun-Moon (waxing Moon) aspect of 120?, the Pars Fortuna is 0? Gemini. In latitudes at about Paris or London 0?Gemini rises after ca. 4 hours. The direction is ca. 60 years. If the radix position of the Pars Fortuna is used it will be at Ascendant around age 60. But with secondary motion used the PF will never reach the Ascendant. this is because of the mathematical definition of this point. If in those 4 hours the distance between Sun and Moon will have reached 122? then the PF for 0? Gemini Ascendant will be (Asc. + Sun Moon distance =) 2? Libra.

Then the way I understand the Morin quote you mentioned Martine is the use of only primary motion. Perhaps my mentioning the name of Placidus brought in some confusion. Since he also developed the mundane aspects I somewhat guessed he might have been using secondary motion (as meant in the example). I just wonder when this added motion was used in history.

(I see absolutely no problem that you mention your articles Margherita, sometimes this is just necessary to clarify things.)

Eddy wrote: Then the way I understand the Morin quote you mentioned Martine is the use of only primary motion. Perhaps my mentioning the name of Placidus brought in some confusion. Since he also developed the mundane aspects I somewhat guessed he might have been using secondary motion (as meant in the example). I just wonder when this added motion was used in history.

ok, now I understand what I meant. Anyway no idea. I never saw this used here,

Martin maybe knows?

margherita

But why in your opinion partes move converse - even if in a traditional way?

I do not know the real reason why the old masters have moved the partes in other way, but today I found interesting comment of one Maghrebian astrologer who lived and worked in XV century in Fes(Marocco)( Al-Baqq?r ?Kit?b al-adw?r f? tasy?r al-anw?r ? (Book for cycles of the primary directions of celestial elements):

?The opinion of Ptolemy was that Tasy?r(primary directions) of planets is in the direction of the zodiacal signs , except sih?m (pars), and with exception of the setting quadrant, ie occidental, starting from the 10th house and reaching the 7th, in which[quadrant] the planets are moved in reverse direction of the signs, but sih?m in direction of the signs?(the quotation is from Montse Diaz Fajardo "Tasyir y proyeccion de rayos en textos astrologicos magrebies", doctoral thesis, Barcelona, 2008, page 82).

May be the answer is in Ptolemy

Eddy wrote :

If for a certain chart the (ecliptical projected) point of radix Moon would be at MC after 4 hours (let's say this would be 60 years) then here only the primary motion (Earth's rotation around the axis) is used. If in those 4 hours the Moon would have moved 2? then this is the secondary motion. If we would use this then the (on the ecliptic projected point of the) Moon would be MC about 8 minutes later thus the direction would be 62 years. This is what I understand as the use of secondary motion in primary directions.

I understand what you mean :

Pars Fortuna at birth = 300 + 120 = 420 - 360 = 60? or 0? Gemini
Pars Fortuna at birth + 4 hours = 60? + 122? = 182? or 2? Libra.

This is like progressions, only instead of taking 1 day = 1 year, you are taking the primary motion actual rate.

I don't know any historical examples of the use of this technique, but then I am not knowlledgeable in history

astroart wrote: May be the answer is in Ptolemy

Well, never heard that Ptolemy talks about Parts, let alone Fortune....

margherita

I posted at brief note about the primary directions of Steve Job's chart at the time of his demise. The Kepler key produced striking results. Here is the link:

http://tonylouis.wordpress.com/2011/10/ ... teve-jobs/