Skyscript Astrology Forum

Greetings!

I’m just starting to experiment working with Firdaria and find that there are two approaches regarding the placement of the Moon’s nodes.

The traditional method puts the nodes at the end of the Firdariac cycle, both for day and night charts. Zoller, on the other hand, for various reasons puts them between Mars and the Sun.

I’m going to try both methods and see which works better.

I’m wondering whether - for any of you who work down there in the trenches with clients - have found that one method works better than the other?

Kind regards -

Rhys

Hello,

I believe that the sequence of the nodes should be always the last (70 to 75 years).Some claim (and I tend to agree) that the sequence where the nodes are placed in between is the results of reading/translation error in Bonatti...

Having said this, you should also know that there is a second option where the Nodes are not used at all! In this methodology, the starting point is the ruler of the ascendant regardless of the chart sect (making the planetary period more personal), and then you follow the Chaldean sequence. There is also the correction applied to the first period based on the degrees of the ascendant that has already risen.

If I am not mistaken,the methodology was mentioned here in Skyscript but I can't seem to find it... This is the method that seems to work for me!

But of course, you'll have to see for yourself which works better for you...

astrojin wrote:<snip>
Having said this, you should also know that there is a second option where the Nodes are not used at all! In this methodology, the starting point is the ruler of the ascendant regardless of the chart sect (making the planetary period more personal), and then you follow the Chaldean sequence. There is also the correction applied to the first period based on the degrees of the ascendant that has already risen.
<snip>

How fascinating, I haven't run across that one. Do you have any recollection at all of where you got this idea from?

Thanks for your response!

Hello,

Knew it that it was in Skyscript:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... c84a8aef19

I used this method without the nodes, and they seem to work slightly better though I must say Firdaria is not one of my pet techniques!

astrojin wrote:Hello,

Knew it that it was in Skyscript!

<snip>

Thanks, astrojin! Interesting method (starts out on the degree of the descendant.)

For now, I'm facillating back and forth between the traditional method of putting the nodes at the end of the Chaldean cycle, and the Bonatti one of putting them between the Sun and Mars. I'll get back to the list on my findings after I've tried it out on a number of charts that I know very well.

Hello,

Do share your findings. Sometimes I wonder how the ancients actually use these planetary periods in their application - they did not detail the interpretation in their texts. So, sometimes we may find that our methods may not be how they did them back then and hence, we get mixed results. And even if we were to apply the same methodology that they did, they themselves probably had mixed results...

Hello,

As far as I know, the solution to the issue of the Nodes' placement in the Firdaria technique can be found (and available in English) in Abu Ma'shar's On the Revolutions of the Nativity Chapter IV.8: On the firdariyyat of the Nodes, in dr. Benjamin Dykes's translation:
"And in diurnal nativities the aforesaid Nodes dispose after Mars, but in a nocturnal after Mercury..."
which of course means:
diurnal order: Sun, Venus, Mercury, Moon, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars + Nodes
nocturnal order: Moon, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury + Nodes
As I understand, the misunderstanding was caused by missing translations (especially of the piece above) in the time of Bonatti (in the Mediaeval times) and thus for Zoller (in modern times) and for those who learned from them.
A good analysis of the issue can be found here:
http://www.astrologiamedieval.com/firdaria.htm

Cheers,

Iris