Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hi Rene,

I think we could provide a better service if we took this to another thread. I don't know how to move the previous posts to a different thread like Deb does, so we'll start here.

I also have Rumen Kolev?s Placidus, plus his excellent 2 booklets on Primaries, and I?m glad to hear I?m not the only one a bit confused with the many primary keys. I spent a lot ? and I mean really a lot - of time and racked my brain to find ?right? key.

Kolev wrote three books on primaries. The last is an examination of primary directions of Regiomontanus and William Lilly. Like you I spent a lot of time with this, both with Kolev's books and then playing with the program. Primary directions are at least based on visual astrology, but you can go nuts trying to come up with a system. Ultimately that is the best way. Select a system and stick with it; disregard the others. The other appraoch is to master spherical geometry and any other math that is necessary to fully grasp this approach.

I find his programs excellent, especially for rectification, but not very convenient (city database etc.).

I find the program difficult to work with and at times the printouts are awful. The City Base is the pits. And perhaps you can help me here, why does he ask for elevation of the city? That can wander all over the lot. Ever been to San Francisco?

There is one other interesting thing about Kolev's approach:. I've found no mention of directing the MC or ASC. Every traditional astrologer mentions this. I can understand this to a point. If I stand still, the MC does not move. Once I pull out my asrolabe and abbacus and figure out where the MC is for a given location, it does not move, so how can one direct it?

Well the MC itself may not move, but the point of the sky on the MC at the birth moment moves, and that can be identified and directed.Kolev does'nt seem to do this. So if the native has say, Mars in the 8th, I can't direct the MC to it with Kolev's methods. I can converse direct Mars to the MC, if I so wish and get pretty much the same thing.

If you like primary directions, get a copy of A.J. Pearce's work A Text Book of Astrology. The AFA had reprints. Pearce (1840 - 1923), aka Zadkiel (he is most often referred to as Zadkiel II but he was actually the third to write under that name. Pearce was probably the last great advocate of Primary Directions. His work has recently been reprinted and can be purchased here as well as AFA.

http://www.astroamerica.com/medieval.html

It is a fascinating study, and if the student is a mathmatician, like Kolev, it is proably even more rewarding.

Tom

Hi Tom

Good idea to open a separate thread. I felt a bit uneasy to be off topic in the Mystery Chart # 8 thread.

You are right of course, Kolev wrote three booklets on Primaries. Primary Directions to the Angles, Classic Pacidian Interplanetary Directions and the Primary Directions of Regiomontanus and William Lilly.

The City Base is the pits. And perhaps you can help me here, why does he ask for elevation of the city?

I don?t know why, the elevation is irrelevant, even for the heliacal phases of the Moon and Planets in his Babylonia program which shares the data base with Placidus. His Arcus Visionis is the same for altitude zero or 6000 meters. He also doesn?t use a parallax correction for the moon, and even there it would make such a tiny difference that it could be neglected. Mount Everest is only about 9km high, but the earth?s diameter is 6000km.

What I could imagine is that Kolev is influenced by Astronomy Software or Navigation technique. Astronomers and Navigators take the Atmospheric Refraction into account, and that ratio changes with atmospheric pressure and temperature, i.e. with elevation above sea level. The Atmospheric Refraction can make a difference of up to 0.6 degrees. But in Astrology, everybody is using the body motion and not the observed position.

There is one other interesting thing about Kolev's approach:. I've found no mention of directing the MC or ASC. Every traditional astrologer mentions this. I can understand this to a point. If I stand still, the MC does not move. Once I pull out my asrolabe and abbacus and figure out where the MC is for a given location, it does not move, so how can one direct it?

Well the MC itself may not move, but the point of the sky on the MC at the birth moment moves, and that can be identified and directed.Kolev does'nt seem to do this. So if the native has say, Mars in the 8th, I can't direct the MC to it with Kolev's methods. I can converse direct Mars to the MC, if I so wish and get pretty much the same thing.

I?m not sure if I understand you correctly here or if it?s merely a question of standpoint. Kolev and others always speak of ?Primary Directions TO the Angles?, the diurnal, clockwise motion of the celestial sphere viewed from a place on earth. In other words, watching planets and stars rise (AC), culminate (MC) etc.
If Mars is in the 8th, its path is to the west, setting a few hours later. Moving it back upwards to culmination, is indeed a converse direction.
I hope I got your point.

Thank you for the book tip. I haven?t read A.J.Pearce or Zadkiel yet.

Ren?

I?m not sure if I understand you correctly here or if it?s merely a question of standpoint. Kolev and others always speak of ?Primary Directions TO the Angles?,

Actually they don't. For example, Morin in Book 22 of Astrologial Gallica says:

"For directions of the midheaven very often bring marriages, imprisonment, sickness, and death itself through notorious crimes, duels, battles, falls from a high place, and other things that originate from the action of man. ... Similarly the direction of the Ascendant to the Sun, the Moon, and the ruler of the Midheaven, when fortunate causes honors ..."

He is clearly speaking of directing the MC and ASC to other points. Lilly says the same thing on page 656 of CA:

The Directions of the horoscope (i.e. the ASC - tc) to the body of Saturn ...

There is a Chapter in CA titled 'The Ascendant Directed to the Body of Jupiter, and his Aspects. (p. 657)

There is another difference in Kolev and others that I need to mention. Kolev reverses the meanings of significator and promittor or at least they are opposite the defintions given by Lilly and Morin. Kolev says the significator is the planet or point that is "pinned" or that point that is directed to. Others say that is the promittor.

Morin for example discusses the things that are signified in a natal chart and concludes:

And this is why these significators are directed

In other words Venus at 10 Cancer in the nativity is the planet that is directed to, say Jupiter at 25 Leo. Venus is the significator.

Lilly says the same thing:

The significator of the direction does signify ... by reason of the house in which he is Lord of in the Root of the Nativity.

Elsewhere Lilly is his usual self, about as clear as mud.

Ptolemy himself defines significator as the planet to be directed and promittor as the planet to which the significator is directed. Kolev takes the opposite position:

In the primary directioning (sic) we work with two points: Promissor (sic) and Significator. The significator stays "pinned" on the celestial sphere. The promissor is the point we direct (move). - page 28 Primary directions I boldy type in the original

The reversing of the defintions is an annoying circumstance that is overcome simply by keeping in mind who we are reading. The directing or lack of directing the angles is more than that. It seems like a technique we are missing.

Let me state here and now that I am no math whiz and although I was tempted to buy a scientific calculator and learn to do these "by hand," I resisted the temporary madness because I could not recall from my high school math classes exactly what sine, cosine, cotangent, and tangent are much less how to work with them. Therefore I may be misunderstanding some or even most of this. But at this moment it seems clear to me that Ptolemy, Lilly, and Morin directed the ASC and MC and Kolev does not.

Thank you for setting my mind at ease regarding elevation. I could not for the life ofme figure that out. It is not mentioned in the books either.

Pearce is fun reading. He had no use for Alan Leo's astrology (three cheers for him), and is about as close to a tradtionalist as the 19th century English speaking world produced. Kim would take mild exception to this. Pearce was no fan of horary astrology.

All the best,

Tom

Tom,

I have to apologize. I checked with Heinrich K?ndig?s book on Primary Directions (Zurich, 1955). He defines the Promissor (or Promittor)/ Significator the same way as you, Morin, and Lilly do. He also moves the MC an AC to the bodies. So Rumen Kolev stands alone with his definition. K?ndig also mentions a confusion with these terms.

I have to admit I never paid much attention to these terms, Significator / Promissor, or which direction the MC moves. What is clear is that one of them is moving and the other standing still. If the Horizon/Meridian is kept fixed, the Zodiac moves clockwise. If the Zodiac is kept fixed, the Angles move counter-clockwise. Since Einstein, we know that everything is relative. To me, it?s a bit like using an Aries or an Ascendant Wheel for a chart. (good excuse, isn?t it!? )

I was tempted to buy a scientific calculator and learn to do these "by hand,"

I actually did that with a pocket calculator in the late 70ies! But man, am I glad the programs are doing that for me now!

Cheers, Ren?

I have to admit I never paid much attention to these terms, Significator / Promissor, or which direction the MC moves. What is clear is that one of them is moving and the other standing still. If the Horizon/Meridian is kept fixed, the Zodiac moves clockwise.

Exactly. I wish the people I work with took the same attitude instead of getting into senseless disagreements over who is right. It certainly would be easier if we standarized on terminology, but in the grand scheme of things this isn't all that important.

What is imortant is that Kolev has designed a valuable tool for anyone interested in primary directions and technical astrology. The other person working in a similar direction (no pun intended) is Bernadette Brady with her Starlight program. While I may gripe about this and that with Kolev's program Placidus, it is also true that I never would have bothered with primary directions at all if it weren't for this program.

This is one reason, not the only one by a long shot, that Alan Leo gained popularity over A.J. Pearce. Pearce insisted that his students use primary directions and Leo's methods were so much easier on the brain. One reason Pearce rejected secondary progressions is that they were very easy to calculate and anything that easy has to be wrong! He probably rolls over in his grave at the mention of solar arc directions.

One most suggestion for the study of primaries. Have you read Celestial Philosophy by John Worsdale? As we said back in my day, Worsdale is a trip. Worsdale is big on primary directions and this book, which contains not a word of philosophy, is a testimony to primary directions combined with other techniques. The book has an interesting history. It was first published in 1796 as Genethliacal Astrology, then an expanded edition was published in 1798. The copy of the reprint I own was made from an edition published in 1828 (according to Holden) by Worsdale's son. Worsdale died in 1826. This edition must be a serious modification or perhaps enlargement of the 1798 editions since so many charts are dated after 1798.

Worsdale's technique must have required hours and hours of work per chart. He calculated the directions from planet to planet, ascendant and MC and part of fortune (which he calculated in mundo in accordance with Placidus' method)) to planets, and interplanetary aspects including minor aspects. He arranged these in chronological order as they would occur over over than 75 years of the native's life. From these he would look at the times when testimonies, including solar returns, piled up around a particular time period and from that make his prediction.

Worsdale is fascinated with death and to a lesser extent horrible illneses. This is probably less to do with morbidity than it does with verification. Death is certain. One is either dead or alive. Death can be pinpointed unlike, say, "transformation." Almost every chart in his book has to do with either accidental death, preferably at a young age and with violence, or premature death. I recall one chart where the native lived the normal lifespan of the era with no particular set of horrors occuring and Worsdale practically apologizes for including it.

Nevertheless there is much to be learned from this work besides predicting death and, if you have the right mindset, it can be morbidly funny.

Ascella republished it and it a reprint can be found at Kessinger:

http://www.kessinger.net/searchresults_ ... Title=7296

Kessinger says the book was published in 1825. James Holden says 1828.

Also for the record: Holden says Pearce was Zadkiel II. But Patrick Curry in the must read A Confusion of Prophets, notes that after the death in February 1874 of the original Zadkiel, William Morrison, Zadkiel's Almanac was edited by one R.V. Sparkes. Sparkes died in May of 1875 and the Morrison Family asked Pearce to become the editor of the almanac making him the 3rd Zadkiel. He would edit the magazine for 47 years, five more than Morrison. Pearce was a no-nonsense, nuts and bolts predictive astrologer who had no patience for spiritualism or hocus pocus of any kind in conjunction with astrology. My hero. Unfortunately, Leo carried the day.

Happy reading.

Tom

Hi Tom,

I see you?ve read a lot of books on the subject. Chapeau! I?ve read but a few old books and I must admit what put me off were these long pages of calculation examples in prosa form. Maybe because I had to do these calculations myself on a pocket calculator some time ago, when there was no Astrology Software yet. And then, they often contain calculation errors or inaccuracies, nevertheless leading to the ?right? conclusion, put forward with great authority.

I admire, though, the ?Mathematici? ? Astrologers of the 16th and 17th century and earlier. They were at the cutting edge of their time in Astronomy and Science in general. They had the brains but lacked computing power. Today, we have the computer power but where are the (astronomical and scientific) brains in Astrology? I?m sure that Astrology could achieve even more today than in the medieval ages.
I fully agree with you and John Worsdale that Astronomy is the basis of Astrology.

One reason Pearce rejected secondary progressions is that they were very easy to calculate and anything that easy has to be wrong!

With today?s computers, everything is easy to calculate!
I like a clear concept behind every technique, easy to understand and consistent within itself. It doesn?t have to get complicated. That?s why I like Secondary Progressions. Not because Allen Leo promoted this old Babylonian technique. I like the idea of time fractals:
? 4 minutes = 1 year (primary),
? 1 day = 1 year (secondary),
? 1 day = 1 month (tertiary),
? 1 month = 1 year (minor),
? 1 day = 1 day (transits).
I tried them, all of them in combination (quadriwheel), with death dates. I was impressed.
The Babylonians had even more time keys!

Ren?

Hi Tom and all Others,

I am Wolfgang and
I have the program and books of Rumen. I read your
site and asked him about what he has to say.
And here is what he said.....


========================
There has been and there is a mess in the notification
and the terminology of the PD since times immemorial.
Many authors say that they
'direct the Sun to the aspects of the planets'
or
'direct MC and ASC to the planets'....
Then they say that the SUN, the MC and the ASC are the
significators and the aspects are the promissors...
In this way the reader thinks that the SUN/MC/ASC
(the significators) are MOVED TO THE aspects of the
planets (the promissors).....

In fact, what they say IS NOT TRUE !
They say one thing and they do another !

Mathematically and astronomically they direct the
aspects TO the SUN/MC/ASC and NOT the opposite.....

The SUN/MC/ASC stay fixed, 'pinned'.
The aspects of the planets are moved....
This is absolutely obvious from the formulae they
give.

The problem starts with Ptolemy and his way of
expressiion.
Let us take an example.
Sun in 11th house in Aries.
trine Venus (zodiacal) in 1st house in Gemini.
Ptolemy and ALL LATER PD-directing astrologers would
say:
The significator SUN is directed in the order of the
signs TO the promissor TRINE VENUS .

In fact this is JUST A WAY OF EXPRESSION which is
ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT MATHEMATICALLY.
What Ptolemy and the later PD-astrologers ACTUALLY do
is that
they take the TRINE of VENUS and move it with the
turning of the celestial sphere UNTIL it comes in a
'mundo' conjunction with THE SUN.

I decided to put the mess into order and base
everything on the real, actual mathematical meaning of
the things.
In this way everything will be clear.
In this way when you say something about a primary
direction it will be understood easily by the others.
It seems that I must work some more on this...


[
One very important NOTE:
There are cases when the clasical Ptolemaic way of
directing the SUN, the MOON and Pars Fortunae was NOT
as described above BUT opposite i.e. these points were
really moved with the celestial sphere !!
The ASC/MC, however, were never ever moved...
In my journal 'PD and History of Astrology' first
issue I explain in details when, why and how this
Ptolemaic-classical way of directing was done....
]

NOW the question:
CAN my program 'Placidus' compute directions of the
MC, ASC and other cusps (zodiacal points) TO the
PLANETS and their aspects ?
I MEAN here: to take the zodiacal cusps and move them
with or against the celestial sphere until they come
into conjunctions with the planets (or their
aspects).....

Answer: YES.

There are several ways you can do this in my program
'Placidus'
The easiest is: You click on the MENU:
SETUP/Customer Setup
An window comes up.
Choose from the left column named 'Promissors'
whatever planets you want.
Choose from middle column named 'Aspects' again
whatever aspects you want.
From the right column named 'Significators' choose
'ZODIACAL CUSPS'
From the direcing options further in the right choose
'Use bodies of planets' and then choose
'Significators to Aspects of Promissors'

This will direct the Zodiacal Cusps
with (direct) and against (converse) the movement of
the celestial sphere
TO
the aspects of the planets you chose.

The zodiacal cusps, including 1st (ASC) and 10th (MC)
are moved TO the planets and their aspects.

Yes, You can do this.
HOWEVER, remember that this was not practiced by the
ancient, medieval or renaissance astrologers.

Maybe some astrologers experimented with this in the
20th century.

As a post scriptum I would like to announce that I
publish 2 journals.
One is devoted to the PD and History of Astrology and
the other is to the Babylonian Sky Science.
In the first issue of the PD journal there is plenty
of pages devoted exactly to the medieval ways of
primary directions and the terminology behind...


Soon I will put up some free downloads (PDF-files)
with information on my journals and current research
on MY SITE www.babylonianastrology.com

WHoever wants to know more or wants these PDF-files
immediately may contact me:
rumen_k_kolev@yahoo.com

sincerely
Wolfgang

I agree with Rumen's comments above. The use of the terms in older texts is very "loosey-goosey", and often quite misleading when you look at the mathematics of what they're actually doing.

"Placidus" is a bit of a pain to use, but is a very valuable tool. (Now if I can figure out how to get it to work with Vista ...).

I also offer a free speech/free beer program that does Placidus zodiacal and mundo directions with a choice of several static keys at http://mysite.verizon.net/vze6qirr/myindex.html

It's not nearly as sophisticated as Rumen's Placidus, but does the job for the basics.

The question about the requirement in Placidus for altitude at the beginning of the thread was not for refraction, but for calculation of topocentric positions, which I believe is the default in Placidus.

- Ed

Steven & Tom et al,

I think one of the many strengths of Rumen's presentation of primaries is that he does define an unambiguous notation. Now if only everyone would use it

- Ed

Hello Tom,

You are speaking of Morin's 22nd book. I have just ordered it with another (booke 13..., from Holden) of his at astroamerica (since Regio PD were used and taught by Gouchon in France from 1935, etc.). However, they are back order (for a week). So, since he uses Regio pole, I am wondering what sidereal time conversion rate he uses. From astroamerica, I understood he uses Naibod and another Italian mathematician. Is that so? Thank you.