Skyscript Astrology Forum

I am new to the study of traditional astrology, so please forgive me if this is a dumb question.

Are solar returns used by traditional astrologers? If so, are they interpreted the same way the moderns do it, meaning that they are read the same way one would read a birth chart, but the SR chart's influence is limited to the year in question?

HI Ellen,

It's not a dumb question. The answer is. They answer is yes and no. Yes solar returns are used by traditional astrologers. Jerome Cardan and Morin deVillefranche wrote extensively on them. Lilly wrote about them in Christian Astrology, and John Gadbury wrote a fairly lengthy treatise on the subject. Over on the Arab side Abu Mashar's work on solar returns is considered authoritative.

However they did not use them the way moderns do or the way I think moderns do. Very, very briefly the system works like this:

1) Delineate the nativity. Nothing can be predicted from the solar return that is not in the natal chart.

2) Look for something of significance in a primary direction or secondary progression that will "hit" within the year in question or close to it.

3) Cast the solar return and look for things in the return that are shown in the nativity (easier said than done). The repetition of indications is what triggers the promise of the chart.

Unlike moderns the solar return is considered by traditionalists to "last" from return to return. It does not "begin" months before or "last" months after or overlap.

The absolute best book on solar returns is Volume 23 of Astrologia Gallica by Jean Baptiste Morin deVillefranche. Unfortunately if the reader is unfamiliar with Morin it may be confusing. It is best to read and understand Book 21 first. Both are available in English from AFA.

If you have any more questions dumb or otherwise please feel free to ask.

Tom

Thanks, Tom.

This is very helpful. I look forward to reading the books you suggest.

I do have one question about your explanation. I see an apparent similarity between the nativity in question and the solar arc chart in that both have weak Jupiters. In the nativity, it's combust and in the twelfth house, though it is exalted in Cancer. In the solar return chart, it is in its fall in Capricorn, and it's in opposition to the Sun, though it is angular.

But there is absolutely nothing going on involving Jupiter in either the secondary progressed or primary directions. Does that mean that the similarity between the nativity and the solar arc chart with regard to Jupiter need not be a concern?

Thank you for your thoughts.

Ellen

Good Morning Ellen,

I do have one question about your explanation. I see an apparent similarity between the nativity in question and the solar arc chart in that both have weak Jupiter's. In the nativity, it's combust and in the twelfth house, though it is exalted in Cancer. In the solar return chart, it is in its fall in Capricorn, and it's in opposition to the Sun, though it is angular.

But there is absolutely nothing going on involving Jupiter in either the secondary progressed or primary directions. Does that mean that the similarity between the nativity and the solar arc chart with regard to Jupiter need not be a concern?

The basis for my answer is Morin's book 23 as best I understand him. There are and always will be others who don't look at these things in the identical fashion.

Morin teaches that the primary directions or secondary progressions (he didn't know about secondaries as he died before Placidus published the technique or if Placidus published before Morin died (1656) Morin never read about them) are necessary, but if something is indicated strongly in the solar return and it replicates the nativity, it may occur but with weaker effects, i.e. not as pronounced or as long lasting. Quick example, the nativity indicates the possibility of marriage. There is no direction indicating marriage. The return indicates marriage. The native marries but perhaps the spouse dies (avoid marrying people like this).

Think of it this way, the life unfolds from the natal chart over time. The broad direction of the life is shown by the directions (and when I say "directions" I'm including progressions and I'll hold my nose and include solar arcs). The solar return specifies the year (i.e. the 12 months between returns) the promise will be fulfilled. If the directions don't show it, it isn't meant to be. The reverse is also true, if it is shown in the directions, but not triggered in the return, it won't happen that year.

Is this accurate? I'm not 100% certain. It makes sense philosophically, and Morin gives many persuasive examples, but he wouldn't be the first much less the last astrologer to "cherry pick" his examples. We have to study and apply and make up our own minds.

What you've revealed is that both charts have a weak Jupiter I don't think that is precisely what he had in mind when he looks for repetition, although I would keep my eye on it. If Jupiter was in the same house in both charts, then definitely this is a "replication" of the nativity. If Jupiter is in the same sign or in aspect with a planet he was in aspect with in the nativity, particularly if the aspect is the same in both charts, it is a replication. If Jupiter is in contact with Lord ASC in the nativity and Lord ASC in the return even if they are different planets it could be a replication. The closer we are to duplicating the nativity, the stronger that will be in the return.

Regarding Morin's books particularly book 21: There are two translations, one by Lucy Little, one by Richard Baldwin. I recommend the Baldwin translation because it is from the original Latin. Little's is from a French translation. Baldwin's is also cheaper and easier to get lately. Little's has some extras and it is a nice hardbound edition.

Secondly it would be best if you had someone work with you on it. Ironically the more you know about traditional astrology the more your eyebrows will be raised when you read it. Morin advocated things you will find nowhere else, e.g. a planet has influence in the house opposite to the one it occupies particularly if that house is unoccupied. He emphasizes position over rulership, and does not use "universal significators," i.e. the Moon cannot be used as the mother in every chart.

I recently re-read a excerpt from Lynn Thorndike's History of Magic and Experimental Science, which I believe was written in the 1920s. Anyway Thorndike looks at Astrologia Gallica as kind of a last stand of astrology, or the last major attempt to establish astrology in the newly emerging "scientific" community. It is an interesting take and one that I have not seen astrologer's adopt, largely because Morin's work is not all that well known by astrologers. He is, irony of ironies, in a similar position to Cardan in today's world. He is known as a famous astrologer, but the bulk of his work has not been translated into modern languages so he exists by reputation unlike Lilly who gave us a book we can all read (more or less).

This is changing and much of the astrology portion of AG, the first nine volumes contain no astrology at all, has been translated into English. Book 21 is judging the nativity. Books prior to that give the foundation of his astrology, and books after it are on prediction and usage. He deserves more attention than he's been given, and I think Thorndike puts him into perspective better than most.

He's not breakfast table reading, but he is worth the effort.

Tom

Excellent. And Tom - happy Independence day!