Skyscript Astrology Forum

I?m having difficulty in interpreting, in practical terms, the following passage of Guido Bonatti?s Book of Astronomy. Treatise 9, On the Tenth House, Chapter 2 (On the Force of the Native and his prosperity), pags 1347 and 1348 (in Benjamin Dykes? translation, 2007, Volume II). I read very interesting debates in this Forum about complex issues. Hope I?ll get some light on this, and thanks in anticipation:

?If you wish to explore concerning the native?s force and prosperity, and his duties and his kingdom, look at the Sun in diurnal nativities (indeed the Moon and Saturn in nocturnal nativities), and the 10th, and its Lord, and the Part of the Kingdom, and the planet in whose domicile you were to find the Part. And if you were to see the said significators (namely the Sun and the Moon, or either of them) in angles, namely made fortunate and strong, joined to benefics (or even to others well disposed), and with reception, and the oriental ones were aspecting the Sun, and the occidental ones were aspecting the Moon and Saturn, this will signify the native is undoubtedly going to be a king.
Which if it were not as I said concerning the luminaries, then look at the lord of the 10th, and the planet in whose domicile the Part of the Kingdom is, and look at the 10th and the Ascendant and the planetary al-mubtazz over the said places (whether the al-mubtazzes were one or more) and its commingling over the Ascendant or over the 10th, or with their lords.?

Is it correct to outline it the following way?:

1. Look at the Sun (diurnal nativities) or the Moon and Saturn (in nocturnal nativities) and see whether (those luminaries, or Saturn) are in angles, joined by the benefics or with reception. In the case of Saturn, check whether he is aspecting the Sun (in case he is oriental) or the Moon (in case he is occidental).
2. If the above conditions are not met, then check the lords of the 10th and the Part of Kingdon to see whether: they are in angles; joined by benefics; with reception; in aspect with the Sun (for the oriental ones); or in aspect with the Moon (for the occidental ones). Furthermore, see if the above significators (rulers or almubtazzes of the 10th and the Part of the Kingdom) have any kind of connection (?commingling?) with the Ascendant or the 10th. (My interpretation is that the commingling with the Ascendant and the 10th may be by means of: bodily joining or aspecting the cusps of those houses; bodily joining or aspecting planets in those houses; bodily joining or aspecting the lords or the al-mubtazzes of those houses).

The idea is that if luminaries don?t meet the conditions presented in the begining of the fragment then you should look at the Lord of 10 and the Lord of Part of Kingdom and at 10 house and Asc and the almuten of the above mentioned

The underlining meaning of the technique is that is best to have natural significators in what is called a state of fortitude (don't understand this only as a power indicator).
is good to have an accidental significator in the above mentioned state.

sasha_i wrote:The idea is that if luminaries don?t meet the conditions presented in the begining of the fragment then you should look at the Lord of 10 and the Lord of Part of Kingdom and at 10 house and Asc and the almuten of the above mentioned

Thanks a lot, Sasha_i, for your reply!
This was the first thing I thought when I read the fragment. That is, to consider the lords of the 10th and the Part of the Kingdom, plus the 10th house and the ASC (including the planets there), plus the almuten of all the above mentioned. Concerning the almuten, we may consider the several almutens of these places/planets; or a compound almuten of the several points all together (but Benjamin Dykes suggests that we avoid this option because Bonatti was not using it).

sasha_i wrote:The underlining meaning of the technique is that is best to have natural significators in what is called a state of fortitude (don't understand this only as a power indicator).
is good to have an accidental significator in the above mentioned state.

I absolutely agree with you. The two luminaries are the general significators of the life of the native as a whole.
Because the topic of eminence ("the force of the native and his prosperity", as Bonatti says) is a very general one, it makes sense to check the state of the luminaries.

About the "state of fortitude". I don't know what you mean by that. Does it have to do with something like a completion? That is, a state of things by means of which potentialities can be fully actualized.
Bonatti says that we should check whether the luminaries (or other significators) have "reception". For Bonatti, a "reception" is a situation when a planet (or a point of the horoscope) aspects its ruler. (Something like you not only visit a house but you have the opportunity of meeting the owner of the house - it is something complete).
Hope you understand what I mean (and sorry for my English...)

Hello again,

?If you wish to explore concerning the native?s force and prosperity, and his duties and his kingdom, look at the Sun in diurnal nativities (indeed the Moon and Saturn in nocturnal nativities),

I looked again, this time at the latin text and I was surprised to see Saturn as an indicator for power and prosperity in a nocturnal chart. This makes no sense to me.

About the "state of fortitude". I don't know what you mean by that.

I am going to present what in Latin manuscripts can be found as ?fortitudine planetarum?. It's a very tricky concept, but in a general sense means that a planet is in a good shape (remember that this is a more pragmatically definition, and that in a more profound analyze this is becoming quite another arabic tutti frutti).

1. planet in houses : angular, succedent, in aspect to Asc.
2. in some essential dignity.
3. direct in motion.
4. without aspects from malefic planets.
5. without aspects with planets in cadent houses, or in fall.
6. to be in reception.
7. Saturn, Jupiter, Mars oriental matutine, Venus, Mercury, Moon occidental, vespertine
8. diurnal planets in diurnal chart, and nocturnal planets in nocturnal charts.
9. in fixed signs.
10. planets in the heart of Sun
11. masculine planets in masculine quadrants, masculine planets in masculine signs,

sasha_i wrote:Hello again,

?If you wish to explore concerning the native?s force and prosperity, and his duties and his kingdom, look at the Sun in diurnal nativities (indeed the Moon and Saturn in nocturnal nativities),

I looked again, this time at the latin text and I was surprised to see Saturn as an indicator for power and prosperity in a nocturnal chart. This makes no sense to me.

It is something strange actually (mixing a planet with the luminaries). Benjamin Dykes doesn't comment on it.

Luis Ortet wrote:I?m having difficulty in interpreting, in practical terms, the following passage of Guido Bonatti?s Book of Astronomy. Treatise 9, On the Tenth House, Chapter 2 (On the Force of the Native and his prosperity), pags 1347 and 1348 (in Benjamin Dykes? translation, 2007, Volume II). I read very interesting debates in this Forum about complex issues. Hope I?ll get some light on this, and thanks in anticipation:

?If you wish to explore concerning the native?s force and prosperity, and his duties and his kingdom, look at the Sun in diurnal nativities (indeed the Moon and Saturn in nocturnal nativities), and the 10th, and its Lord, and the Part of the Kingdom, and the planet in whose domicile you were to find the Part. And if you were to see the said significators (namely the Sun and the Moon, or either of them) in angles, namely made fortunate and strong, joined to benefics (or even to others well disposed), and with reception, and the oriental ones were aspecting the Sun, and the occidental ones were aspecting the Moon and Saturn, this will signify the native is undoubtedly going to be a king.
Which if it were not as I said concerning the luminaries, then look at the lord of the 10th, and the planet in whose domicile the Part of the Kingdom is, and look at the 10th and the Ascendant and the planetary al-mubtazz over the said places (whether the al-mubtazzes were one or more) and its commingling over the Ascendant or over the 10th, or with their lords.?

Is it correct to outline it the following way?:

1. Look at the Sun (diurnal nativities) or the Moon and Saturn (in nocturnal nativities) and see whether (those luminaries, or Saturn) are in angles, joined by the benefics or with reception. In the case of Saturn, check whether he is aspecting the Sun (in case he is oriental) or the Moon (in case he is occidental).
2. If the above conditions are not met, then check the lords of the 10th and the Part of Kingdon to see whether: they are in angles; joined by benefics; with reception; in aspect with the Sun (for the oriental ones); or in aspect with the Moon (for the occidental ones). Furthermore, see if the above significators (rulers or almubtazzes of the 10th and the Part of the Kingdom) have any kind of connection (?commingling?) with the Ascendant or the 10th. (My interpretation is that the commingling with the Ascendant and the 10th may be by means of: bodily joining or aspecting the cusps of those houses; bodily joining or aspecting planets in those houses; bodily joining or aspecting the lords or the al-mubtazzes of those houses).

I contacted Benjamin Dykes about this question, here is his reply:

Yes, this seems right as an interpretation of Bonatti. But I think you should omit Saturn. Bonatti is mixing material from Abu ?Ali and Ptolemy, and Saturn does not play a role here. (My sense is that Bonatti might have added Saturn because he does have a connection to kingship, and is less diurnal than the Sun?note that the Sun and Saturn are used as diurnal/nocturnal planets in the delineation of the father.)

We begin first with the luminaries (the Sun in the day and the Moon at night) because they are natural significators of royalty and a high position. Ptolemy prefers that the luminary have a doryphoria/dasturiyya, which means that the luminary will be angular and be accompanied by other planets (doryphoria/dasturiyya can get complicated).

Hopefully these luminaries are also supported by the other planets mentioned, but if not, then we have to look at these other planets and the Lot of the Kingdom to see what else we find. We are working from the best condition down to the lowest condition. As you continue through pp. 1348-49 you will see his use of Ptolemy.

You are also right about the use of the compound mubtazz. The rules are not very clear, but we should look for the most angular and well-dignified planet that plays a role in this delineation, especially if it makes powerful aspects, is received, etc.

(...)

Best,

Dr. Benjamin Dykes

Hi, luis
Thank you for showing us the answer of Ben Dykes. It is interesting. I am also interested in testing the method of Bonatti.

The only method of eminence that I found reliable is the Hellenistic one.

It is usually a tricky subject. if you look around the net you will find a lot of "pre election" matherial were people discuss how McCain and Obama don?t have eminence in their charts.

For god?s sake, they are both senators, candidates, and then obama gain presidency. Of course they have eminence, in whatever way we choose to define it !

So, it will be interesting to see how the method of Bonatti will work

Best regards and thanks again
PS: do you speak portuguese ?