Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hello
Most of the recent examples of primaries on this forum have used Ptolemy's key (of course, in dealing with events in the first years of life, the key makes very little difference).
I've found, in my admittedly limited experience, that for events in later life, Naibod usually seems to give slightly closer "hits" - but sometimes Ptolemy is closer.
Naibod (16th century, though Martin says this key was probably used earlier by others) is an attempt to fine-tune the looser 1?= 1 year by taking the mean daily solar motion in RA as the key. This is often illustrated by a reasoning that if in a mean solar day, the earth turns 360?59'8" to return to solar noon, you just knock off the 360 and take 59'8" as the key. Martin, in his book presents the same thing from a slightly different point of view: in one year, the sun appears to move 360? or RA, so you divide that by the number of days in the year to get the mean daily motion.
Morin and others adopted Naibod as being more accurate than Ptolemy's key.
The problem for me is that if Naibod works for the reasons given, then the key of Brahe/Kepler (true solar RA arc -birthday) or even that of Placidus (true solar RA arc over X days) should surely work even better - but they don't, quite the contrary, at least for me.
So I wondered if it could be valid to think of another approach giving a value very close to Naibod, but much less sensitive to individual daily variations in the sun's apparent speed.
If we say that in a mean solar day, the earth has to turn 360?59'8", and then (since 1 day=1 year) divide THAT by 365.242 days, we get a daily average of 59'18", which in trun represents one year (coefficient 1.0118, close to Naibod which is 1.01456), but which is hardly modified by daily variations.
I'm not of course trying to "push" this key, I realise that it has no historical backing and I can quote no authorities and give no text references to support it, should those be requested. I would simply like to know if my reasoning for this "user key", which I'm experimenting with, is perhaps valid, or if it's completely out of order because of something I haven't thought of, and that I'm wasting my time.
Many thanks for any informed opinions.
Graham

Good afternoon,

Like the number of arcs of precession proposed to calibrate so-called 'sidereal' zodiacs, the number of keys proposed for primary directions has not ceased to proliferate since the European Renaissance. In addition to the examples cited by Mr Graham Fox including his own, newly proposed key, one can mention Mijnheer Wim R. van Dam, M.A. and a new 'lunar' key calculated by Dr Rumen Kolev and explained in his very useful booklets on primary directions.

Methinks Professor Martin Gansten is probably correct is opining that, prior to the Renaissance, only Claudius Ptolemy's key and what is now called the 'Naibod' key, named after the German mathematician, astronomer-astrologer Herr Valentin Naboth, were used.

The method of 'true solar arc' proposed by Placido di Titi versus the two keys just mentioned reminds us of similar issues in respect of 'true' nodal positions versus 'mean' nodal positions. At the bottom of such, sometimes polemic, discussions might be Aristotle's distinction between 'essential' and 'accidental' that we also find elsewhere in astrology, ex. gr. 'essential and accidental honours and debilities of planets'.

The possibilities of astrological abuse of keys (and methods!) of primary directions by 'pick and choose', 'mix and match' in order to find 'exact hits' for nearly anything and everything should be evident to most. IF one uses more than one key, THEN, if coherence is desired, (s)he should establish and follow consistent, clear criteria for their selection and application. Otherwise 'astrology' becomes whimsical, intuitive, 'creative' arbitrariness, perhaps much to the liking of most but not of all.

Rather than inventing new keys, it might be more fruitful, but perhaps less 'fun', to, for example, randomly select 300 Rodden AA rated nativities of deceased persons who lived more than 40 years (differences of arcs and times amongst keys increase over the years), apply the Ptolemaic definitions and methods to determine Epikratetor, Lot of Fortune, Anareta and length of life with his key and with the 'Naibod' key to see which of the two, if any, has greater statistical effectiveness.

Best regards,

lihin

Lihin

You say" Rather than inventing new keys, it might be more fruitful, but perhaps less 'fun', to, for example, randomly select 300 Rodden AA rated nativities of deceased persons who lived more than 40 years (differences of arcs and times amongst keys increase over the years), apply the Ptolemaic definitions and methods [etc]"

This I have done, which is why I asked the question, perhaps not with 300, but enough to form an opinion - Naibod works rather better, Ptolemy is second best, Brahe is way behind (IMHO).

I am not really trying to invent a new key, but to understand why that of Brahe works less well than that of Naibod, which seems to work rather better than Ptolemy's. Even if someone with an INFORMED opinion, like Martin, will tell me that my reasoning is not completely nuts, I'll still be quite happy to stick with Naibod, as being in any case close enough, since we are not trying to pinpoint things to the day.

As I said

I'm not of course trying to "push" this key, I realise that it has no historical backing and I can quote no authorities and give no text references to support it, should those be requested. I would simply like to know if my reasoning for this "user key", which I'm experimenting with, is perhaps valid, or if it's completely out of order because of something I haven't thought of

I'm getting very tired of your pedantic and snooty remarks. You must have better things to do than reply to posts which you disapprove of. Feel free to ignore mine in future.

By the way, it's Doctor Fox to you (University of London, 1986).

Good day

Graham Fox wrote: The problem for me is that if Naibod works for the reasons given, then the key of Brahe/Kepler (true solar RA arc -birthday) or even that of Placidus (true solar RA arc over X days) should surely work even better - but they don't, quite the contrary, at least for me.

I believe that the preference about a key or another is strictly personal. In Cieloeterra they use the placidian key and it works quite well. Others like Martin prefer Naibod. Two different experiences....

I tend to use keys in a "historical" way, Ptolemy with semi-arc, placidian with mundane or under-the- pole because I'm not persuaded one really works better than another. I'm agnostic:) , I just try to be faithful to the authors.

margherita

Good afternoon,

Dr Fox, if you have already done a research study that meets the criteria mentioned (and perhaps more) in my last post, i for one should be quite interested in reading it and hope that, have you not already done so, you will publish it in the near future. Although you have not stated in which field you have earned your doctorate, i presume you have sufficient knowledge of statistics, ex. gr. required sample size, to conduct a study immune to attacks by even the most vociferous fundamentalist sceptics, or that you can enlist the requisite know-how.

Some German astrologers of the early 20th century who worked with primary directions, ex. gr. Herr Erich Carl K?hr, used the Naibod key. In his 388-page book Berechnung der Ereigniszeiten (Calculation of the Event Times), Herr K?hr explained why the Naibod key is correct but did not exclude the true solar arc in Right Ascension key, saying further research is required, although the Naibod key gave him precise results.

Best regards,

lihin

PS (off topic) Dr Fox, perhaps you have referred to my comments about equal-sign 'sidereal' zodiacs of which many are selectable in most astrology software programmes. Far from negating that such zodiacs have been used in antiquity and currently by the majority of astrologers in India as well as by a minority of 'Western' astrologers, i should sincerely like to know which criteria are applicable to make a correct, objective selection amongst them. I mentioned that Hipparkhos' zodiac fulfils one such possible criterion: each Alpha Star of the twelve unequal zodiacal constellations is posited in the sign bearing the constellation's name. One finds Hipparkhos' zodiac very well documented on pages 131 and following of the famous reference work of mostly Hellenistic astrology, L'astrologie grecque by Professor August Bouch?-Leclercq.

hi graham,
for the record - the data off primary directions i have used for the examples i gave was with the naibod key..

great questions and inquisitiveness on your part here.. i wonder about these same things, but we never usually get to discuss them with other astrologers, or it is hard to find others to talk about this..

i haven't used the brahe key which i would be curious to use. i like the idea of directing based on the daily movement of the sun in the actual chart under consideration..

Good morning,

On pages 206 and following of the 20th century Swiss astrologer Herr Heinrich K?ndig's thorough and very well illustrated book Astrologische Prognose, Chapter 'Der Wahre Zeitschl?ssel' (The True Time Key) one finds some additional keys for primary directions to those already mentioned, ex. gr.:

Mr C. C. Massey
Dr W. J. Simmonite
Countess Wassilko

Herr K?ndig's own key was based on the division of the ecliptic into 360 degrees, each of which is like an 'entity'. The degree into which the Sun falls, not the Sun's exact position including minutes and seconds of arc, determines the 'degree' used in the primary direction key. The formula is:

1 ecliptical solar degree at the event time in Right Ascension = 1 year

Best regards,

lihin

PS It appears that, to enter the Immortal Hall of Fame of 'Primary Directional Astrologers' one must develop and publish such a key, resembling, so it seems, the requirement that an equal-sign 'sidereal' astrologer publish a new precession arc to attain comparable immortality.

Hello Margherita
I've never liked Rumen Kolev's idea of mixing several different keys, even sometimes for the same event for the same person (his examples for Hitler in his booklets). But I thought your suggestion:

I tend to use keys in a "historical" way, Ptolemy with semi-arc, placidian with mundane or under-the- pole because I'm not persuaded one really works better than another.

was interesting - to use, for example, the Placidus key with the mundane directions of Placidus. Since the mundane conjunctions are the same as the zodiacal ones with latitude, and the mundane oppositions the same as the (Bianchini) zodiacal ones with latitude, and those didn't seem to work as well for me with Placidus as with Naibod, I tried a few with mundane squares and trines (including the "traditional" converse square pointed out by Martin in the case of Abigail Gustafson's death). They seem to be way off. So I think I'll just stick with Naibod for the time being, perhaps experiment with my very slight variant for those directions which fall in old age, but thanks for the interesting suggestion.
Graham

There is another potential dimension to the use of keys that is reflected in philosophy (that of Plato, Aristotle, etc) and the difference between the ideal and the real (eidos and hule as Schmidt would say). Most of the stuff coming out of Aristotle seems to fit well with the real/natural world and represents the world of "Tuche" (fortune). From this we get Ptolemy and the interest in natural phenomena. From the side more forgotten is the ideal (Platonic) of the world where the year is ideally 360 days, a month ideally 30 days, the apparent diameter of the Sun and Moon 1/2 degree to which the 2 sects side by side make up one degree in the zodiac / one day of ideal solar motion. From this, we get a world that approximates the ideal, but imperfectly.

This is not necessarily a matter of what is right. It can be simply a matter of 'as above, so below' where the ideal is above in the realm of Nous and the real is in the realm of tuche (fortune) of this world. It sets up expectation, vs what is and potentially leads to a moral/ethical understanding of what is right or what should be. Schmidt has said a lot about this in his reconstruction of the "System of Hermes".

Hello Curtis

This distinction poses the same interesting question as the use, in Indian planetary periods (dasha) of the tropical or sidereal solar year versus an "ideal" 360 day year. The former is more common, but there a good many astrologers working with Indian techniques who prefer the latter.

In primaries, this "ideal" approach would seem to suggest two possibilities.

EITHER:
1/360 of a sidereal day = 1 sidereal year (ie. 1 sid. Day = 360 sid. Years)
= key of Ptolemy (i.e. here there is a symbolic equivalence between Earth's daily rotation and Sun's annual orbit)
(Sidereal day = time taken for a given meridian from the Earth to return to the same position with respect to the fixed stars; sidereal year = time taken for the Sun to return to the same position with respect to the fixed stars; this is only about 20' of time longer than tropical year, so in practice it gives us the standard 1?=1year)


OR:
1/360 of a sidereal day = 360 sidereal days (i.e. approx 359 solar days), i.e. 1.0173? = 1yr (coefficient 1?=0.983 yrs)
(i.e. symbolic equivalence between multiples of 360, a sort of 360? harmonic, without specific reference to the Sun's orbit except to convert result into conventional years for convenience).

Interestingly, the latter "key" is almost the same as Rumen Kolev's "synodic" key (coefficient 0.98436), which he says is based on the mean lunar year of 354.367 years (which is also occasionally used in Indian dasha, but much more rarely than 365.25 or 360), but I don't understand how he gets that result from from 354 ? it's actually much closer to a 360 day key).

Thanks for raising this - I'd never thought about "the Sun and Moon 1/2 degree each to which the 2 sects side by side make up one degree in the zodiac".

Graham

If you are trying to retrofit events, then, there are two issues:
(presumes that calculations of the arc of direction are accurate)

1.The measure- Key
2.Your expectation of hitting the bulls eye with each event or direction, or atleast, consistently,the direction falling before the event or with the event.

If I understand correctly what Martin Gansten has mentioned in another thread-you cannot be too sure on either count in No.2.
So, retrospectively, you can never be comparatively correct about a Key.
The idea is to use one consistently.

Off Topic: I have been told the same thing about Ayanamsa in Hindu Astrology(Jyotisha) by someone who actually took the trouble of speaking to Dr.Raman when he was alive.

Graham Fox wrote:Hello Curtis

This distinction poses the same interesting question as the use, in Indian planetary periods (dasha) of the tropical or sidereal solar year versus an "ideal" 360 day year. The former is more common, but there a good many astrologers working with Indian techniques who prefer the latter.

In primaries, this "ideal" approach would seem to suggest two possibilities.



Graham

That's interesting. I'm writing about some examples of zodiacal releasing and they work quite well with a 360-year, not so well with the civil year.

I would not expect this, but I should dismiss the initial project to work with civil years while I was working. The 360 days year fits much, much better, even to the date.

margherita