Skyscript Astrology Forum

this is a continuation of a conversation that was happening on a different thread to be found here - http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8012

regarding the bezza article, i did up a chart for the data given in this article found here - http://www.cieloeterra.it/eng/eng.artic ... zione.html
which is based on feb 8 120.. i put the chart to antioch, turkey which is said to be the place valens lived and practiced astrology at the time.
here is the chart using solar fire. note the position of saturn and mercury are in the last degree of the sign and not in agreement with the positions given in the bezza article..


print screen windows 7

what i found interesting, aside from the minor problem of the positions of saturn and mercury is how the chart is a nocturnal one. why i think this matters is i am wondering if the reason the moon, venus and mars are considered especially important for the 35th year has something to do with their raised importance in a nocturnal chart? of course this wouldn't explain the inclusion of saturn in bezza's comments.. i understand the rationale given in the article, but i bring the idea of day or night chart as i think it would have relevance for valens. so much of it seems to have from what i have read by valens. the bezza article was done in 1996. perhaps margherita would like to comment 18 years after the article was written if she sees this and is around. here is the profected chart for the 35th year immediately below.


jpg images

the importance of saturn in the example based on the data - saturn was said to be in cancer - makes sense.. but i wonder if the ruler of the chart - or lord of the profection might not be some other planet as saturn in cancer isn't considered a favourable position in itself. perhaps this is getting off track, but wouldn't the lord of the profection for the year be an important time lord over the year as was mentioned by paul in the other thread? how does this dovetail with the ruler of the solar return, or any primary directions with 'time lords' in tow, that might be looming over the chart as well? how does martin or konrad establish a hierarchy of time lords if they opt to work and use the data from profection or solar return charts? i am especially curious. thanks!

I don't have much to say on the subject of Valens and his techniques, as I haven't really studied them in any depth. But:

james_m wrote:note the position of saturn and mercury are in the last degree of the sign and not in agreement with the positions given in the bezza article..

Remember that Valens didn't use the tropical zodiac of Hipparchus and Ptolemy, but one that began some 8 degrees before the equinox point.

perhaps this is getting off track, but wouldn't the lord of the profection for the year be an important time lord over the year as was mentioned by paul in the other thread?

Yes, the ruler of the profected ascendant is considered, in the Arabic-language sources that have been transmitted to the west, to be the ruler of the year as a whole. (The eastern transmission of Perso-Arabic astrology into India seems to have differed to some extent: here the final ruler of the year is chosen from among several candidates, one of which is the ruler of the profection.)

how does this dovetail with the ruler of the solar return, or any primary directions with 'time lords' in tow, that might be looming over the chart as well? how does martin or konrad establish a hierarchy of time lords if they opt to work and use the data from profection or solar return charts? i am especially curious. thanks!

For my part, I would say that the directions are the most important; but the results of directions may manifest earlier or later, or to a greater or smaller extent, depending on the annual profection and revolution.

Let's say your ascendant is directed through the terms of Venus, and that Venus herself is in good shape natally and casts a trine aspect into those terms; but in the same year that this happens, Saturn rules the ascendant by profection, or is placed in those same terms in the revolution, or is afflicting Venus in the revolution by a superior square. In that year, you are not likely to experience the full benefit of the direction. The Venus theme may be present, but marred by the influence of Saturn. But by next year, when the profected ascendant is ruled by Jupiter and both Jupiter and Venus are reasonably well-placed in the revolution, you will feel the full effect of the good direction.

Ptolemy (Tetr. IV.10) explains the relationship in this way (Robbins's translation):

the general chronocrators have greater authority to realize the prediction, while the partial chronocrators assist or deter, in accordance with the familiarity or unfamiliarity of their natures, and the ingresses influence the degree of increase or diminution in the event.

Schmidt translates the same passage as follows:

the general time-lords are more authoritative in bringing an effect to completion, while the particular time-lords cooperate or obstruct in accordance with how akin or alien their natures are, and the ingresses produce the intensifications or relaxations of the events.

(Ingresses simply means transits.)

james_m wrote: the bezza article was done in 1996. perhaps margherita would like to comment 18 years after the article was written if she sees this and is around. here is the profected chart for the 35th year immediately below.

Hello James,
I believe Bezza just took planetary positions from Valens'text. He uses the chart as an example in order to explain how profection works, without judging the chart.
I can't talk for Prof. Bezza, who surely would consider the fact the natal chart belongs to the nocturnal hairesis (sect)- anyway in the article he specifically mentions the fact these planets hand over to occupied places.
For what concerns an hierarchy of techniques, as Martin already said, Ptolemy gives to the primary directions the first place, I believe because they cover time ranges greater than year. What I mean it is that techniques are arranged in order of time with transits (ie, ingresses) activating events.
margherita

thanks for the informative posts martin and margherita.

i appreciate the ptolemy and schmidt quotes too for putting the concept of a hierarchy of time lords into some sort of context..

as i am always asking questions, i wonder if either of you or someone else would care to comment on why saturn would be considered the lord of the profection and not the moon which is the natural ruler of cancer the sign of the profection year? i understand the logic of saturn being in cancer having special bearing on a year where cancer is rising, but from reading bonatis book on mundane astrology i have been developing an impression that it doesn't necessarily mean that the ruler of the sign, or a planet in that sign for that matter automatically becomes the ruler of the profection.. instead bonati seems to imply it is the strongest planet in the chart that ends up being the ruler and that a planet that is weak by position - moon in scorpio in the bezza example - is not suited for being the profection lord.. however, neither would saturn in cancer retrograde in bezzas example, unless one was to put extra emphasis on its position in the midheaven and as ruler of mercury and sun.. all of this is off the bezza example, accepting the idea of saturn being in cancer.. thoughts?

james_m wrote:thanks for the informative posts martin and margherita.

i appreciate the ptolemy and schmidt quotes too for putting the concept of a hierarchy of time lords into some sort of context..

as i am always asking questions, i wonder if either of you or someone else would care to comment on why saturn would be considered the lord of the profection and not the moon which is the natural ruler of cancer the sign of the profection year? i understand the logic of saturn being in cancer having special bearing on a year where cancer is rising, but from reading bonatis book on mundane astrology i have been developing an impression that it doesn't necessarily mean that the ruler of the sign, or a planet in that sign for that matter automatically becomes the ruler of the profection.. instead bonati seems to imply it is the strongest planet in the chart that ends up being the ruler and that a planet that is weak by position - moon in scorpio in the bezza example - is not suited for being the profection lord.. however, neither would saturn in cancer retrograde in bezzas example, unless one was to put extra emphasis on its position in the midheaven and as ruler of mercury and sun.. all of this is off the bezza example, accepting the idea of saturn being in cancer.. thoughts?

Well, James, it seems that if we never take a weak planet as lord of the year, we will never have 'bad' things happen to us - that is obviously not the case. Also, you shouldn't mix mundane astrology and natal, they are two different things.

Personally, I use the ruler of the sign but take special note of any planet in the sign of the profection. I have found that the planet ruling the sign tends to time things, and that is confirmation enough for me that it is more important than any planet in the sign.

thanks konrad,

i think it's fine to have a different view from bezza on the most important planet in the valens profection example- planet in the same sign as the p ascendant- saturn, as opposed to ruler of the p ascendant - moon.. the lord of the chart definitions i understand from bonatti only apply to mundane and not natal based on your understanding of these differences. thanks!

yes, bad things happen to people..who would have thought? lol. i am a fool for thinking i can make only the most favourable planets rule over a chart as the unfavourable ones just won't do!

here's a simple question open to anyone... if you work with profections and solar returns, which one do you think takes greater precedence? thanks -

james_m wrote:here's a simple question open to anyone... if you work with profections and solar returns, which one do you think takes greater precedence? thanks -

I don't think it's generally a question of precedence; rather, the two techniques are used together. Perhaps you could describe a scenario where you think they conflict, to make the question clearer?

Martin Gansten wrote:

james_m wrote:here's a simple question open to anyone... if you work with profections and solar returns, which one do you think takes greater precedence? thanks -

I don't think it's generally a question of precedence; rather, the two techniques are used together. Perhaps you could describe a scenario where you think they conflict, to make the question clearer?

martin - thanks for asking! typically astrologers talk in generalities and leave out examples to help shed more light on their viewpoint. that is what i see most of the time.. that is one criticism i would express about your book on primary directions - too few examples.

astrologers have to make a decision about what predictive techniques they are going to work with.. there are a lot to choose from... obviously less is better.. one can be comfortable in not having to process as much data or weighing any competing data that will inevitably result.. this is what i am talking about - time lords competing with one another for supremacy.. the time lord of the profection can be different then the time lord of the solar return. examples abound. how does one decide which is more relevant when they are using both these predictive tools as a means of making a prediction on the future? according to comments that i have read from you martin - the primary directions take precedence over all other forms of predictive techniques. do i have that correct? of the many options to primary directions - mundane or zodiac, different keys and etc etc., i can't recall if you articulated the specific options you rely on for the best results. i would be interested to know.

before i get back to your question of an example, there is one thing i want to clear up regarding the bezza example. in b dykes introductory notes in book 3 of persian nativities 'on the solar revolutions' page 25 i quote -

"Alternative Lords of the Year. Abu Ma'shar does also allow for three exceptions in choosing the Lord of the Year: the first has to do with the profected Ascendant or the calculated Ascendant of the year falling on a natal planet; the other two come into play if the Sun or Moon are Lords of the Year.

If the Ascendant of the solar revolution, or the sign of the profection, fall on a natal planet, then that malefic can be taken as a substitute Lord of the Year. Abu Ma'shar adds that this will be especially so if the normally aspected Lord of the Year or Lord of the Ascendant of the revolution does not aspect its own Lord, but to my mind this should read, "especially if it does not aspect its own domicile." At any rate, I have my doubts about the value of this rule: surely it would mean that we would have substitute Lords of the Year or of the Ascendant of the year bout half the time. It probably means we may observe the aspects and transits of such a planet,, not that it should actually be preferred as the Lord of the Year.

Now we come to some more difficult rules, if a luminary is the Lord of the Year: this will be the case whenever the profected Ascendant falls on Cancer or Leo. The difficulty lies not only in the fact that the texts leave us with competing options, but Abu Ma'shar nevertheless provides delineations of the Un and Moon as Lords of the Year, and in two places say that while the luminary should not be the principal Lord of the Year, but should be taken as secondary. The notion that luminaries cannot act as sole or primary Lords of the Year does go back at least to al-Andarzaghar, since Masha'allah states this clearly in BA 1V.7. But Abu Ma'shar and Masha'allah do not completely agree on what the alternatives are, and Masha'allah does not state that the luminary can be a secondary significator."

that helps to clear up some of the logic from bezzas quote of what valens was doing - here is bezzas quote "Valens distinguishes between the one which "hands over" and the one which "takes over", using two expressions from time to time, a short one and one which has the function of a technical definition. The sign of "perfection" of the horoscope or the sign of the year is Cancer, which is in the nativity occupied by Saturn. Then he says: the horoscope hands over to Saturn and Saturn receives it or more precisely: the horoscope passes its own nature to Cancer and Saturn, which is in Cancer, receives it and disposes this nature in the year."

http://www.cieloeterra.it/eng/eng.artic ... zione.html

for anyone using both profections and solar returns or revolutions they are faced with a question over what takes precedence over the ruler of either chart, excluding any number of other considerations such as whether a planet is conjunct the ascendant for example.. lets go back to the example used in bezzas article which granted i don't have a specific time for the person, but used a time of 8pm which captured the natal positions by house in the chart bezza provided in the link above.. using the 8pm time of birth below is the solar revolution chart put to antioch. one will note sagittarius rising with jupiter in the 10th sign squaring onto the ascendant degree.. jupiter is retrograde in a sign it isn't at home in, but aspects its own sign from the square and opposition.. i would consider its position here as lord of the ascendant and chart given its position in this chart. how does one square that with the viewpoint that expressed by bezza that the horoscope hands over to saturn? which planet takes precedence in defining this persons 35th year - the profection lord which is said to be saturn for the reasons i have explained earlier, or jupiter in the solar revolution for the reasons i have explained just now?

these types of examples happen quite frequently. anyone who would deny that is not really looking at these competing techniques.. nothing is all that simple and clear cut in astrology and to go back to what i recall james holden saying in one of the many books i have read of his - a student is better off finding some system that works for him and not trying to incorporate too many different predictive techniques in their work - to which i say - fine, but one must continue to explore and see whether their is a system that works better then the one they presently have!

martin - please let us know the primary direction options you are relying on at this point. i am especially curious..


screen grab

james_m wrote:...time lords competing with one another for supremacy.. the time lord of the profection can be different then the time lord of the solar return. examples abound. how does one decide which is more relevant when they are using both these predictive tools as a means of making a prediction on the future?

Don't forget that time lords also have a topical application. They're not just all heaped into a count like an almuten. In life, many things are going on at once. A promotion may be coming in career at the same time one is getting a divorce. (In fact, I saw one client who got a divorce because she was getting a promotion). A child may be on the way when the home burns down or someone may be subject to a lawsuit while forming their own company. There are sometimes connections to these events that are close and other times it seems like they are unrelated. The general "time description" that Valens talks about gives a kind of baseline from which to estimate the outcome of various topics. It is often the case that one area of life signified by a certain house or lot makes other areas of life signified by other houses or lots difficult.

Because most situations develop over time, the methods that encompass the broadest stretches of time set out the best outline for what is possible (heimarmene) for a given time. These would be PD's, circumambulations and the activation of trigon lords of the sect light. Like tumblers in a lock, the first sequence determine whether a situation can even be "unlocked" or activated.

Also it makes sense that within the context of broader periods of topical methods such as zodiacal releasing from spirit that the greater eminence is usually reached in the longer periods because the winds have more time to generate an effect which symbolizes the native working on some endeavor for a longer period of time. Success often isn't achieved overnight, but when it does happen suddenly, it usually involves fortune.

Curtis,

do you apply Zodiacal Releasings to either of the lots to time periods of wealth or poverty?

james_m wrote:according to comments that i have read from you martin - the primary directions take precedence over all other forms of predictive techniques. do i have that correct?

I wouldn't phrase it quite so categorically, but all other things being equal, they are the first 'tumbler in the lock' (to use Curtis's image) for me, yes.

of the many options to primary directions - mundane or zodiac, different keys and etc etc., i can't recall if you articulated the specific options you rely on for the best results. i would be interested to know.

I generally go with the classical/medieval approach and use zodiacal semi-arc directions and 1 degree/year.

If I understand your other question correctly, you are asking whether the ruler of the revolution ascendant can be more relevant as a significator of the year as a whole than the ruler of the profection; is that right? If so, I'd go with the Indians on this one and say yes. It depends on which is more strongly placed (not necessarily better, but more able to act) in the radix and the revolution -- but the ruler of the profection will still be an important planet.

Konrad wrote:Curtis,

do you apply Zodiacal Releasings to either of the lots to time periods of wealth or poverty?

Not so much times of wealth or poverty, but I've seen periods of illness and death come up with zodiacal releasing from fortune. These days because of the corporate oligarchy owning almost everything, real wealth is probably a matter of eminence and general support of the nativity such as with the trigon lords being properly placed and fortune and the other lots (such as Spirit, Basis and Exaltation) having eudaimoniea (handing over to each other in busy places).

For the rest of us, wealth or having enough is a matter of Spirit releasing because we cannot make enough just collecting interest in the way corporations do (wealth building wealth is impossible for most of us); instead we make our wealth (or compensation) based upon our actions (Spirit). But I'm not sure that the ZR Fortune or Spirit is adequate in measuring wealth. I strongly suspect that anangke (family ties = Saturn) may have a stronger influence because mediocre charts coming from the right family are often far more financially substantial than eminent charts coming from the wrong background.

It often seems that what ought to be (heimarmene) and what is (tuche) do not follow "as above, so below" in the literal sense. Tuche is hard to measure and Dyadic (according to Schmidt) which a Platonist would say is ultimately "unknowable". Because Fortune is associated with "tuche", it might not be as easy to measure.