As the original intention of this thread was to discuss

the topic of to what extent primary directions survived into 20th-century astrological practice, whether and how they were reinterpreted (deliberately or through misunderstanding), and whether and why they were deliberately rejected by some

I will point out that Aleksei/Alexey Borealis's methodology is a contemporary take on Morin's use of directions, with some differences both technical and philosophical, but still intended to revive an earlier model of astrology. Borealis's work is entitled Mysteries of Medieval Astrology, which is perhaps a little misleading given that Morin lived in the 17th century, but it still signals a revivalist intention rather than a continuous transmission of primary directions into the 21st.

@Martin Gansten

Interesting, in an earlier thread from two years ago you had said that Borealis/ Mark Rusborn was following Morinus "closely and accurately":

Martin Gansten wrote: Sat Apr 08, 2023 7:59 am Just to clarify a few points: I don't use the Morin system myself, but from what I have seen so far of Mark's presentations, he seems to represent it closely and accurately.

Perhaps you have revised your evaluation in the meantime, having seen more of Borealis' approach.

Indeed, in the meantime I have read part of his book, which gives more detail than the online texts I had read at that time. The maths still agrees, as far as I can see, with Morin's method, but there are some differences in application. For instance, Morin made the traditional distinction between benefic and malefic aspect angles in direction, but Borealis does not.

It seems not a single astrologer alive today is following the "tradition" to a T. Maybe not even yourself.

For example, in the post that I linked you claim to follow more "classical/medieval" school when it comes to primary directions. However, you combine this technique with a sidereal zodiac (bounds/terms), when the vast majority of historical astrologers who employed primary directions apparently have been tropicalists (correct me if I'm wrong).

Thus it seems you might be deviating majorly from tradition in at least one respect - which doesn't have to be a bad thing of course.

Astrophilus wrote: Sun May 04, 2025 7:42 pm It seems not a single astrologer alive today is following the "tradition" to a T.

No, it's not possible to follow all traditional authorities to the letter, as they not infrequently disagree among themselves. There is no monolithic The Tradition™. In this respect astrology is no different from any long-standing and developing body of ideas and practices. But just as it is still possible to speak in a meaningful way about, say, Platonism or humoral medicine, I think it's possible to do so of traditional (pre- and early modern) astrology.

For example, in the post that I linked you claim to follow more "classical/medieval" school when it comes to primary directions. However, you combine this technique with a sidereal zodiac (bounds/terms), when the vast majority of historical astrologers who employed primary directions apparently have been tropicalists (correct me if I'm wrong).

I think you may be, actually, or at least (since we don't have the demographic data to say just how many astrologers were practising directions in various geographic regions across the centuries) it's important to note that the Greek-language astrological tradition prior to Ptolemy, and for some centuries after him, did not use his zodiac, nor did the Persians or the early Arabic astrologers, who cast their charts from sidereal astronomical tables (zīj). This would include well-known names such as al-Andarzaghar, Māshāʾallāh, and Sahl ibn Bishr. There is even a very interesting paper by Philipp Nothaft, published a few years ago, detailing the survival of sidereal values, for the purpose of horoscopy , in Europe up to the 13th century.

Martin Gansten wrote: Sun May 04, 2025 10:29 pm There is no monolithic The Tradition™. In this respect astrology is no different from any long-standing and developing body of ideas and practices.

I'm not sure what the thread is aiming to accomplish when apparently no astrologer today is following a tradition rather than "reviving" it, and so few seem to be acquianted with primary directions.

If there is "one continuous tradition" in astrology it's probably Indians practicing Jyotisha. They use Sidereal zodiac and Whole Sign houses. However, primary directions do not form part of their tradition at all, to my knowledge.

I'm sorry if the purpose of the thread was unclear. It was not about traditional astrology as such, but rather a spin-off from another thread, where a discussion arose on whether primary directions had (1) survived in continuous use into the 20th century but been rejected by a majority of astrologers because the technique didn't work satisfactorily, or (2) largely fallen out of use with the invention of 'modern astrology' because the technique was no longer properly understood, and then rediscovered with the traditional renaissance from the 1980s and '90s onwards.

From what I can see, the latter scenario is the case (at least in the English-speaking world), but I'd be interested to see any evidence of the former.

You are right that Indian astrology is the longest-surviving form of traditional astrology anywhere, and almost entirely sidereal, and also that directions are (almost entirely) absent from it. It does have quadrant houses, though.

It is often believed that to calculate primary directions, the birth time must be known to within a few minutes. In theory, any variation in the birth time affects the directional arcs, but this effect is especially felt for the MC and AS, and this disadvantage is identical for all House systems.
If we consider the planetary directions relative to each other, it is not at all necessary to have a precise time; with differences of 30 minutes, which is already considerable, the results obtained can still provide very valuable information.
1) When you direct a planet in the signs of Gemini-Cancer or Sagittarius-Capricorn, even if you have a difference of one hour on the birth certificate, you can calculate the direction; the difference will be minimal, generally no more than a year after 50 years.
2) The planets or points which move in the other signs, especially the signs close to the equinoxes, are more sensitive to variations in time and this variation is greater for northern latitudes than towards the equator.
Note: He used the latitude of Paris and Regiomontanus
Henri J. Gouchon, Dictionnaire Astrologique, Book II (1937)

An approximate birth time can be viewed as a reason not to use Primary Directions but I see that as a good way to rectify your birth chart. Say you have a conjunction Sun/Mars in square to Uranus (accident prone), you can direct the AS to Sun/Mars and see when the aspect will perfect. Gouchon suggested to start with a 1 degree orb = 1 year in time and to rectify the chart to within 3 months (15 min) which would be a 1 minute orb as 1 year = 1 degree.

- The book of Martin Gansten 'Annual Predictive Techniques' is also an excellent book to learn to combine the directions through the terms, the transits, the annual revolution and the profections.

- Book IV of Vettius Valens (tr. Mark Riley)

https://www.hellenisticastrology.com/20 ... -released/

- The Profection. How it should be calculated, how it should be interpreted. Giuseppe Bezza.
http://www.cieloeterra.it/eng/eng.artic ... zione.html

- Fast and easy Primary Directions. Anthony Louis
https://tonylouis.wordpress.com/2019/07 ... irections/



On the website of Sylvia de Ayala, the PD are calculated from the topocentric system of Wendel Polich and Nelson Page based on the book 'Analysis and Prediction II' by Alexander Marr. Once you have entered your 'Carta Radix' information, you can modify the dates of 'Direcciones Primarias' directas and conversas to see what was going on in your life for important events.

Sylvia de Ayala
https://carta-natal.es/direcciones-primarias.php
Alexander Marr
https://pdfcoffee.com/alexander-marr-pr ... -free.html

-------------
I know that there are different arguments on what Zodiac or House system to use but I suggest to test it and see by yourself.

Ouranos

Martin Gansten wrote: Tue May 06, 2025 1:29 pm I'm sorry if the purpose of the thread was unclear. It was not about traditional astrology as such, but rather a spin-off from another thread, where a discussion arose on whether primary directions had (1) survived in continuous use into the 20th century but been rejected by a majority of astrologers because the technique didn't work satisfactorily, or (2) largely fallen out of use with the invention of 'modern astrology' because the technique was no longer properly understood, and then rediscovered with the traditional renaissance from the 1980s and '90s onwards.

From what I can see, the latter scenario is the case (at least in the English-speaking world), but I'd be interested to see any evidence of the former.

Thank you for clarifying. May you one day find the evidence that you are looking for!

My advice for everyone who wants to reconnect with the true tradition of all astro-logy is to take up regular stargazing as a hobby, if possible. Follow into the footsteps of those ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks and study the dark night sky with your own (naked) eyes. Let yourself be amazed by the majestic glory of the heavens. Also, primary directions will become much easier to understand for you once you've seen the sky in motion.

Astrophilus wrote: Tue May 06, 2025 6:30 pm Thank you for clarifying. May you one day find the evidence that you are looking for!

Thanks. I'm not really looking for evidence as such: I am fairly well-acquainted with the sources and satisfied that the notion of primary directions having been rejected because they were suddenly discovered (after approximately two thousand years of use) not to work is incorrect. But as the topic kept coming up, I thought it deserved its own thread, to give those who support it a chance to substantiate the claim.

Martin,
I would like to hear your evaluation of Alexander Marr use of Primary Directions. That's if you have looked into it of course.
And why did you choose Alcabitius as a House system?
Is it because it trisects in 3 equal parts the time it takes for the AS to reach the MC which would be an argument for higher latitudes instead of using the temporal time of 2 hours between each house to reach the next house.?
And what do you do with Alcabitius with latitutes above 66 degrees where some points on the ecliptic never rise or set?

Appreciate your input and knowledge!

Ouranos

------------------
Post edit:
I just rediscovered a forgotten book on Primary Directions in my collection.
Robert DeLuce "The Complete Method of Prediction", first published in 1935. I have the 2nd edition of 1978.
According to astro.com, he was an American astrologer, author and lecturer. Originally a mining engineer, he became a pioneer in astrology at the turn of the century as an authority on Hindu astrology. His books include "Rectification of the Horoscope," "The Complete Method of Prediction", "Constellational Astrology" and "Horary Astrology."
What I find interesting is that he dors not say Primary Directions but "Equatorial Arcs". From the work of Ptolemy and Placidus.
He also has a chapter on Embolismic Lunations (the return of the Moon to the same phase or relative position to the Sun that it held at native's birth. Each successive embolismic lunation after birth is to be taken as representative of a corresponding year of life.)
So much to learn, not enough of a lifetime!

Ouranos wrote: Wed May 07, 2025 5:19 pm And what do you do with Alcabitius with latitutes above 66 degrees where some points on the ecliptic never rise or set?

All ASC-based house systems encounter problems at polar latitudes once ASC turns retrograde. Also primary directions (at least Ptolemy's method of proportional semi-arcs) fail to work when applied to circumpolar degrees or objects.