Graham Fox wrote:According to the passages of Ptolemy kindly supplied by Lihin, it would appear that not only is the prenatal full moon excluded, but the new moon as well - the option allowed is the "planet that has most relation of domination/dominion" over the p?int of the conjunction. In this case, that would be perhaps either Venus (ruler and occupant of 3, where the NM falls), or Saturn (exalted and occupant of 3 and close to the NM point) (sidereally, of course, as this is the sidereal forum).

But then the 3rd house is below the horizon and therefore not a hylegiacal place, so Venus and Saturn would be disqualified even if they had the prerequisite 3 dignities in one of these places. (For a night birth, it would be the place of the full moon, not the new moon.)

lihin wrote: May one doubt that 'mixing and matching' various periods, schools, countries and authors will lead to clear delineations and to optimal environments to test effectiveness and efficiency of astrological techniques? Quite probably, however, using widely 'eclectic' approaches one will more easily find some astrological 'explanation' for almost anything and everything.

Lihin

Can you think of a period of time where this hasn't happened with astrology? It seems an impossible task to suggest that one NOT mix various periods of time for example, astrology has never sprung up out of nowhere, but evolved through cultures and time periods. It is an impossibility to do astrology and not mix cultures and periods.

Thank you Martin for the link to Ptolemy (trans. Robbins).
Here is the passage in question :

by day we must give first place to the sun, if it is in the prorogative places; if not, to the moon; and if the moon is not so placed, to the planet that has most relations of domination to the sun, to the preceding conjunction, and to the horoscope; that is, when, of the five methods of domination that exist, it has three to one, or even more; but if this cannot be, then finally we give preference to the horoscope. By night prefer the moon first, next the Sun, next the planets having the greater number of relations of domination to the moon, to the preceding full moon, and to the Lot of Fortune; otherwise, finally, if the preceding syzygy was a new moon, the horoscope, but if it was a full moon the Lot of Fortune.

So, the preceding new moon can serve in a day chart, the preceding full moon in a night one (as in this case). But it is clear that Ptolemy wants not the place of syzygy (or of the horoscope or the lot of fortune) to be taken, but "the planet that has most relations of domination... that is, when, of the five methods of domination that exist, it has three to one, or even more". Only if all this fails is the horoscope itself to be taken (in a day chart, or a night chart in which the preceding syzygy was a NM), and the lot of fortune itself in a night with a preceding FM.

Doubtless other authorities have slightly different rules, but according to Ptolemy, in this night chart we should look, in order, at the Moon (no: below horizon), the Sun (ditto), then the planets having most (at least 3) rulerships over the Moon, preceding FM or lot of fortune, in that order (so I get tangled up in which triplicities, terms and faces to use...). If all that fails, then we take the lot of fortune itself: "finally, if the preceding syzygy was a new moon, the horoscope, but if it was a full moon the Lot of Fortune".
In no case it seems, in a night chart preceded by a FM, would we take the horoscope. Any chosen planet or point has to be in houses 10, 1, 11, 7 - not clear which sort of houses, though since he mentions the midheaven, perhaps not, in theory, whole sign ones, unless he's talking more loosely about the places. In any case, there are no planets or Fortune so placed in this chart, and the preceing syzygy was Full, so according to Ptolemy's rules in this translation, there seems to be no hyleg in this chart. No wonder he died young...

Graham

If we do have to resort to the ascendant itself as the hyleg (despite Ptolemy's rules apparently excluding it), perhaps the anaereta could be Saturn (ruler of 7, the second best "killer" for Houck and and an Indian "maraka", natally exalted in Libra both sidereally and tropically, and conjunct Pluto, for what it's worth...). In the Solar return less than 3 weeks before the murder, Saturn is in sidereal Scorpio with the SR ascendant, closely squaring the SR MC (1?) and more loosely the natal ascendant (6?) (the latter dexter squares are also the Indian sinister full aspect of 10, specific to Saturn).
On 10/3/1988, the (traditional) converse direction of the Ascendant comes to a contraparallel with natal Saturn. If the chart is rectified by just 1'8", to 00:48:52 (rather than 00:50), this direction would fall on the day of death, 01/12/87.
Graham

Graham Fox wrote:If we do have to resort to the ascendant itself as the hyleg (despite Ptolemy's rules apparently excluding it),

Actually, Robbins has a footnote stating that some MSS add: 'But otherwise finally the horoscope is the prorogator.' Whether or not Ptolemy explicitly wrote that, I'm pretty sure he meant it; and it has certainly been used that way by later generations.

In the Solar return less than 3 weeks before the murder, Saturn is in sidereal Scorpio with the SR ascendant, closely squaring the SR MC (1?) and more loosely the natal ascendant (6?)

Yes, I noted that too.

On 10/3/1988, the (traditional) converse direction of the Ascendant comes to a contraparallel with natal Saturn. If the chart is rectified by just 1'8", to 00:48:52 (rather than 00:50), this direction would fall on the day of death, 01/12/87.

So it would, though I don't think an exact hit date is necessary. And I'm still thinking about contraparallels.

Martin
I realised that an exact hit date wasn't necessary, but I thought primaries were supposed to hit before the event (as marking the start of a period when it could happen, other factors assisting), rather than after. This is definitely what I was taught by Denis Labour? who I worked with in France, and in some other things I've read, I thought it was in your book as well, but I may be wrong.
Point taken about more research being needed on parallels, contras, etc.
Graham

graham,

thanks for starting this thread. i would like more feedback as well on your last post, as that is an ongoing question for me as well..

your initial comments about death having more an association with the 7th, then 8th house were interesting and not the first time i have read that. it seems the older astrologers viewed the descendant as a place associated with death which makes a certain amount of sense.. however, one could say that from the moment a planet passes the midheaven it is in a movement of de-scension towards the low point of the chart - 4th house - another place with an association for death, given this downward momentum.. i suppose this is my simplistic view on the idea of planets rising in the east and setting in the west. just how that ties in with the theme of death symbolically could be construed a few different ways.. it appears this is what has happened over the course of time in astrology. how one applies the symbolic idea of death is flexible as i see it, although perhaps others wouldn't agree with my assessment..

Graham Fox wrote:I realised that an exact hit date wasn't necessary, but I thought primaries were supposed to hit before the event (as marking the start of a period when it could happen, other factors assisting), rather than after. This is definitely what I was taught by Denis Labour? who I worked with in France, and in some other things I've read, I thought it was in your book as well, but I may be wrong.

Yes, directions marking periods of time is a very ancient idea, connected particularly with the passage of a significator through the terms. But that generally applies to (symbolic) motion forward along the zodiac, that is, to directions in direct motion. And even then, my experience suggests that some margin must be allowed to either side -- an orb of influence, so to speak.

Martin
Sorry to pester again... a margin on either side makes sense, though of course if primaries are to be used for rectification, it would be reassuring to know which side of them the event should occur.
I don't quite understand when you say "that generally applies to (symbolic) motion forward along the zodiac, that is, to directions in direct motion."
Direct directions involve diurnal movement, backwards along the zodiac, and directing through the terms is direct diurnal motion of the degree of the zodiac to the significator, isn't it? Perhaps you just mean that many people think of them as the ascendant moving "neo-conversely", but that it isn't really the case?
But you're also saying that the idea of a direction starting a period was valid for the original technique involving the terms, but was the extended by some teachers to directions in general (with the best of intentions - usually teachers/authors who want to get away from seeking "direct hits" and back to an earlier tradition).
I have another question: without going into detail, what do you think in principle of the method expounded by Dr H (Regulus Astro) of situating the event between two directions with and without latitude (I'm simplifying, of course). I have found that this fairly often seems to work, especially between "no latitude" and "latitude of both significator and promissor-Bianchini" hits.
Graham

(BTW, if directing through the terms was probably the original Western use of primaries, we may see the Indian application of this principle, and elements of the method, in the various dasha, which direct zodiacal micro-boundaries in direct motion over the moon or ascendant, and apply a key to transform the distance or time into years. Text references, which have been requested, would thus be Parasharas BPHS ch 46 to 65, and Varahamihira's Brihat Jataka, ch 8, amongst others.)

Graham Fox wrote:Sorry to pester again... a margin on either side makes sense, though of course if primaries are to be used for rectification, it would be reassuring to know which side of them the event should occur.

It would, but I don't believe it works quite like that. Rectification by events of life requires a goodish number of events, and if all or most are signified by various directions, then perhaps we can expect the average margin to approach zero, or at any rate to be quite small.

I don't quite understand when you say "that generally applies to (symbolic) motion forward along the zodiac, that is, to directions in direct motion."
Direct directions involve diurnal movement, backwards along the zodiac, and directing through the terms is direct diurnal motion of the degree of the zodiac to the significator, isn't it?

Yes. Sorry to have been unclear -- if it's any comfort, al-Biruni himself thought the same thing confusing about 1000 years ago! The thing is that ancient authors will typically speak of a significator being directed, by direct motion, to a planet or aspect located ahead of it in the zodiac. What happens astronomically, of course, is that the zodiac moves 'backwards' across the fixed place of the significator. So it's a matter of perspective, like sitting in a train and feeling that the landscape is rushing past you. But my point was that the division of life into periods based on the terms, and on the various conjunctions and aspects of the planets present in them, is always done by direct direction (astronomically, keeping the significator fixed) rather than converse (moving the significator with the primary motion).

I have another question: without going into detail, what do you think in principle of the method expounded by Dr H (Regulus Astro) of situating the event between two directions with and without latitude (I'm simplifying, of course).

I'm not convinced by any method I have tried of assigning latitude to aspects other than the opposition. (I haven't in all honesty tried Morin's method, mostly because it's a pain to calculate.) For conjunctions and oppositions, I generally take both directions with and without latitude into consideration, though I generally find the most striking hits when using latitude. I wouldn't necessarily consider the whole period in-between the two directions as productive of results, though.