the reason i ask this question is in reference to a footnote in james holdens book 'the history of horoscopic astrology' page 173 i quote holden from the text on page 173, and then the footnote follows in the next paragraph... "He (Kepler) is said to have considered the number of days after birth that the Sun took to reach a natal planet was equivalent to the number of years of the native's life that would elapse before the indicated influence would manifest itself. This is the earliest instance I have encountered of the use of what we would call a secondary direction."

the footnote says this
"See Maurice Wemyss, The Wheel of Life, Vol. 5... This usage may have been suggest by a common procedure used in horary astrology, where the motion in degrees after the question may be equated to days or to some longer period of time, such as weeks, months, or years."

i suppose i am curious about this because aside from my own viewpoint that solar arc directions are much more relevant and revealing then primary directions, i am curious if this approach wasn't just applied to horary in the deep past, but also to general predictive work across other schools of astrology - natal, mundane and etc....

i was digging up a previous thread tangentially related to this topic from 2013 which i had initiated which might be of some relevance here for anyone interested.. see this link.. viewtopic.php?t=7696

Hey James – this thread may be of interest: https://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=589

hi wade

thanks for sharing this link! i appreciate it.. it was not helpful, but i appreciate it!

i think the kind of question i am asking transcends academia and is not to be found in a book... as i see it, the fact that astrologers were using different symbolic techniques to arrive at answers in horary doesn't preclude their use in other branches of astrology.. so back to my question - when did this concept of 1 degree equals 1 day, week or etc? i can see how later in history some astrologers would pick the idea up and explore it to the point that we are now told solar arc directions started around keplers time... i want to suggest it may have been used much earlier....

the thread you shared reminded me of the fixation with primary directions, held up like some holy grail for the new converts to 'traditional' astrology... so much for the holy grail.. almost no one is using them, maybe because they don't work?? or are they ''hiding their work under a bushel?'' lol.. maybe that is why they fell out of use? thoughts to consider..

james_m wrote: Mon Apr 14, 2025 4:20 pm when did this concept of 1 degree equals 1 day, week or etc?

Maybe I'm thinking too big, or being too naive, but I think this type of symbolic reasoning is so old we aren't going to get a first glimpse of it. The Torah, for instance, makes regular reference to one day being as a year to YHWH – and the 360° circle is more or less a direct reference to the 365 days of the year (cleaner multiple of 12 to end at 360). If we're looking for the first textual reference of such logic that exists today. I had thought similar ideas were represented in Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos – converting minutes of an eclipse's duration into months or years I think is more or less the same one-for-one conversion method, even if it isn't talking about a degree in that instance. Anyway, the concept just seems super ancient and similar principles are found in cultural or religious texts (like those which have some prophetic element).

Homologies of the type 1 X = 1 Y are present in the earliest preserved sources of horoscopic astrology, e.g., 1 sign = 1 year (annual profection); 1 sign = 1 month (monthly profection); 1 ascensional degree = 1 year (['primary'] direction). Whatever anyone wants to suggest, however, the homology *1 degree of ecliptical longitude = 1 year is not attested in any ancient or medieval sources known to me, at least not in the context of natal astrology.

If primary directions fell out of use because they didn't work, why did that take >2000 years to happen? Are 21st-century astrologers much more astute than all previous generations of practitioners? I think that's what Aristotle would call an improbable possibility. Primary directions were used well into the 20th century but then gradually abandoned (along with many other parts of astrology, including the overall emphasis on prediction) by the enthusiastic but generally less technically proficient adherents of popular and 'modern astrology' (© Alan Leo). Put simply, the last generation of astrologers where most understood the technique died off, and since the Second World War, astrologers with any real knowledge of directions have been very thin on the ground. But as we all know, lack of knowledge is no barrier to expressing one's opinions.

Wade wrote:

Anyway, the concept just seems super ancient and similar principles are found in cultural or religious texts (like those which have some prophetic element).

This would be an interesting area of study for someone who has the time and interest, number and mathematical symbolism used in astrology, but reflected in other cultural and religious sources. For example, the timing of 40 days or "40" in a number of places in the Christian Bible. This is the time period of the 40 day period of significant charts based on the birth position of the sun. This pattern holds through the entire life, and was discovered by Donald Bradley, a western sidereal astrologer.

hi wade

thanks for your post and thoughts on this question.. i appreciate it... i think it has to do with a completely different way or type of perception.. i am not really looking for a textbook reference for this... the idea that our understanding of the past can be gotten via books or manuscripts is rightly limited.. i think it has more to do with a different way of perceiving reality.. perhaps an appreciation of how we appear more analytical and fact based today is an impediment to understanding different forms of perception.. i am reading an interesting book right now - 'original self', by the author of 'care of the soul' thomas moore.. i have only started the book, but let me share a wee bit..

"The soul has its own set of rules, which are not the same as those of life. Unlike the steady progress of history, for instance, the events of the soul are cyclic and repetitive. Familiar themes come round and round. The past is more important then the future. The living and the dead have equal roles. Emotions and the sense of meaning are paramount. Pleasures are deep, and pain can reach the very foundation of our existence.

Without becoming mystics, we could become more closely acquainted with the ways of the inner life. If they are noted and taken seriously, dreams can turn our attention downward and inward and give clues to the dynamics of the heart and the imagination. Moods, attitudes, influences, aspirations, and fears also ask for a degree of sophistication in our response. We could contemplate them, discuss them, and educate ourselves in their intricacies and vagaries.

Today many people live the external life exclusively, and when the inner world erupts or stirs, they rush to a therapist or druggist for help. They try to explain profound mythic developments in the language of behavior and experience. Often they have no idea what is happening to them, because they have been so cut off from the deep self. Their own soul is so alien to them that they are unaware of what is going on outside the known realm of fact."

-------
the potential to access different ways of perception is one possibility.. this concept used in horary from the past is a reflection of this as i see it.. i think therese is hitting on something very similar with the idea of 40 days and various examples of it's use from the past in some sort of symbolic language that i think transcends the literal idea which might be more of a reflection of our own limitations to perceiving the past.

therese and martin - thanks for your posts and input..

Hi james,

I don't know (and we may never know) but I think the 1° equals 1 hour, 1 day, 1 one month, 1 year idea may have been extrapolated from watching the Sun rise in a new degree each morning, 30° from where it started each month, 360° from where it started each year. It's not too much of a leap to tie it to chart timings based on the context of the event and the choice of motion, daily hours, RA/Decl or Longitude. The original astrologers probably paid far more attention to the motion of the heavens and its connection to events than we do today.

Martin Gansten wrote: Mon Apr 14, 2025 5:30 pm If primary directions fell out of use because they didn't work, why did that take >2000 years to happen? Are 21st-century astrologers much more astute than all previous generations of practitioners? I think that's what Aristotle would call an improbable possibility.

Ah yes, the old "it's been around a long time, so it must be true." The same could just as easily be said of trepanation or the fact that the earth was considered the center of the universe. Practices can persist for centuries based on cultural authority, religious backing, or lack of alternatives. Bloodletting lasted nearly 2,000 years too. The persistence of something doesn't guarantee its accuracy; it often only guarantees that no one has yet asked the right questions. As for invoking Aristotle, that's rather bold, but I daresay the Stagirite would be more intrigued by the logic of your hypothesis than convinced by its conclusion. Longevity without careful examination is tradition, not a truth.

Primary directions were used well into the 20th century but then gradually abandoned (along with many other parts of astrology, including the overall emphasis on prediction)…

This is only half true. Yes, the 20th century saw a marked shift toward psychological astrology—but many predictive techniques remained in robust use, including transits, solar returns, and secondary progressions. Primary directions were not dropped simply because prediction went out of fashion; rather, they fell into disuse because they were technically cumbersome, inconsistently applied, and lacked clear, replicable results when compared with more accessible methods. The abandonment, if one can even call it that, was pragmatic rather than ideological. One might say, with only slight irony, that primary directions were not so much thrown out as quietly dismissed from the party for being too complex, too difficult to converse with, and just a bit too pleased with their own mystique. Even the venerable Robert Hand—whose reputation as a thoughtful and historically informed astrologer spans over six decades—remarked candidly in the latter part of his career, I haven't experimented with primary directions much at all frankly because every time I've tried I felt that I wasted a great deal of time doing it.* One suspects the sentiment is not uncommon, even if seldom spoken aloud.

…by the enthusiastic but generally less technically proficient adherents of popular and 'modern astrology' (© Alan Leo).

Ah, the inevitable Alan Leo as scapegoat—the astrologer's version of blaming the dog. Whatever one may think of Leo's penchant for simplification, it takes a lot of audacity to characterize an entire century of astrologers, many of them highly intelligent, mathematically adept, and historically literate, as enthusiastic but generally less technically proficient. This statement says more about a need for an intellectual patsy than it does about historical accuracy. Let's not confuse condescension with criticism.

Put simply, the last generation of astrologers where most understood the technique died off,...

This is an interesting proposition, often heard at the back of astrological conferences but in a more distressed tone: "The last person who truly understood that technique died in 1937." But as many a practitioner of astrological techniques will tell you, the decline of a method isn't always due to collective amnesia. Sometimes it's due to a growing awareness that the method itself is flawed, unwieldy, or doesn't live up to its promise. The idea that the world has simply forgotten how to use primary directions is touching but is better suited as a museum label than a rational defense.

...and since the Second World War, astrologers with any real knowledge of directions have been very thin on the ground.

This tone is often heard from survivors of vanished guilds: knowledge is gone; no one understands this art as they once did. And yet, if you look closely, you can find astrologers in the post-war world who not only understood primary directions but also chose not to use them, precisely because their complexity and ambiguity made them impractical for predictive work in the real world. The decline in the number of astrologers was not due to ignorance but to natural selection.

But as we all know, lack of knowledge is no barrier to expressing one's opinions.

Indeed! And here we are. But let's be honest: knowledge doesn't guarantee a well-founded opinion either. History is full of examples of extremely learned people who have been spectacularly wrong, and astrology is no exception. The value of an opinion lies not in the confidence with which it is expressed, nor in the obscurity of its method, but in its resistance to scrutiny. And that, I dare say, is what we are doing now.

In the end, one does not discard primary directions with a sneer but with a sigh—a respectful nod to a venerable ancestor who, though once esteemed, now mumbles incoherently at dinner and cannot be relied upon to find the washroom. There is no shame in retiring a method that no longer serves; the real folly lies in insisting it must work because it always has—rather like trying to calculate an ascendant with an astrolabe that has a broken rete and a bent rule.

*Skyscript. 2024. “Pioneers in Astrology: Robert Hand & Deborah Houlding Converse on House System Research & Practice.” YouTube Video. YouTube. (time group: 2:29:51-2:30:00)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDGHFWeJCkc&t=3493s.

Talking about tones, it's almost amusing (but not quite) to note how, like the Monty Python butcher, yours to me is alternately rude and fawning depending on whether you want something from me or not. I'll just correct you on a few factual points:

AJ wrote: Tue Apr 15, 2025 11:19 pm Ah yes, the old "it's been around a long time, so it must be true."

No, I specifically didn't say that, so either you didn't understand what I said or you are wilfully misrepresenting me. I simply questioned the reverse, and equally silly, idea that because something isn't modern or in fashion, it must have been discovered to be false. Only those who take the trouble of learning a technique and testing it will be in a position to say whether it works.

Yes, the 20th century saw a marked shift toward psychological astrology—but many predictive techniques remained in robust use, including transits, solar returns, and secondary progressions.

It would be more correct to say that some predictive techniques were kept in name (although sometimes not even that, as the names were changed) but applied in very different ways. This includes transits (given hugely greater importance today than in the pre- or early modern periods, and used differently), solar returns (formerly annual revolutions, also used differently), and the early modern technique of secondary directions, never intended by their inventor Placidus as a stand-alone technique.

Primary directions [...] fell into disuse because they were technically cumbersome, inconsistently applied, and lacked clear, replicable results when compared with more accessible methods.

They were increasingly poorly understood from c. 1800 to the early decades of the 20th century, so yes, in that sense there was inconsistency, and yes, you did and do need some mathematical ability to use them. The rest of what you say is not true.

Even the venerable Robert Hand

Oh dear. If we are having arguments from authority, does Rob Hand really outweigh every astrological author outside India, from Ptolemy to William Lilly (and before, and after)? But let's not go there. It's just silly.

Ah, the inevitable Alan Leo as scapegoat

No, that was just a marginal note indicating that Leo coined the phrase 'modern astrology' and made it his selling point. It was meant as a nod to James's use of quotation marks around 'traditional astrology'. Until the self-professed 'moderns' came along, traditional astrology was known simply as astrology. (Having said that, though, Leo really was an ignoramus.)

it takes a lot of audacity to characterize an entire century of astrologers, many of them highly intelligent, mathematically adept, and historically literate, as enthusiastic but generally less technically proficient.

Did you catch the word 'generally'? There will be exceptions to any generalization, but anyone who takes the trouble of reading through the astrological textbooks produced from the late 18th to the early 20th century, at least the English-language ones, will be unable to escape the same conclusion. As for being historically literate, let us not forget how very difficult it was, until the late 20th century, to locate a copy even of such comparatively recent works as those of Lilly or Partridge, even if you wanted to read them — which, if we're honest, very few of the Theosophist or, later, Jungian astrologers did.

Sometimes it's due to a growing awareness that the method itself is flawed, unwieldy, or doesn't live up to its promise.

So you keep saying, but there is no historical basis to your claim that this is why ('primary') directions fell out of use. The historical evidence (written sources) is there for anyone to see, if they bother enough to go through it. You keep (rather offensively) attributing sentimental reasons to my statements, but the fact is that they are based on having read much of what there is on astrology in English from the 18th and 19th centuries, and into the early decades of the 20th. Have you?

And yet, if you look closely, you can find astrologers in the post-war world who not only understood primary directions but also chose not to use them, precisely because their complexity and ambiguity made them impractical for predictive work in the real world.

Presumably you can give us some references to the works of those astrologers? As for complexity and ambiguity, directions rank about equal with house systems, and for several of the same reasons. Astrologers who are happy to use houses (especially quadrant houses) have no reason to baulk at directions. And as for the real world, that's where I do my predictive work, in which directions play a major part.

But let's be honest: knowledge doesn't guarantee a well-founded opinion either.

No, it's a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Still necessary, though.

This thread started as a request for information on a certain point - it should not lose that focus by being turned into an attack on any specific technique. If someone wants to create a thoughtful post to courteously explore other issues, then start a new thread elsewhere (here, this particular point about primary directions seems to have run its course).

And keep this in mind:

This forum aims to offer a safe place for astrologers and astrology enthusiasts to enjoy exploring astrological ideas with like-minded colleagues, without feeling that they need to defend their practices against sceptics, or others who don't share their interest or experience in any particular technique. We allow for a broad scope of approaches and techniques here. There are many posts full of references to techniques that have meant nothing to me, but it's my experience that when one astrologer does not see the value of a technique that has had a long-established history and sense of value within the tradition, it is because they are not handling it with the same level of interest, or understanding of how it nests within a more comprehensive approach, that its advocates have.

I am losing patience with some posts that have been created lately that seem to have no purpose other than for someone to say, "I think ingress charts are pointless," ... "I think primary directions are pointless" , etc etc. I am asking everyone to be more conscious of not creating disparaging comments, or posts that are likely to cause offence to (or insult the intelligence of) other members.

Deb wrote: Wed Apr 16, 2025 3:56 pm this particular point about primary directions seems to have run its course).

Roger that.
I can see now how it didn't come across so well—or even felt threatening to some.