Skyscript Astrology Forum

I thought it might be as well to start a new thread here for anyone interested in 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.

In this post in another thread, Ouranos listed some recent and contemporary authors on primary directions, some of whose works are in French and unknown to me. It may be a useful starting-point to state that among the ones familiar to me, some belong to the loose-knit group of astrologers trying to rediscover/revive traditional forms of astrology. In other words, their writing on primary directions is not a sign that the technique has survived, but rather the opposite (if it were alive and well, there would be no call to revive it). In Ouranos's list, Giuseppe Bezza, Benjamin Dykes, Deborah Houlding, Rumen Kolev, Anthony Louis, and myself seem to me to fall largely into this category.

Sepharial (W.R. Old), writing in the early decades of the 20th century, was at first part of Alan Leo's Theosophically-inflected, 'modernist' astrology movement but eventually dissociated himself from it. His use of primary directions, like that of other 19th- and early 20th-century British astrologers, was a slimmed-down version of the Placidean style of directing found, for instance, in the work of John Partridge (early 18th century). Bob Makransky's use of directions, on the other hand, differs decidedly from the traditional, whether intentionally or not. In effect, he has created, or perhaps joined others in creating, a number of hypothetical modes of directing that never existed before.

Finally, it may be worth pointing out that the 'progressed horoscope' created by Alan Leo, which is what astrologers today typically call secondary progressions, is a hybrid technique in which the angles are actually directed by primary motion (not secondary, which they do not possess).

PD...how they were reinterpreted (deliberately or through misunderstanding)

I would say maybe...misunderstanding but not just PD.
Many aspects of the tradition were missing to create a cohesive understanding of a birth chart.
Starting from Ptolemy who did not develop his approach with many examples.
Even the earlier 20th century books in French on the subject can leave you on your appetite. Danièle Jay is the first one I have seen able to bring an approach that makes sense. And her books and articles were greatly influenced by the teachings of Giuseppe Bezza. And I forgot to mention another book she wrote in 2000, 'Ciels et Destins' in which she has many examples of PD, including for the Southern hemisphere.
If you have read the article of Mario Costantino on the PD of Napoleon, it is more substantial by integrating many traditional tools.
It seems to be pointing to the Italian tradition where they have developed more articles on the subject. And your book is also a very comprehensive approach to PD and how to approach it.

Finally, it may be worth pointing out that the 'progressed horoscope' created by Alan Leo, which is what astrologers today typically call secondary progressions, is a hybrid technique in which the angles are actually directed by primary motion (not secondary, which they do not possess).

I don't know how to qualify Secondary progressions. It is not a technique that I use by the book.
There seems to be a psycholgical undertone to it
What I have retained from this method is the progression of the Sun, the AS and the MC, the lunations (NM, QM, FM) showing great periods of life and the planets turning R or D.

Ouranos

Thank you for starting this discussion. I studied the technical aspects of PD's in my own way, just because I wanted to know how such a thing could work. But I know too little about the history of this subject, even in the 20th century. And I struggle to find astrologically significant results.

Just a few technical remarks:
- The secondary progressions/directions are a completely different beast and "secondary progressed Ascendant" or "secondary progressed Midheaven" are contradictions in terms. (I completely agree with Martin on this.)
- There are two ways you can use the primary motion in PD's, one results in an apparent clockwise motion of planets and points, where the Ascendant and Midheaven must stay stationary in their natal positions, and the other results in an apparent anticlockwise motion, in which you can have a PD Ascendant and a PD Midheaven.

The style of PD's used in the Netherlands since the 1980's is a variety of this last option, resulting in an anticlockwise motion. It is called Primary Progressions and is modelled completely on the ecliptic. It was proposed by Wim van Dam and popularised by Karen Hamaker-Zondag.
(Handleiding Voorspellende Astrologie: couldn't find an English translation in a quick search.)

I have never used primary directions, and am much too old to look into them now. But I have a general question. Both Martin Gansten (2009) and more recently Kenneth Bowser have written books on Primary Directions. Bowser's Primary Directions and the Horoscope of the United States was published in 2015. Are the methods of calculation of primary directions similar in these two books, or are there differences? Does anyone know? Thank you.

Therese Hamilton wrote: Wed Apr 23, 2025 8:09 pm I have never used primary directions, and am much too old to look into them now. But I have a general question. Both Martin Gansten (2009) and more recently Kenneth Bowser have written books on Primary Directions. Bowser's Primary Directions and the Horoscope of the United States was published in 2015. Are the methods of calculation of primary directions similar in these two books, or are there differences? Does anyone know? Thank you.

Hi Therese,
I hope this finds you well.

Both Bowser and Gansten calculate primary directions using the same fundamental astronomical principles and equations. However, their main difference lies in the choice of coordinate systems.

As I understand it:
Gansten primarily—though not exclusively—uses zodiacal directions, which are ultimately expressed in ecliptic (zodiacal) coordinates. The actual calculations begin in the equatorial system, based on the Earth's rotation (in mundo), and are then projected onto the ecliptic.

Bowser, by contrast, strongly favors in-mundo directions, calculated and interpreted entirely within the equatorial coordinate system.

Gansten in Annual Predictive Techniques (2020) and Bowser in Primary Directions and the Horoscope of the United States (2015) both adopt Ptolemy’s rule equating one degree of right ascension to one year of life.

Thank you, AJ. Very helpful! Would these two methods bring similar periods for timing?

Therese Hamilton wrote: Tue Apr 29, 2025 4:52 pm Thank you, AJ. Very helpful! Would these two methods bring similar periods for timing?

Hi Therese: The simple answer is, generally, no. Even with the same key applied, a direction might come to perfection earlier or later in mundo than it would zodiacally. The discrepancy can be from several months to several years.

Let me know if you need a more detailed discussion. Warning, it gets nerdy real fast.

I haven't answered Therese's question directly because I am not familiar with Kenneth Bowser's practice. But if he is using Placidean 'mundane aspects', then that is something entirely different from aspects as usually understood in astrology (geometrically derived points on, or near, the ecliptic). Mundane aspects are proportions of semi-arcs.

To take a simple example, suppose someone is born at sunrise with the Sun and ascendant at 10 Cancer, and with Jupiter (culminating) and the MC at 10 Pisces. The Sun and Jupiter would then form a zodiacal trine, but because the horizon and meridian are always at right angles, they would simultaneously form a mundane square. So the two systems are based on different reference systems, both statically (in the radix) and dynamically (by direction).

AJ wrote:

Let me know if you need a more detailed discussion. Warning, it gets nerdy real fast.

AJ, I'll pass on the nerdiness, and Martin has just answered my question about two different reference systems. So that's what we have: two different computation systems for primary directions which give different results in timing periods.

Indeed there are more than two.

There's also Mark Rusborn, alias Alexey Borealis, who has a PhD in physics from Australia National University:

https://morinus-astrology.com/en/

Dr. Borealis claims to teach primary directions in the Morinus style, with reliable accuracy of predictions. He also uses his own astrological software with a rectification feature which you can see in action in this video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkAjF26qOug

Would be a nice tool to check if it were no subscription software.