Many astrologers think they create a complete progressed
horoscope by calculating the secondary positions of the sun, the moon,
the planets and maybe the lunar node and adding to these positions
something they
call ‘the progressed cusps’: first calculate the progressed
MC by one way or another, then calculate the corresponding ascendant
and intermediate cusps for the local latitude of birth et voilà.
Although this is handy
in daily practice (one has to have a complete set of progressed points)
and one
can get definitely consistent
and
positive results, one should realize that it is not the complete truth
for you without the complete set of primary planets that are also
active
at the time. It is possible to calculate the primary positions
of sun, moon, node and planets too and together with the progressed
(actually
primary) cusps, that almost any astrologer uses, this gives
a real complete primarily progressed horoscope. Personally, outside
of
the
radix-circle, I make one progressed chart with all the primary cusps
and planets plus, in a third circle, the secondary Sun,
Moon and planets.
At this point it is important
to realize that when we calculate progressed cusps we calculate in
fact primary
cusps. There
is no such thing as secondary cusps that move forward by
about one degree a year,
for secondary directions are based on the assumption that
1 day equals one year and in one day the cusps undeniably move
forward by 361 degrees,
not by just one single degree. This means that if one uses
progressed cusps one is not using secondary cusps but primary
ones.
Primary Directions are
far older than secondary ones. Secondaries were more or less
invented by Placidus.
Primaries are already
described by Ptolemy (A.D. 150) in his Tetrabiblos, Loeb
Edition, Robins’ translation,
p. 293-307, Ashmand Edition p. 95-100. This text however
is so obscure (as you will see when you try to read it)
that through the ages heavy
discussions have been held on its interpretation. Many
astrologers (Cardanus, Morin, Placidus, Kühr to name a few)
had their own variant of p.d.’s. Primary Directions, in spite
of their fame, this technique did not become a standard tool for
astrologers
to use.
At
the beginning of the seventies, the arrival of calculators with
trigonometric functions helped
calculate p.d’s which are
invariably difficult to calculate by hand. It was
only with the aid of calculators with trigfunctions, that conducting
real research
became
possible.
1. DAY-ARCS DEFINED
The
day-arc of a celestial point is the time it takes for this
point to traverse its path from
the eastern
to
the western horizon,
not the actual arc it traverses on the sky in
that same time. Thus it is possible to define a planet’s position at
the sky not only in terms of celestial coordinates, as is usually
done, but
also in terms of the time that has passed since it
rose or even in the fraction, the percentage, of the time that has
passed in relation to the total time of its day-arc. Paradoxically
enough
this time-arc usually is expressed not in hours and
minutes but in the number of degrees of the celestial equator that
passes over the local meridian during that time (a very constant
measure),
so
day-arcs, although being time-arcs, most confusingly
are calculated by trigonometric formulae.
The day-arc of a point
is dependent on the combination of its declination and the local latitude
and may
vary greatly. Their mean value is
exactly 180 degrees.
In practice, for technical
reasons
we mostly use half day-arcs, the so called semi-arcs, the
time it takes
for a
point to rise from
the eastern horizon to the MC, or to set
from the MC to the western horizon, which takes as much time.
Night-arcs
are
defined from
the western to the eastern horizon and under
the horizon through the IC.A short day-arc for a certain
point is always compensated
by a
long night-arc and v.v. Together they
are always 24 hours equals 360 degrees.Circumpolar points (points
that for a
given latitude
do not rise or set but constantly describe
circles above or under the horizon)
have no day- or night arcs; one might
also say they have a day- or night arc of 24 hours or 360 degrees. 2. PLACIDUS HOUSE SYSTEM
Let us start with true
Placidian housecusps. We
should understand that they were originally invented
by Magini
(later latinized to
Maginus), who was the first to define them in the
pure way.
Ascendant: The ascendant
is that point of the ecliptic that is exactly to begin traversing its
own day-arc
and has actually
traversed
nothing of this path.
Cusps:
~ The cusp of the twelfth house is that point of the ecliptic that
has traversed 1/6 of its own day-arc.
~ The eleventh house 2/6 of its own day-arc
~ The MC 3/6 equals 0.5
~ The cusp of nine 4/6 equals 2/3
~ The cusp of eight 5/6
~ The descendant is the point that has traversed 6/6, equals 1,
equals its entire own day-arc.
- Important: the
ecliptical point at the MC is always exactly halfway its day-arc.
The same
for the house-cusps
under the
horizon.
Note that the ascendant,
descendant and the MC/IC are usually defined in purely trigonometric
terms.
For example, ‘the point
of the ecliptic that crosses the horizon’ or ‘the
point of the ecliptic that crosses the local
meridian’ but
in this context this would be misleading.
If you define these points
in this way, you see them as parts of a purely
geometric house-system as Regiomontanus.
Of course the net
result is the same but nevertheless
it is important to realise that within a
housing system based on
time-arcs, this is not the right definition.
Indeed the trigonometric view is the easiest
way to calculate
the
ascendant but this is
no more than a lucky coincidence so to say.
One
could say there are two ways of calculating
cusps generally, the one based on trigonometry,
f.e. Regiomontanus,
the other
one on day/night arcs, f.e. Magini/Placidus.
Both of them are respectable,
we only have to decide which one gives
the best results. As a convinced Placidianist,
I think it is nice and
beautiful that
we use a trigonometric
definition for positions in the celestial
ecliptic (in zodiaco) and time-arcs for
positions in
the
earthly houses (in mundo),
a kind of symmetry made in heaven.
The only
problem is that the intermediate cusps by Magini are difficult
to calculate:
there
is no direct
way, no
direct formula,
to determine their exact position in the
zodiac. The only way to get them almost
exactly is
to make an educated
guess
and
then by
repetitive approach (‘successive substitution’ as
it is officially called) getting closer
to the desired value until
the deviation (that will always be there,
no matter how small) has become so little
that it is neglectable
as one
tenth of a
second of arc. Now we see why it is easier
to calculate the ascendant and
the MC trigonometrically since for these
cusps at least we do not have to use successive
substitution.
Nowadays, even the slowest
computer calculates Placidian cusps in
a split-second but for
centuries this was
quite a stumbling block for astrologers.
Therefore, Placidus invented a system
to
calculate
these intermediate cusps directly, with
some deviations. He therefore used the
concept of Polar Height,
which is in fact alien
to the
realm of day- and night arcs. This was
extremely
useful however since for regular local
latitudes up to say 60
degrees north
or south the deviation is acceptable.
A Magini-cusp is better, even
if it deviates by half a degree, than
one of Regiomontanus which has been calculated
exactly but that is useless
for astrological purposes in our Placidian
eyes.
Placidus’ simplification enabled
astrologers to calculate intermediate Magini-cusps
as fast as Regiomontanus’. Placidus’ system
became popular amongst them and was called “Placidus”.
One might say nowadays, with our PC’s,
we have returned from approximate Placidian
cusps to real Magini ones although we still
call them Placidian.
3. PRIMARY DIRECTIONS. After
the above elaboration,
we may now discuss p.d.’s, since
they are one family house systems.
What
are primary directions anyway?
Primary directions are
systems where the planets, independent of their
own speed in the ecliptic,
are kept in the
same position relative to their
day/night arc as they were
at birth while
the MC is progressed. This
means that they
will always maintain the
same position in the progressed
houses as in the radix if they
are Placidian.
It is also
possible to calculate primary
directions
based
on the planets’ positions
in Regiomontanus-houses but
that will
be another article to write.
- If
you are afraid of
technicalities, it may be sufficient for
you to know that, in
p.d.’s all
planets and cusps
progress through the
horoscope, each
with a speed
that
varies from about
a half two and a
half degrees a year,
and skip to catch
6.
In the case of Placidian
cusps, a planet that is
radically ‘halfway’ the
tenth house will have traversed
the mean between 2/6 (cusp eleven)
and 3/6 (M.C.) of its own
day-arc, equals 5/12th of its
own day/arc equals 0.416666… This
is the proportional factor for
this planet and it should be
calculated for each point (sun,
moon, planets,
node) in the radix except
for the cusps for we know on
beforehand that their proportional
factors will be 0, 0.1666...
, 0.333… etc.
by definition.
If we calculate
the progressed M.C. for
any time in life, we calculate the
corresponding ascendant
for the latitude
of the place of birth;
the intermediate cusps
may be calculated in the usual way
by using the proportional
factors 0.16666… , 0.3333… etc.
We may also calculate each progressed
(primary) planet using the same
formulae as for the cusps,
only with the planets’ proportional
factors we calculated earlier
for the radix.
If we were to
draw the progressed
chart as if it is a radix, we would get
a surprise:
the figure would look
much like the radix, (f.e. planets
radically on a cusp
would still be on the same
primary cusp). All
cusps and planets progressed by a
different number of
degrees and not by
the same number of degrees for all planets.
It is the same way
as the ascendant progresses with a
speed different from
the M.C., dependent on the local latitude.
Each point is
primarily
progressed with its
own individual speed, dependent on its radical
position in the houses
and on the local latitude. Progressed
(= primary) ascendant’s
speed varies by the years, so
the primary points’ individual
speeds are not constant. They
can however be calculated for
any date with amazing precision.
The
main speed
for p.d.’s is about the
same as the solar arcs. It varies
from less than half a degree
to more than two degrees
and as said above, it is
different for each point in
the horoscope. However, just
like Placidus and most other
housing systems, it shows
a tendency to produce equal
houses as one gets closer to
the equator. Therefore, primaries
tend to coincide with solar
arc directions
in tropical areas. For European
and North American latitudes
however, differences can be
considerable as we will see.
The results will
differ depending on the house
system used. The first problem
we have to solve is, determine
the house system we should use
as the
foundation to caluclate p.d.’s.
Will you use Placidus or Regiomontanus
house system? (Other house
systems are seldom proposed
for this purpose). In this article
we will use Placidus to get
the best
result.
You may have another
questions to resolve
before you continue with your p.d calculation:
Should you use
the Pars? Should you progress
primarily the Pars
itself or should you calculate primary
sun, moon
and ascendant first
and then from these calculate the Pars
as usual by adding
and subtracting?My answer is, I really don’t
know. I dropped
the Pars many years ago and lived happily
ever after.
4. PROGRESSING THE M.C.
The
first step
in calculating
p.d.’s
for any desired
date is calculating
the primary
M.C. And here
we come
to the second
problem concerning
primary
directions:
What is the
right speed of
progressing
the primary
MC?Ptolemy suggested
one
degree
a year in Right
Ascension
on the meridian
for each year
of life.
Later authors
corrected
this to 360 / 365.24
degrees a
year, the
so called
mean
or Naibod-measure
of
0.58’18” a
year.
Tycho Brahe
had the idea
of using
the
progression
of the sun
in right
ascension on the day
of birth
as
a constant
measure for
each year
in
life.
The most
used measurement
of time
for progressing
the M.C.
is progressing
it in longitude
at the
same speed
as the
secondary sun. See
for a survey
of
this history
the
Astrologia
Gallica
Book 22, p. 77
and further.
5.
ON PLANETARY
LATITUDE: A NON-PROBLEM
Through
the
ages it has
been a point of
discussion
whether
the latitude
of
the moon
and
the
planets
should
be reckoned
with or not.
The
sun and the lunar
node
have no latitude
by definition. I do not
see how
this
can be a problem.
If
we are
to reckon
without
planetary
latitude
in the
radix
(as we
all do),
and we
do reckon
with
it in
p.d.’s,
we get a
paradox.
For example,
if Pluto
has a latitude
of 10 degrees,
then 1 second
of time
after
birth
its primary
position
will be
many degrees
from
its radical
position
while of
course one
would expect
it
to be
virtually
identical
to the
radical
one.
One
dutch
school of astrology
solved
the
above problem
in
a radical
way:
First,
calculate
a planet’s
proportional
factor
in the
radix
reckoning
with
its latitude.
Then,
calculate
what
ecliptical
point
has
the
same
p.f. and
that’s
the
radical
position
of
this planet.
Unfortunately
some
decades
after
they
developed
this
idea,
Pluto
reached
its
maximum
latitude,
which
meant
that
in
the course
of
each
day
for the
latitude
of
Europe,
this
slowest
planet
rushed
through
the
zodiac
ten
degrees
forward
and
then
ten
degrees
backward
which
is
most
incredible.
The
only logical
solution
(which
in
practice
gives
by far
the
best
results
too)
is to
neglect
planetary
latitude.
Wim
van
Dam’s
system
of
Primary
Directions: Use
time-arcs,
neglect
latitude
and
use
the
progression
of
the
secondary
sun
in
longitude
as
the
key
for
the
measurement
of
time.
Although
the
system is
simple and
logical (once
you’ve
found
it,
that
is)
and
I
had
thought
out
all
of
this
theoretically
around
1974,
without
the
arrival
of
calculators
with
trig-functions
about
1974/1975
I
could
never
have
checked
it
all.
Remember
it
is
the
inevitable
repeated
calculation
that
makes
calculation
of
each
point
of
the
primary
horoscope
a
cumbersome
operation.
And
now
with
a
computer
at
every
astrologer’s
desk
the
system
is
available
for
every
astrologer.
6.
HOW TO USE THESE P.D.'S?
Primary
directions
are
a
part
of
the
classical
heritage
of
astrology
and
should
be
treated
as
such. Do
not
use
them
in
combination
with
midpoints,
fictitious
planets,
etc.
for
you
will
not
have
any
profit
of
them.
Of
course,
you
can
use
them
with
the
node
and
even
the
newer
planets
Chiron,
Uranus,
Neptune
and
Pluto
but
all
in
the
same
classical
way.
In
order
to
have
full
profit
from
them,
you
should
use
such
old-fashioned
ideas
like
houses,
rulerships,
and,
a
surprise
for
most
astrologers
today,
degrees
of
exaltation. Whenever
you
find
an
aspect
or
an
antiscion
between
a
primary
planet
and
a
radical
one,
you
should
check
what
houses
these
two
planets
are
the
ruler
of.
To
make
things
seemingly
worse,
for
Jupiter
you
should
check
both
the
house
with
Sagittarius
on
its
cusp
and
the
house
with
Pisces
on
its
cusp
(for
Neptune
only
the
house
with
Pisces,
etc.
and
a
house
with
a
planet’s
degree
of
exaltation
on
its
cusp
is
(also,
mainly)
ruled
by
this
planet!
These
houses
are
the
most
probable
to
play
a
role
in
the
event
indicated
by
this
progression,
followed
by
the
houses
where
they
are
placed
in
the
radix
and
the
natural
houses
of
the
planets
(the
moon
for
the
fourth
house
etcetera).
In
practice
you
will
see
that
some
houses
are
stressed
more
than
other
ones
and
these
houses
are
the
most
likely
ones
to
play
a
role.
Also
important is
the
choice of
the aspects
used.
As always
I
use the
following set
of
aspects:
Neutral:
0 degrees |
Good
|
Bad |
Major 60, 120
Minor
72, 108
|
90, 180
45, 135 |
The
inclusion of
the tredecile
(108 degrees)
will be
astonishing for
most American
astrologers but
it is
the supplement
of the
quintile (72
degrees) and
I have
found them
both as
effective (and
benevolent) as
the sextile,
using a
smaller orb,
about 2.30
degrees in
the radix.
No
more aspects
(except of
course the
antiscion) are
needed and
certainly not
the inconjunct
(150 degrees)
that I
think one
of the
great errors
of modern
astrology. Maybe
it has
some value
in ‘psychological’ or ‘Jungian’ astrology
but I don’t take these branches seriously. In fact, for the
critical astrologer who does not take for granted anything just
because it is written in a textbook, using primary directions
is a very good way to learn which aspects are more significant
and less significant.
Also I have noticed
that the mean node, when it
differs from the ‘true’ one,
gives far better results, i.e. the time is closer to the real date
of event. The node in my chart is a good example: the ‘true’ node
is at 0.03 Aries and the mean one at 1.10. As we will see, the discussion
on which one is the right one can be decided by p.d.’s
and in fact it has
been decided.
Important
Note: Although it
is not possible
to attach fixed concrete
significances to each combination
of two planets, it
might be possible
to attach color, an abstract keyword
to each combination
that blends the actual event.
Thus a bad aspect
between
Mars and Saturn will
always have something violent
and a bad aspect
between Mars
and Uranus
the same plus something sudden.
The combination
of Venus and Jupiter
will mostly
form a
pleasant influence resulting into a feeling
of happiness and
well-being.
However, on what specific
area of life the
event will be
produced, that is indicated by
the houses involved
and should not be
part of these
recipes.
Aspects between a
cusp
and a planet (be it a primary
cusp to a
radical planet or
v.v.) are mostly
more easy to interpret. The own
significance of the
cusp in
combination with the nature and/or
the rulership of the planet will
mostly
give a clear indication
of what
is to be expected. Note that
an aspect from or
to a cusp
will automatically mean an aspect
to the opposite
cusp too. Always
look which cusp
is the most probable to be related
to the
event in combination with the
nature of
the planet involved
and the house(s)
it rules.
Aspects
to
and
from
intermediate
house
cusps
are
most
informative
too.
Beginners
however,
will
do
well
to
use
only
aspects
between
a
house
cusp
and
its
actual
or
natural
ruler.
For
example,
if
you
have
Leo
at
your
9th
cusp,
pay
attention
to
the
aspects
of
this
cusp
to
and
from
Jupiter
and
the
Sun,
etc.
Very
important
in
the interpretation
also are
possible
relationships
in the
radix:
the
points
involved
may be
in aspect
in the
radix,
or
the one
may
be
the ruler
of the
other.
In
such cases
the progressed
aspect
will
be stronger
and it
will have
the
color
of the
radical
relationship
and also
the nature
of the
planets
involved
is important.
If Mars
and Saturn
are in
a square
in the
radix,
then
even a
primary
trine
between
them
should
be
feared.
On
the other
hand,
if
Venus
and
Jupiter
are
radically
in
a trine,
a progressed
square
will
be welcome.
A well-known
dutch
astrologer
when testing
p.d.’s for the
first time way back in 1976 on her own horoscope noticed that
at the time of her divorce the sun and moon primarily were trine.
When
she asked me how to explain this, I noticed without looking
up from the book I was reading: "no doubt a bad aspect in your
radix?". She
was perplexed since this was true (an opposition) and she was
converted to p.d.’s
at the spot.
In the Windows-program
that I developed,
Morinus 2000,
I made
it optional
to indicate
at each progressed
aspect whether
the one cusp
or
planet radically
rules the
other,
whether
they are radically
in aspect,
whether one
of them
progressed
or radically
is in a degree
of
exaltation
and some other indications.
I found
this to be
a great
help.
Finally,
it proves
to be important
to progress
primarily
the point
0 Aries too.
Its aspects
indicate
an important
change in
life, or the native
is to do
something
for
the first
time.
Thus when
at
the age of
barely eighteen,
I
started
studying Russian,
my 0 Aries
was square
to my 3rd
cusp (languages)
and nine
(study, foreign
affairs).
I started
writing on
astrology
when my primary
0 Aries
was trine
to my natal
Mercury
in Leo in
the
9th house.
When
after
this
study, so
meaningfully
started
with
a
square, I
was
unemployed
for a
long
time
(but what
young
and
ambitious
astrologer
minds
about that
as
long
as he
gets
a
living!), I
found
a
permanent job
when
my
0 Aries
trine to
my
MC
- as
I had
stated a
year
before.
Richard
Nixon
had
0 Aries
conjunct
to
his
Saturn
in 9th
house
when
he resigned
his
position
as President
of
the
US. Hitler
had
0
Aries square
to
Saturn
in Leo
in
ten
when his
Third
Reich
collapsed
and
he committed
suicide.I
have
not
found
any value
for
primary
0 Cancer,
which
progresses
primarily
with
another
speed
than 0
Aries
(one
important
difference
with symbolic
or
solar
directions!)A
more
advanced
technique
of interpreting
some
more
difficult
primary
aspects
is
discussed
in
my forthcoming
paper
on
Signs and
Houses.
I have not found any
value for primary 0 Cancer, which progresses primarily with another
speed than 0 Aries (one important
difference with symbolic or solar directions!). A more advanced technique of interpreting some more difficult primary
aspects is discussed in my forthcoming paper on Signs and Houses.
7. SOME PRACTICAL
EXAMPLES
After all these theoretical
considerations, we are now going to use some examples from real
life. First from my own horoscope. This chart was created from
Morinus 200:
- 8th
of December 1958: I had an appendicitis operation.
Even at that age (8 years old) there was a difference
between solar arc and primary
directions: by p.d.’s primary Neptune (natural ruler
of twelve, narcosis) at 21.06 Libra had reached Mars (the
knife, operations,
ruler of six, health) on cusp twelve (hospitals). A
most satisfying indication, the more since by solar arc
directions this conjunction
was a full one and half a year earlier, when nothing
of the kind happened.
- 9th of July
1976: I received my M.A. Primary
sun (ruler of ten and radically positioned in nine) at
28.38 Leo was trine to my radical
moon, ruler of nine and positioned in the ninth sign. The
secondary sun was to make the same aspect a year later,
not very much in
time. My primary MC (19.01 Virgo) was in a semisquare
to its ruler the sun.
The sun in Leo is almost invulnerable. I will admit that
I received my M.A. under difficult circumstances: I
had been seriously ill
(Pfeiffer) in the months before I graduated and still
don’t
understand where I got the power to pass all these examinations,
etc. in such
a short period of time and at the same time ill. This primary
MC also was quintile to radical Uranus, both indicating
the suddenness
of
the event and its subject: Russian (Uranus!) linguistics.
As for this Pfeiffer illness, if we suppose it was at its height
around February 1976, we get the following most applicable indications:
~ Both primary Mars (9.09 Scorpio,
infectious diseases and ruler of sixth) and primary cusp twelve
(illnesses, 8.52 Scorpio) were exactly
conjunct to the ascendant
~ Primary Moon (21.04 Capricorn)
was exactly square to the radical conjunction of Mars and cusp
twelve, the moon’s
influence being even worse since its primary position was
in the sign of its detriment.
And finally:
~
0 Aries was at 20.42 Aries, conjunct to radical cusp 6 and opposite
to cusp 12 and Mars once again. I was to suffer from this
disease’s
consequences for almost 10 years (not uncommon after a Pfeiffer).
Here again, the significance of primary 0 Aries: the start
of a new period in life. In this case, it is related to health
and
disease
(six and twelve).
Since I have
devoted my life to the good sake of astrology, I married late:
June 14th 1986, at Warszaw:
Marriage Primary indicators:
The MC at 28.35 Virgo square to the moon,
radically a trine. Note that my moon is positioned in Sagittarius,
affairs abroad, and
that in the astrological compass my moon points to Warszaw off
by one degree only (and my wife’s moon from Warszaw points
exactly to Leyden, where we live. Hello sceptic, are you still
there?).
The progressed aspect being a
square is in fact applicable: after the wedding my wife had
to stay in Warszaw for half a year before
the communist authorities gave her permission to leave and
the temporary square became the radical trine.
The MC also was
in antiscion with the mean node (1.10 Aries) in
five. The exact point of the antiscional MC was 1.55, so
the ‘true’ node
(0.03 Aries) certainly cannot be taken in consideration.
One might state
that this indication did not relate much to the marriage of June
14th for as said above
we had to wait until half December that year before my wife could
join me in Leyden. Primary MC then was at 29.05 Virgo. The antiscional
point is 0.55 Aries. Once again too far from the ‘true’ node
but certainly within orb with the mean node (1.10 Aries).
Primary
ascendant at the time of the wedding was at 1.46 Leo. It is within
orbs of a trine both to the radical (mean) node in five
and the radical sun in Leo in nine. Not only the houses involved
(five, romance and nine, abroad) are most fitting, but also this
progression formed a grand trine between (primary) ascendant
and radical node and sun. How much richer and how much more traditional
is this analysis than simply stating that my primary ascendant
was at the midpoint of the node and the sun, which is technically
true but flat as a dime, missing the point completely. Primary sun at 8.55 Virgo made a sextile to the radical ascendant,
radically a (wide) square, but the radical sun in Leo is a benefic
(as every Morinist knows) so its primary sextile to the ascendant
is a good aspect indeed.
Venus at 8.35 Leo was square to the ascendant
(from the ninth house!) but radically this is a trine – the
best indication for marriage one can imagine. The primary square
only being an
indication for the temporary problems with the Polish authorities.
Besides other indications, we also find
0 Aries in 28.50 Aries which trine’s to my moon in Sagittarius.
I suppose it relates more to the time when I first met my wife.
This was indeed the
start of something new!
I became a father for the first time even much later, at the ripe
age of 44, when our daughter Lilian (Lily) was born January 10th
1995. For this event, we find a most interesting indication. The
primary cusp 5 (children) square to the sun in Leo (children).
One more example that in primaries a square is not always a square,
since of course cusp 5 has a natural relationship with the sun
(benefically positioned in Leo, the fifth sign) and the radical
link is a (transgressional) trine.
We see that primaries are indispensable
in a regular person’s
horoscope like your reporter’s one. But they are equally
important in the horoscopes of men of history, f.e. Hitler. At this
point, I will now analyze a second example chart, Hitler's:
For the time he came to power
in Germany, we see a primary MC of 15.58 Virgo, a very exact
semisquare to the sun, a technically bad aspect that preliminarily
worked as a benevolent one since the sun is the ruler of the
MC. The radical square between them however was an indication
how this was to end: in a catastrophe.
The same primary MC was in a trine to
the conjunction of Mars and Venus. Once more a most applicable
indication as only p.d.’s
can give: it is a trine for sure. Mars-Venus conjunction radically
is placed both in a square and in an antiscion to Saturn in its
detriment in Leo in ten, so this good luck too was doomed to
end in a catastrophe.
Primary sun was in 1.19 Gemini, a quintile to Saturn in ten,
ruled by the sun. One more technically good aspect, made stronger
by the rulership-relation in the radix. Saturn in its detriment
in ten is the fatal indication par excellence in this horoscope
so this was to end in the worst possible way too.
The same for primary moon at 18.48 Aquarius:
this is a quintile to the radical sun from a moon that was
radically positioned
in its detriment too, so another initially benevolent aspect
that at the end of the day proved to be malevolent. Note that
there is also a radical link between the two, for the radical
sun is placed within orbs from the moon’s degree of exaltation,
which stresses the importance of this aspect.
Primary Mars and Venus (19.21 Gemini) are semisquare to the
radical MC, stressing the trine that primary MC forms to their
radical positions, but not in a favourable, lasting way since
Mars too is positioned in its detriment. Venus is in its own
sign but both planets are square to Saturn in its detriment in
ten. Here once more, it is becoming a bit monotonous. We see
an aspect that is initially good but indicates a clear final
disaster.
Primary Jupiter at 20.15 Aquarius, like the moon, forms a quintile
to the sun and like the moon its radical position is hopeless
for it in the sign of its fall.
Primary Chiron at 18.43 Leo, in my opinion the main ruler of
the ascendant, from the tenth house is tredecile to the sun,
ruler of ten.
For the time of his final defeat and suicide we find the following:
Primary MC: 27.34 Virgo, semisquare to Saturn in its destruction
in Leo in ten. What could be more indicative for the end of a
gruesome dictator!
Well, primary ascendant at 4.17 Sagittarius, opposite to Pluto
in eight - serves him right!
Please note that according to John Frawley none of these two
impressive progressions holds good, since he does not recognize
the semisquare and thinks the use of Pluto is un-astrological.
There are more such highly remarkable statements in his book
and one cannot but agree with this would-be traditionalist that
the present state of astrology is deplorable for in a just world
his book would never have won him any Spica-prize.
Since a planet radically on a cusp primarily
stays on that cusp, primary Mercury had moved together with
the primary descendant
and had now reached 3.42 Gemini, conjunct to this same Pluto
in eight, positioned in Mercury’s sign Gemini – a
very heavy indication;
Primary cusp 8 was in 7.57 Cancer, opposite the moon in Capricorn,
the sign of its fall;
0 Aries is square to Saturn in Leo in ten; the conjunction of
Venus and Mars has progressed to 28-29 Gemini, semisquare to
Saturn, with whom they radically are in a square and in antiscion;
Will this be enough? I think so, but unfortunately for this
time we find some very positive indications too that need an
explication:
Moon 1.06 Pisces, sextile to radical sun
Chiron 1.01 Virgo, trine to this same sun
Neptune 17.19 Cancer, sextile to Venus
If
you realise that Neptune is the ruler of five and you agree
with me that Chiron is the ruler of Libra
then the striking truth
is that these three romantic indications all relate to his marriage
with Eva Braun a few days before their common suicide. Even this
horrifying act is clearly reflected by the mighty tool of p.d.’s.
Hopefully
the American reader will realize now why these p.d.’s
have become so popular in north-western Europe.
- These
are the traditional p.d.’s, based on oblique ascension.
In my astrological PC-program Morinus I have added these as an
option but I do not advise using them. The p.d.’s I discuss
in the main body of this article are the ones I developed and
have been using myself for decades after that, followed by many
European astrologers.
- One of
the first cases I studied with p.d.’s was
the horoscope of a woman whose first child had suddenly died
from a blood-illness at the age of two. There were no secondary
indications but primarily the square between Mars in five and
Uranus in eight was activated by them being in a semi-square.
Thus we see that a vague general significance of the two planets
involved (Mars-Uranus: violence, sudden heavy evil, accident)
was concretised by these planets’ radical position in the
houses.
References:
* Frawley, John : The Real Astrology,
London 2001
* Morin, Jean Marie : Astrologia Gallica
Book 22 : Directions, translated by James H. Holden,
Edited by the American Federation of Astrologers, Tempe Arizona,
1994
|