25
I want to say Bonatti did, but aren?t you the one who?s reading the Dyke?s translation?
Touche!

Ok you have me on the ropes too. Have you seen the size of that two volume edition though?

So far I can't seem to find any specific reference to orbs or planetary moeity there but its quite possible I have just missed it. Its a long read!

Lee Lehman uses this approach does she? Ok I have all her books
(excluding asteroids!) I must check out what she says on this.

26
This is a support post. I mentioned the idea of aspects, angles and themes, repeating/reversing themselves and that they are considered highly significant when comparing subsequent relevant charts to base charts. Yes it?s nice to have authority for the idea, but reasons are more important. I?m going to address two issues: 1) philosophical basis, and 2) relationship of solar returns to mundane astrology.

Jean Baptiste Morin deVillefranche wrote arguably the most instructive book on solar returns ever. Morin based his ideas on the following principles:

1) The nativity is the promise of the life. Therefore whatever is not promised in the chart cannot occur as the result of a solar return. The return fulfils or retards the promise contained in the nativity. The word ?promise? is a bit problematic, if looked at the wrong way. ?Promise? is not to be taken as some sort of guarantee. The word ?potential? is an acceptable synonym in this case.

2) If the return chart duplicates or repeats themes shown in the nativity, it is an indication that what is duplicated in the return will come about that year. So if Jupiter is in the second in the nativity indicating wealth, and in the 25th year Jupiter returns to its position in the second, it is an indication that the native will increase his wealth that year.

3) If planets in the return chart oppose their natal positions, they retard the potential indicated in the nativity. So Jupiter in 2 promises wealth, Jupiter in the 8th in the return limit it that year perhaps by giving it to others (2nd of the 7th).

4) The same is true of aspects. If an aspect repeats in the return it is an indication of manifestation of the promise indicated by the aspect in that nativity. If the aspect reverses itself it retards the promise.

The above is also true for the placement of the angles. Repetition of the angles is sometimes considered good and reversal bad, but this is a bit inconsistent. If there are hard aspects to the angles by malefics in the nativity, repetition logically should bring about the bad things associated with that. Ditto if the natal angles are problematic, reversing them might be beneficial. It will depend on the chart. What we?re talking about here are conjunctions between natal planets and angles and return planets and angles and other aspects to them. There is no ?magic? indicated by the simple presence of a duplication or reversal.

The next question we need to address is: can we apply the rules and delineations for solar returns to mundane astrology? I believe so. Angles are angles and aspects are aspects in horary, natal, and mundane. So we should be able to make the necessary adjustments in perspective. In natal astrology the delineations will, of necessity be more specific as we are dealing with a single individual, whereas with mundane we are dealing with a nation.

Gadbury had a great deal to say about returns in his book The Doctrine of Nativities. He repeats much of what Morin said, but he offers some interesting delineations that we can attempt to apply to a mundane chart. We will use the 1762 chart as the basic or ?natal? chart for the USA and the 1961 grand conjunction as we would a return. It is a return of the conjunction, after all.

I mentioned the reversal by sign of the 1762 Moon square conjunction in the 1961 chart. If this reversal square was also in tight conjunction by degree with the original, we would attribute even more power to it. However a reversal by sign 200 years after the original chart is still highly significant.

Gadbury gives delineations between return and radical planets that are of interest in this example. Here is the entire quote; some is pertinent some is not.

?[Saturn] To the place of luna, it declares much affliction of Body and Mind unto the native; danger by water, the wife and mother (if living) sustain evil also upon such a return; and the native is troubled with grievous colds and coughs, and melancholy humors; if well dignified, the contrary.

[Jupiter] To the place of the Moon, it gives him health and tranquility both of body and mind; gives him increase of honor and wealth; he gains by vulgar [i.e. common] people; hath a child if capable; his wife and he agree well.?
The conjunction is in Capricorn in 1961, the domicile of Saturn, the fall of Jupiter. The Moon is in Aries. Once again we have the people in hard aspect with government. However this time, 200 years after Independence, the people are at odds with their own government. The conjunction is in the 10th house of government in 1762 and in the 5th of the return or the turned 8th of the 10th. The Moon is in the 7th in 1762 and 8th in 1961.

The events of greatest significance in this period (1961 ? 1980) are the deaths of President Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King. There is significant civil upheaval (civil rights demonstrations and riots, anti war riots as well as the Viet Nam war itself (afflictions of body and mind). I can?t help but equate ?danger by Water? with the Watergate scandals in the Nixon Administration. Metaphors are OK, too.

Admittedly, these are ?cookbook? delineations, but the purpose is to demonstrate the relationship between natal and mundane expressions of planets and aspects. The effects indicated in Gadbury?s delineations are more specific than we would be able to apply to mundane prediction. It is only with hindsight that they appear specific. And I?m sure there is more than one metaphor for ?water.? But the symbolism works. Moon-Saturn is easily seen as affliction (Saturn) to body (Saturn = structure) and mind (Moon). We often hear the phrase ?body politic? and ?public attitude;? in other words, mind and body. While we may argue whether or not this era ?afflicted the mind and body? keep in mind that this is also the era that spawned those who called themselves ?the moral majority.? Readers can decide which group or groups committed the affliction on the public. The Moon is associated with moral character as well as being the significator of ?the people? and it squares the conjunction in both charts.

Gadbury?s delineations seem appropriate in both the natal and mundane spheres. As with the period of the American Revolution there was a great deal of upheaval and turmoil the effects of which are still with us.

Tom





28
I have been doing some research for an Aries Ingress talk and discovered this very interesting piece by Ben Dykes on the medieval approach to using four quarter Ingress charts:

http://www.bendykes.com/articles/tsunami.htm

The reason I am posting on this thread again is Ben's comment in the footnote to the article:
'' The same goes for so-called ?birth charts? of nations. There are only a few known electional charts for cities, as for example that of the founding of Baghdad. Otherwise, we use the Aries ingress chart prior to the date the government is complete and the king ascends the throne. So for instance, the chart for the United States of America is not July 4, 1776, since there was not even a complete government or true nation to speak of at that time. The interim Articles of Confederation had yet to be thought of. The USA chart is the Aries ingress for 1789, the year of Washington?s inaugural.''

29
I agree with Ben's logic for choosing a date other than July 4, 1776, up until he gets to the Aries Ingress chart. But note, in the body of the he writes:
The medievals had certain rules governing how many charts were needed. If the Aries ingress had a fixed sign rising, the chart applied to the whole year. If it had a mutable sign rising, two charts were needed: the Aries and the Libra charts, each governing 6 months. If a cardinal sign were rising, four charts were needed: the ingress into each of the cardinal signs. In this latter case, the Aries chart is thematic for the whole year but especially the first three months; the other charts govern their respective three months apiece.
(emphasis added)

And in the footnote as Mark pointed out he writes:


The same goes for so-called ?birth charts? of nations. There are only a few known electional charts for cities, as for example that of the founding of Baghdad. Otherwise, we use the Aries ingress chart prior to the date the government is complete and the king ascends the throne.


It seems we've gone from predicting events for the upcoming year and converted it to a lasting chart upon which subsequent charts are dependent. Obviously, the US Government lasted more than a year.

The medievals may have done that, but it appears to make the use of the conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn that occur roughly every 20 years of secondary importance to the use of an Ingress chart. Therefore, I would think the approach would be to use the grand conjunction prior to American Independence, March 18, 1762, 4:41 PM GMT. I chose to set it for the, at the time, yet to be created Washington, D.C. Right away we see the Moon on the 7th cusp squaring the conjunction point, i.e. the people, the USA leaving the British government or Europe itself. Interestingly, when we look at the 1901 conjunction, the one in effect when the US dropped its "isolation" policies and entered WWI with Europe, we see, among other things, the nodal axis is the reverse (coming back) of what it was in 1762. Similar things can be done with other conjunction charts and American history after 1762.

For example, the 1961 Grand conjunction has the same Moon - conjunction square (by sign) as the 1762 chart except the signs are reversed, i.e. Moon in Aries - conjunction in Capricorn the reverse of the signs in 1762. This is a strong indication of adverse events. JFK's part of death falls on the 5th cusp (Placidus) of the 1961 chart. The 5th is the 8th of the 10th, death of kings.

Subsequent conjunctions, eclipses, etc are used in comparison to this initial chart. Please do not misunderstand. I'm not attempting to discount the Aries Ingress charts. I'm only arguing that they can be used against the background of the Grand Conjunction chart(s) for further clarification. I'll check out the one that preceded Washington's inauguration against the 1762 chart. I'm also working with the charts of the three remaining Presidential hopefuls and the 1762 chart to see if there is something predictable that jumps out.

Tom

30
Hello Steven,

First I sincerely thank you for providing this information. I copied and I?m going to read it through until I fully grasp it all. Secondly, after reading through it a couple of times I more fully understand why medieval astrology went out of business. There are just so many hours in the day, and like you, I have to work for a living at something other than astrology.

My work puts me in frequent contact with civil and structural engineers and after looking at your post I now realize that contemporary engineers would be astrologers in the medieval era. It is also clear to me why Lilly garners support so readily. It?s an easier way to go.

For the record, the 1762 Jupiter-Saturn conjunction was in Aries. Whether it was the first in a series or not I don?t know because I don?t have an 18th century ephemeris and I don?t feel like printing one out. However, if we begin looking for a base chart for the USA upon which to search for an Aries ingress, then the 1762 conjunction is a bit too early as there was another one about 1782. Washington was inaugurated on April 30, 1789.

Frankly I am not persuaded that America became America in 1789 and therefore was something else prior to that. There is more to a country than its independence and its government. American attitudes, i.e. the attitudes that make up nationalistic feelings that are common to a particular nation, were formed prior to 1776 or there would have been no Revolution. One of the more fascinating books to read is Alexis de Tocqueville?s Democracy in America published first in 1835 and a second volume in 1840. He describes an American character that is recognizable to this day. That character didn?t suddenly appear in 1789 or 1762 for that matter. So I accept the argument that no one chart for a nation is definitive, and therefore more than one will probably work and they will do so for various reasons and various levels. Perhaps Washington?s inauguration will be useful in defining or even determining Presidents or the direction of government.

As for using the mean positions for conjunctions and not being natural, that is a problem for natural philosophers like Morin. There is much in Arabic astrology does not involve natural movement of the planets and stars. Profections and firdaria come to mind. Morin rejected them for that reason alone, but even zodiacal conjunctions may be criticized for not being ?natural,? as the planets may be far apart by declination or latitude, and no one, to my knowledge, has recommended doing away with retrograde motion. But like I said, I work with engineers, so I understand your discomfort despite not being bothered by the same things.

Thanks again for your efforts.

Tom

31
these ?mean? conjunctions do not occur in reality! The whole of these considerations is based entirely on a ?theoretical? conjunction!
Hi, Steven
so you?re saying we should ignore actual conjunctions in favour of mean ones, right ? So, for example, the conjunctions of 1980 would be in 24 Leo, of 2000 in 27 Aries and of2020 in 29 sagitarius ?
Meu blog de astrologia (em portugues) http://yuzuru.wordpress.com
My blog of astrology (in english) http://episthemologie.wordpress.com

32
Tom wrote,

Quote:
Frankly I am not persuaded that America became America in 1789 and therefore was something else prior to that. There is more to a country than its independence and its government.


I agree somewhat with that. Before America came 'the religion' and that which was going to frame ideas and laws. That in fact came over a hundred years earlier with Francis Bacon and John Locke. In fact John Locke's writings were probably most significant in the forming of the US.
I vaguely recall from high school or college I've forgotten which, that at least one teacher referred to John Locke as "The true Father of our Country," a title more often given to George Washington (for different reasons). Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence was a student and admirer of Locke.

However I don't understand what you mean by the first sentence: "Before America came 'the religion' and that which was going to frame ideas and laws." What Jefferson wrote in the Declaration, influenced by Locke, that was different and more eye-popping than John Hancock's signature were the words "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights ..."

While all good school children are taught to dwell on the phrase "all men are created equal," it is what followed "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, ..." that was (and sadly in some places still is) shocking. In other words, rights come from God, not the King or as we would say today not from the state. Therefore, to deprive one of those rights or even to control them (this is a general not an absolutist or anarchic position), is an immoral act. This is a religious statement, or theistic if you prefer, and fundamental to what would and does follow.

As for the other parts I agree that all charts are a starting point and that people, nations, companies develop over time. My only mild disagreement with what you said is the starting point.

Tom

34
Hi Robin:
This may sound like a stupid question, but why is the 1762 conjunction in GMT?
Because that is how it was given to me and I don't know how to convert GMT to Local Mean Time, and I'm too lazy to putz with astrological software until it works. It is much easier to plug in GMT.

Nothing wrong with that question.

Tom