16
In other words you don' t have Jupiter to protect you this time around? Well you have two arms ;-)

It is awfully difficult to envision what is going on here without the charts. Mars is a bit troubling, but the 6th house isn't limited to injuries and illnesses. It has to go with people we hire (servants), small animals and other things. The trick is to find out what is going on in the life that is shown by the return. Also if there are no progressions or directions that are close to perfection this year, this may not indicate anything. What does the nativity "promise" and is there anything in the progressions or directions that indicate it will happen this year?

Ruler of 1 in 10 often means honors coming the native. I hope you don't get an award for an injury. Maybe you'll be a heroine. Study the nativity to determine its promise then apply that to the return and see what you come up with.

Tom

18
Julie:
Some astrologers read solar returns alone, as a natal. Of course it is not literally a natal chart.
This is true but I don't believe many do this. If we believe that the nativity contains the potential of the life, it makes no sense to me to ignore it.

Dolly:

Something occurred to me last night about delineating solar returns. Ibn Ezra, Morin, I think Abu Mashar, I haven't taken the plunge into Ben Dykes latest translation just yet to confirm, and probably others, stress the importance of establishing the ruler of the year from the solar return. Unfortunately each astrologer above does it a bit differently. Ibn Ezra's method is the most unambiguous and maybe the easiest, if you have the software or the inclination to work out the primary direction of the ASC.

He says to direct the ASC to the relevant year and see if any planet in the solar return aspects that point. If a planet aspects it, that planet is the ruler of the year along with the bound ruler of that point. If there is no aspect, then just use the bound ruler. I'm pretty sure when he says "aspect," he means "perfection" during the year in question. Although I haven't tried it, we might be able to do the same thing with the progressed ASC. Then you look at what the ruler(s) of the year promise in the nativity and apply that to the SR and look for the same sort of thing.

I did try this with my son's chart. I directed his ASC (Naibod key) to this year and no planet in aspect to it. It is in the bounds of Venus. It had been in the bounds of Venus for a few years by 2010. And I noticed when the ASC changed bounds to Venus, he married. I'm going to do some more with this and see where it leads.

Tom

19
In Abu Mashar and Bonatti (and Morin???) say the ruler of the year is the profected sign ruler.

Abu Mashar's yearly considerations are:

Profected sign and ruler
Solar Return
Firdaria
For PD, he directed the ascendant through the terms.

There is more finesse to this, but there ya go.

20
Whoops! That's not what I meant, but thanks for pointing out my poor choice of words. I now get a chance to explain myself. I only meant that the concept of choosing a ruler of the year from the solar return chart was common to those three and probably others. Therefore the concept is important. How that ruler is chosen by each varies. In other words using the rules of each one would possibly yield three different rulers.

That sort of thing used to bother me. That is, that everyone agrees with the concept but chooses different techniques to uncover it. No more. Each astrologer has his own view of what that ruler is and does so it only makes sense that they would choose differently. I "highlighted" Ibn Ezra's method because it is simple - far simpler than Morin's - and I can't think of a reason why it couldn't be done with the progressed ASC as well as the directed ASC. I'm not arguing that his is better or worse than any other idea. Thanks again.

Tom

21
Tony Louis' book on Solar Returns is a good overview of various techniques, traditional and modern, including, but not limited to Morin.
I have to disagree with Tom in this point. My review of this book is that it is poorly writen and mostly focused on modern astrology. The parts that are focused on Morin show that he has a poor grasp on the subject of morinian analysis: yes, he talks a little bit, but he reads a chart using modern astrology only. Besides Morin, he doesn?t show real grasp on any other traditional authority. To me it was a waste of money.

For instance, Solar returns: formulas and analyses by Nance McCullough was a much better buy, and she is a completely modern astrologer, but with more insights into real practice. I have the feeling that Tony Louis never used SR until he decided to write a book about them! The lack of examples of real clients and predictions is usually a red flag.

JuliYvonne:
Some astrologers read solar returns alone, as a natal. Of course it is not literally a natal chart.
well, we can always found astrologers who will do something, of course :-)

If you want to take SR strictly from the modern perspective, yes, most of them only take the SR chart as a stand alone technique, or they will say to compare with the natal chart, without clarifying how to do it, with a quick example at the end of the book (with few exceptions like the book of McCullough quoted above).

But if one want to take the modern perspective, one should at least be aware that solar returns are one the most old techniques on the book, and they were never used as stand alone charts. And most modern writers, have never in contact with the ancient ideas on the topic, and never tested them, and pretty much re-invented the wheel from scratch.

In fact, even the way that Morin uses it (the ruler of SR 10th on the first) seems to be pretty much a renaissance technique. The more you go into the past, the more the SR seems to be used agains techniques of progressing the nativity, usually acting as a modificator of the natal promise.
and I can't think of a reason why it couldn't be done with the progressed ASC as well as the directed ASC
.

David McCann makes the point that progressed angles are not really progressed http://www.skyscript.co.uk/pran.html

Best regards to all
Meu blog de astrologia (em portugues) http://yuzuru.wordpress.com
My blog of astrology (in english) http://episthemologie.wordpress.com

22
Tom wrote:Whoops! That's not what I meant, but thanks for pointing out my poor choice of words. I now get a chance to explain myself. I only meant that the concept of choosing a ruler of the year from the solar return chart was common to those three and probably others. Therefore the concept is important. How that ruler is chosen by each varies. In other words using the rules of each one would possibly yield three different rulers.


Now is MY turn to clarify. I meant the the ruler of the year is the profected ascendant of the natal not SR. If the profected house in the natal is the 11th house in Virgo, then Virgo in the SR and Mercury will highlight friends in relation to where Virgo and Mercury are in the SR.

23
Hello Mithra, Tom, Yuzuru and all,
Mithra6 wrote:In Abu Mashar and Bonatti (and Morin???) say the ruler of the year is the profected sign ruler.

Abu Mashar's yearly considerations are:

Profected sign and ruler
Solar Return
Firdaria
For PD, he directed the ascendant through the terms.

There is more finesse to this, but there ya go.
I was waiting someone who could talk from a traditional point of view :)

For me too profection should be seen before solar return and gives the lord of the year.

Ptolemy gives a precise order, which was repeated in all the authors with some variant, but as usually they are just variants of the same method.

I don't know if Morin mentions them- Tom??? - but many late authors like Placido did not consider them anymore.

margherita
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com

24
margherita wrote: For me too profection should be seen before solar return and gives the lord of the year.
I agree. It's so easy to find the profected sign anyway, and it gives you an initial foundation for prediction immediately.

25
Tom and others: there were several chronocrators or time rulers that astrologers of earlier times would pay particular attention to when judging an annual revolution. The term ruler of the directed ascendant and/or hyleg is one, the ruler (or lord) of the year is another. All the Arabic authors I have seen so far, and later European authors building on their works, use 'ruler of the year' to refer to the ruler of the profected ascendant, as has already been said.

Interestingly, a more complex Persian method of selecting the ruler of the year has been preserved in India. It is not unlike the procedure for determining the hyleg. The Indian authors also mention the simpler method of always taking the ruler of the profected ascendant, stating that this is used by the 'Romans' (meaning the Byzantine Greeks), and that it is done using the tropical zodiac. (The inference is that the other, Persian method used the sidereal zodiac.)

26
I don't know if Morin mentions them- Tom???
If you're talking about profections, he mentions them disparagingly. From the Translator's Preface;
However, he (Morin) begins Book 24 with a lengthy diatribe against what he calls "progressions," by which he means both methods using equal degrees for years or months and methods using the elaborate systems set forth by the Arabian astrologers ... These systems are properly called profections.
Italics in the original

And from the man himself:

Progressions were only devised for one purpose, that with their help the days of accidents might be determined. Moreover, when the human intellect, having forsaken the light of reason, loosens the reins to [accept] fictions, it is marvelous how much it runs riot in these, as is apparent in the doctrine of progressions ...
So he doesn't like them.:brows

Tom

27
margherita wrote:

For me too profection should be seen before solar return and gives the lord of the year.
Yes profections are very important to traditional technique. I have found them one of the most reliable methods in predictive astrology and they have a lot of scope in rectification work. I asume Morin's rejection of profections was a reflection of his distrust of symbolism in contrast to naturalistic indicators. From what I can see Morin seeks to replace profections with lunar returns which assume a larger significance in his approach.

Regarding profections I tend to work with them whole sign rather than the later idea of 30 degrees. Interestingly Ben Dykes uses the whole sign method himself rather than the approach taught by Robert Zoller found in many medieval and renaissance texts.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly