46
james_m wrote:that would be sec prog mars close to an exact sextile, not square to natal sun.
I don't think either Worsdale or Tom said it was a square. Worsdale just says the rays of Mars, without specifying the aspect.
any emphasis on the midheaven puts an emphasis on the i.c. it's opposite point which would be making an exact conjunction to his natal sun in this chart at the time of his death. some folks like morin make a connection with the i.c. point and death.. say what you want about secondary progressions, they seem to have relevance in this particular example
Please note that the angles are not progressed by secondary motion (they have none), but by primary motion. In other words, the midheaven to the opposition of the natal Sun is a primary direction. Worsdale used secondary directions the Placidean way, focusing only on the secondary motion of the luminaries.
i note the moons declination in kents natal chart at - 8 degree 59' while mars declination is +2 degree 28' - the difference being 6 degree 31'.. this would be the difference in contraparallel, not parallel as i understand the data..
This particular direction sparked a separate thread (if I may be excused for mixing metaphors). It was Petr who correctly identified the method used by Worsdale; see his last post on this page.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

47
Martin Gansten wrote:
james_m wrote:that would be sec prog mars close to an exact sextile, not square to natal sun.
I don't think either Worsdale or Tom said it was a square. Worsdale just says the rays of Mars, without specifying the aspect.
hi martin,

tom mentioned this and you quoted him on it later, which is why i'm pointing it out! sextile, not square...
Tom wrote: [I?m tempted to do a little mind reading here. Progressed Mars is only 4 minutes of arc from a square to the natal Sun. Curiously, he doesn?t mention that] considerably increase the baneful power of the Anaretical Directions to the prorogator.
[/quote]
Martin Gansten wrote: There is another important difference, though:
I?m tempted to do a little mind reading here. Progressed Mars is only 4 minutes of arc from a square to the natal Sun. Curiously, he doesn?t mention that
Exactly. That is because Mars is not a Ptolemaic significator, only a promissor; and Placidus and his followers, including Worsdale, only followed the secondary motion of the significators in the zodiac, that is, the Sun and the Moon.
as for my comment on the secondary progression of the midheaven and the way that it was done in the past - thanks for pointing that out. i only point out that an astrologer today using secondary progressions would put emphasis on the sp angles especially and in this particular example they confirm the nature of the event as i see it.

Martin Gansten wrote: Please note that the angles are not progressed by secondary motion (they have none), but by primary motion. In other words, the midheaven to the opposition of the natal Sun is a primary direction. Worsdale used secondary directions the Placidean way, focusing only on the secondary motion of the luminaries.
thanks also for reminding me of the thread where petr explains the process.. i see how the declination of these planets is a critical ingredient to the process, but it is more complicated then i thought.

48
james_m wrote:tom mentioned this and you quoted him on it later, which is why i'm pointing it out! sextile, not square...
Oh, you're speaking of the aspect that Worsdale didn't mention. Sorry, I missed that.
as for my comment on the secondary progression of the midheaven and the way that it was done in the past - thanks for pointing that out. i only point out that an astrologer today using secondary progressions would put emphasis on the sp angles especially and in this particular example they confirm the nature of the event as i see it.
I think you're missing my point here, which is that there are no secondary progressed angles. When you see the angles making contact with natal planets, those are really primary directions.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

49
Martin Gansten wrote:
james_m wrote:tom mentioned this and you quoted him on it later, which is why i'm pointing it out! sextile, not square...
Oh, you're speaking of the aspect that Worsdale didn't mention. Sorry, I missed that.
james comment - well you and tom both mentioned it, even if worsdale didn't!!! you'll have to forgive me for making a minor correction to both of your comments!

james_m wrote:as for my comment on the secondary progression of the midheaven and the way that it was done in the past - thanks for pointing that out. i only point out that an astrologer today using secondary progressions would put emphasis on the sp angles especially and in this particular example they confirm the nature of the event as i see it.
Martin Gansten wrote:I think you're missing my point here, which is that there are no secondary progressed angles. When you see the angles making contact with natal planets, those are really primary directions.
thanks martin.. i do understand this point and think it's worth talking about.. first off - generating a secondary progressed chart will give an astrologer these angles, even if there is no such thing as secondary progressed angles! the fact that this cross over exists with modern astrologers using secondary progressed data ( or solar arc directions) while treating these same angles as the single most important consideration in either of these predictive tools (even if they are unaware they are really using primary directions), doesn't alter the reality of there use in this manner.. i think it also explains their continued popularity to the exclusion or awareness of primary directions for that matter.. perhaps the fact that software available to generate primary directions hasn't been available up until recently also explains this.. thanks for your additional comments - james

50
james_m wrote:the fact that this cross over exists with modern astrologers using secondary progressed data ( or solar arc directions) while treating these same angles as the single most important consideration in either of these predictive tools (even if they are unaware they are really using primary directions), doesn't alter the reality of there use in this manner..
Yes, I know where you're coming from, and in another forum I wouldn't have bothered to comment. But as this forum is the traditional one, and as the thread is entitled John Worsdale's Prediction Methods (rather than Alan Leo's Prediction Methods or Popular Prediction Methods Today), I thought it worth the effort.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

51
martin, you know so much about the history which is another reason to explore this further... the fact is worsdale was using secondary progressions which apparently placidus also used.. whether that is old enough to be considered 'traditional' or not i will leave up to the authorities on making these kinds of distinctions, but just how the data was interpreted ''historically'' i have no idea and - i think that is what the purpose of toms thread here is about.. if you happen to know when the recognition of the moving angles importance in the sec prog chart became so central to the interpretation of these same predictive type charts, id be curious to know.. i don't know the history on that.

further to this, i think it's relevant that sec prog mars is making a close sextile to the sun especially as mars has been defined as having the potential to bring death. does it matter whether it is a sextile or a square? i don't think the nature of the aspect matters, if mars is being defined as capable of this. what do others think?
Tom wrote:He writes (my comments in red):[/color]
the chief mortal promittor in the geniture, these obnoxious applications, compared with the violence of the progression [I?m tempted to do a little mind reading here. Progressed Mars is only 4 minutes of arc from a square to the natal Sun. Curiously, he doesn?t mention that] considerably increase the baneful power of the Anaretical Directions to the prorogator.
The last sentence is the first time he labels Mars as the chief instrument of death. While the directions and progressions clearly implicate Mars, it is not his position that makes him deadly. It seems to be the fact that all this other stuff relates to the body and/or the life and if you pile up all that stuff on Mars, you die. Morinus noted on occasion, that Mars, by itself cannot bring death. It indicates the kind of death. However Morinus did not use things like hyleg and anareta. He used the ASC. The French astrologer had something of an aversion to Arab astrologers and their techniques.

52
Placidus invented secondary directions as an auxiliary technique to primary directions, which prior to this were simply called directions. (There is a stray reference in Valens 9.2 to using 'a day for a year', but as usual the technique is not properly explained, and seems not to have been used much or at all in the intervening 1,500 years.)

Then Alan Leo, who didn't really understand either technique, included bits of each (including the primary directed angles) in his own invention called the Progressed Horoscope. This is what modern astrologers still use. As it originated at the turn of the last century, I think it's safe to say that it doesn't count as traditional on this forum. :D
james_m wrote:further to this, i think it's relevant that sec prog mars is making a close sextile to the sun especially as mars has been defined as having the potential to bring death [...] what do others think?
Worsdale didn't think so, because Mars is not a (Ptolemaic) significator, just a promissor, and secondary directions are concerned only with the motion of the significators.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

54
hi martin,

how would you interpret the comments that worsdale offers on the secondary progressed data? i have removed toms comments to allow one to read worsdale directly.
Tom wrote: He (worsdale) writes
By secondary motion the Sun was in conjunction with Mercury, and the Moon the giver of life had nearly arrived at the place of the Sun in the nativity, and was applying to the square of her radical position, and likewise to the rays of Mars the chief mortal promittor in the geniture, these obnoxious applications, compared with the violence of the progression considerably increase the baneful power of the Anaretical Directions to the prorogator.

martin - you mention mars is not a significator, just a promissor (terms consistant with primary directions) and then go on to say that secondary directions are concerned only with the motion of the significators. it seems very possible that worsdale viewed mars as having some violent influence in the secondary progressions given his words in the preceding passage as quoted by tom. how do you reconcile his words? we may never know the original intent of these astrologers - worsdale and placidus in their use of secondary progressions but it seems open to conjecture given what little information has been left on how to interpret their use.
Martin Gansten wrote:
james_m wrote:further to this, i think it's relevant that sec prog mars is making a close sextile to the sun especially as mars has been defined as having the potential to bring death [...] what do others think?
Worsdale didn't think so, because Mars is not a (Ptolemaic) significator, just a promissor, and secondary directions are concerned only with the motion of the significators.

55
martin - you mention mars is not a significator, just a promissor (terms consistant with primary directions) and then go on to say that secondary directions are concerned only with the motion of the significators. it seems very possible that worsdale viewed mars as having some violent influence in the secondary progressions given his words in the preceding passage as quoted by tom.
Yes I dropped the ball when I wrote "square," sorry. Sextile is correct.

James I think you're missing the point. Worsdale followed Ptolemy as explained by Placidus, rigidly. Mars, in the Ptolemy/Placidus/Worsdale viewpoint was not a significator. Therefore Worsdale did not direct Mars or place much importance on directing it. Furthermore, since secondaries were only used to validate primaries, the wouldn't use Mars as a significator in secondaries, either. I'm the one that brought up the topic and wondered why Worsdale didn't mention it and Martin answered that question. There is no way to know exactly what went through Worsdale's mind, but if he thought Mars had violent influence in progressions without regard to primary directions, he didn't say so, and given the way he used progressions there is no reason to believe that he did.

56
I second Tom's reply to this, and would add only two points. First, that we have a much better chance of knowing (or conjecturing correctly) the intentions of an author if we actually study his writings in depth, including the historical context in which he was writing. So if we read Placidus, and then Partridge (the only author mentioned with approval by Worsdale!), and then Worsdale, we can actually get a pretty good idea of what Worsdale did and didn't mean.

Second, when Worsdale speaks of the violence of the progression, he is making a five-word reference not to secondary directions, but to yet another technique. The word progression, to Placidean astrologers, referred to the equation of one day in the ephemeris to one synodic month of life. (This is similar, but not identical, to what today is called tertiary progression.) In other words it's a version of secondary directions accelerated by about 12.37. What Worsdale meant by the violence of the progression was probably the progressed Sun fairly closely opposing natal Saturn (and possibly squaring progressed Mars), and the progressed Moon applying to the square of natal Saturn (and possibly to the conjunction of progressed Mars).
https://astrology.martingansten.com/