Henri-Joseph Gouchon and Primary directions using Morinus

1
Hello,

Recently a friend living in France, Mr G?rard Laffont, asked me to find a solution for his DOS freeware calculating Primary Directions according to Henri-Joseph Gouchon which won't run on 64 bits computers. Gouchon was a reserved, although untiring researcher and a practical astrologer. He was born march 1st, 1898, 7h30 AM CET, Roreto Chisone, Italy (7E06 44N59). He died few months after a car accident which occured in may 1978, on october 5th. Mr Laffont rectified -1m30s using Gouchon's method of PD.

So for those who would like to try his method, here is how to set Morinus. One has to use three settings depending which primary directions are calculated.

All Primaries are calculated under the pole (Regiomontanus): in zodiaco.

I.- All planets and angles, ASC and MC, are used as significators and promittors.

II.- Primary Key: Sun's daily motion (ecliptic); or Dynamic, True Solar Ecliptical Arc (birthday) under Morinus.

III.- Direct Primary Directions involving Conjonctions and Opposition:

-- Regio under the pole zodiacal PD, using latitude of both significator and promittor, Bianchini option used.
-- Zodiacal options: Aspects of Promittors to Significators.

IV.- Direct PD involving other aspects than conjunction and opposition:

-- Regio under the pole zodiacal PD, using latitude of significator;
-- Zodiacal options: Aspects of Promittors to Significators.

V.- Converse PD involving other aspects than conjunction and opposition (here, the latter make no sense):

-- Regio under the pole zodiacal PD, using latitude of Promittor;
-- Zodical options: Promittors to Aspects of Significators.

To Gouchon, a converse PD is simply an aspect of a planet directed to the conjunction of another planet or angle.

ASC and MC are used as Promittor. No nodes, nor Fortuna.

These settings proved to reproduce all his examples in Gouchon's books, espacially, "L'Horoscope annuel simplifi?" (Dervy, 1972).
Regards,
François CARRIÈRE

3
Hello Pankaj,

Gouchon used them: semi-sextil, semi-quadrat, sesqui-quadrat and quicunx (30?, 45?, 135? and 150?). He considered 45? and 135? afflicted and 30? and 150? as harmonic. For those aspect also, use Signifcator latitude (direct) and Promissor (converse). Only, he considered they complicated delineations for the beginners.
Regards,
François CARRIÈRE

4
francois,

thanks! that is very interesting.. do you know if Henri-Joseph Gouchons wrote a book specifically on his use of primary directions? reading a translated wikipedia page on him i note this title "Primary directions simplified Henri-Joseph Gouchon, traditional Editions, 1981" which would be nice to have a translation of. there is so little info or discussion on the use of primary directions, it favours those into private study, but it would be nice if more astrologers were able to share there observations on pds with others..

also according to the translated wikipedia page elizabest teissier was a student of gouchons on the advice of fredrico fellini!!!! - http://translate.googleusercontent.com/ ... mmgAbVOKaA

5
James,

Gouchon wrote few books on astrology: a general introduction on astrology under the form of a Dictionnary, and three books devoted to primary directions, how to calculate and delineate them. That's it ;-)

(a) Dictionnaire astrologique (Dervy, circa from 1935 until now, many reeditions) - Astrological Dictionary. Basic book with many subjects covered. Many modern books are not as complete nowadays as this one (even though Pluto is not covered as one wished ;-)

(b) Les directions primaires simplifi?es (ed. Traditionnelles, circa 1980) - Simplified Primary Directions. How to calculate primary directions in a manner that is as simple as possible. Table of Ascendance included, which can be used as a Table of House - 0? to 66? if I remember well.

(c) L'Horoscope annuel simplifi? (Dervry, circa 1973) - Simplified annual horoscope. Here he explains again how to calculate PDs with the use of tables and to evaluate at sight the poles and initial sidereal time of a planet within a minute of arc. Why he uses latitude for conjunctions and oppositions and not for other aspects (it simply proved not to be as precise as one would expect, and this is because a direction has an orb in time). Tests with Morinus confirmed his work. His annual horoscope relied on PDs and transits, as he wished to prove it was possible to simplify the astrologer work. He shows "why modern inventions work": simply because of the number of "points" used (planets and angles): whatever the pace of "directions", we will find "directions" that explain an event. Many examples covered.

(d) Les pr?visions ? longue ?cheance (Dervy, circa 1980, published posthumously) - Long terms predictions. This book is some kind of "cook-book" on how to delineate PDs and transits. He explains PDs are stronger because they last longer than transits (although some transits may be seen as strong as PDs). Many examples covered.

Reading his books, as Gerard Laffont explained once, we discover that Gouchon gave more importance to general significators (what a planet means by itself), and of course to the Houses (but no examples for the later, except a summary of what Houses meant). French literature had many about the latter. In some manner, we find a balance between the "general" of a planet and the "particular" (house oriented) delineation of PDs and transits.

To have and idea of how "practical" Gouchon was, reading an old edition of the "A to Z Horoscope Maker and Delineator" chapters on progressions and transits would give an idea on how he covered PDs and Transits.

I doubt we ever see a translation of his works in English. Perhaps because traditional astrology (even on its modern part) is not "popular"...
Regards,
François CARRIÈRE

6
carriere.francois wrote:(c) L'Horoscope annuel simplifi? (Dervry, circa 1973) - Simplified annual horoscope. Here he explains again how to calculate PDs with the use of tables and to evaluate at sight the poles and initial sidereal time of a planet within a minute of arc. Why he uses latitude for conjunctions and oppositions and not for other aspects (it simply proved not to be as precise as one would expect, and this is because a direction has an orb in time).
I must say your brief descriptions make me want to read Gouchon first-hand. I found the last sentence above particularly intriguing, as I have gradually adopted the same practice myself, entirely on the basis of experience. If you have the time to explain Gouchon's argument about latitude, I should be extremely interested to hear it.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

7
Martin,

I will check the book and make a brief summary about that. However, the pratice of Gouchon's PDs, as we call them in french, owe a lot to G?rard Laffont and the exchanges he had with Gouchon and told the Yahoo lists he participated this last 10 years. So, give me few days ;-)
Regards,
François CARRIÈRE

11
Hello Martin,

As promised, here is the answer from Mr Laffont, who is best placed to speak about Primary directions and Henri-Joseph Gouchon in France. He answered to the best of his knowledge.

He looked in both Gouchon's books, Les Directions primaires simplifi?es and L'Horoscope annuel simplifi? for specific arguments why Gouchon used zodiacal latitude the way he did, calculating conjonction and opposition with latitude of planet receiving the primary direction and could not find anything, sadly. Simply, Gouchon considered it as an evidence coming out from his experimentations on PD. He considered himself rather as a practician and not a theoretician. [This is probably because he was an engineer at Fiat and had a scientifically bent of mind (FC).]

Gouchon was confronted to the conflict between the simple and rationalizing method of Choisnard (no use of latitude, just as if planets were all on the ecliptic plane, Placidus House system more "logical", more simple simple calculations using "rules of three") and the Traditional method, lastly represented by Morinus.

Morinus used Regio, sometimes with latitude and sometime not (no reason given). Although Gouchon began with Placidus, he realized it work best with Regio. He rejected Naibod conversion key, since it is a average and that the Sun seldomly had this daily motion. He also rejected the daily motion in Right Ascension because the Sun does not move (apparently) on the equator but on the ecliptic.

This before Max Duval advocated it, without experimentation and without any concrete example to support it! Mr Laffont knows from a confidence he had on the telephone from Mr Andr? Braire -owner of Les ?ditions Traditionnelles-, that Duval despises this and never gave any: was he a perfect ideologist?

Primary directions, which are based on the apparent movement of the planets on ecliptic in the hours following birth, must absolutly work respecting this movement as it was then.

Except for the Sun, planets do not have null latitude. This can distort directional aspects. Gouchon searched and experimented many methods to solve this. He exposed them in his L'Horoscope annuel simplifi?, p. 184-185. Then he makes an experiment with Raymond Poincar?, an horoscope he previously and carefully rectified: he did not know what he would find. Calculations are on pp 185-187. There he realizes that for aspects other than conjunction and opposition, it clearly worked better without zodiacal latitude of the receiving point on the orbit.

For both conjunction and opposition, his experiences proved it simply work better with latitude of the receiving planet.

[1] I have scanned these pages and can send them as an attachment, if you wish. Just write me offlist. Follows is the original answer from Mr Laffont, so that you can check it and verifiy any translation mistake I may have made. By the way, you may find a reason why Gouchon did not used latitude for aspects on point 3: introducing latitude to aspects poses the question of how to measure the aspect: whether on the orbit or on the zodiac. It is to avoid this problem that Gouchon never used latitude in his examples he quoted.

--

French original

Bonjour Fran?ois,

Encore MERCI pour le travail que tu accomplis pour faire conna?tre les DP Gouchon dans les milieux anglophones. Je suis all? sur le site de Skyscript et j'ai lu Gansten. J'ai cherch? des arguments explicites de Gouchon au sujet de son choix de calculer les DP de conjonction et d'opposition en utilisant la latitude zodiacale de la plan?te r?ceptrice de la DP dite directe, dans son H.A.S. et m?me dans ses D.P.S., et je n'ai pas trouv?: il semble consid?rer cela comme une ?vidence. Depuis quelques jours, avant la question de Gansten, je cherchais aussi o? j'avais lu sous la plume de Gouchon, il n'y a pas si longtemps, qu'il se consid?rait avant tout comme un praticien. Je n'ai pas encore retrouv? ce texte, mais je crois que cette "?vidence" vient de ses multiples exp?rimentations.

Il a ?t? confront? au conflit entre la m?thode simple et rationalisante de Choisnard (aucun r?le des LZ, aspects zodiacaux comme si les plan?tes ?taient toutes dans le plan de l'?cliptique, maisons Placidus plus "logiques", calculs plus simples par r?gle de trois) et la m?thode issue de la Tradition , en dernier repr?sent?e par Morin de Villefranche. Or Morin utilisait Regio et, selon Gouchon, calculait tant?t avec LZ, tant?t sans. Gouchon a constat? que ?a marchait mieux avec Regio. Il a rejet? l'emploi du pas Naibod, parce que c'est une moyenne, et que c'est rarement que ?a correspond vraiment au d?placement journalier du Soleil. Il a rejet? aussi l'emploi du pas en Ascension Droite (avant que Max Duval le pr?conise, sans aucune exp?rimentation s?rieuse et sans donner aucun exemple concret pour l'appuyer! Je tiens d'une confidence t?l?phonique d'un de ses admirateurs, Andr? Braire, qu'il m?prisait ?a et n'en donnait pas: quelque part un parfait id?ologue ?) parce que le Soleil ne se d?place pas (apparemment) sur l'?quateur, mais sur l'?cliptique. Et que les DP, qui se fondent sur le d?placement apparent des plan?tes sur l'?cliptique dans les heures qui suivent la naissance, doivent absolument fonctionner en respectant ce mouvement comme il ?tait alors.

Mais les plan?tes ne sont pas de latitude zodiacale nulle, sauf le Soleil. Ce qui peut fausser les aspects directionnels. Il a cherch? et exp?riment? diverses m?thodes pour r?soudre ?a. Il les expose dans son H.A.S. p 184 et 185. Puis il en vient ? une exp?rience sur le th?me, soigneusement rectifi? par lui au pr?alable avec de nombreux ?v?nements de sa vie, de Raymond Poincar?: il ne savait pas par avance ce qu'il allait trouver. Calculs p185 ?187. Et il s'aper?oit que pour les aspects autres que conjonction et opposition, ?a marche nettement mieux sans LZ du point r?cepteur sur l'orbite.

Quant aux conjonctions et oppositions, il a exp?riment? et s'est rendu compte ? l'usage que ?a marchait bien avec la LZ de la plan?te r?ceptrice. Voil?. J'ai r?pondu du mieux que j'ai pu.
Amiti?s,
G?rard
Regards,
François CARRIÈRE

12
Many thanks, Fran?ois, both to you and to G?rard Laffont, for taking the trouble to answer my question. As you say, when assigning latitude to aspects for the purpose of directions, the problem is in deciding in what circle the aspect points are located. If not in the ecliptic, then presumably in a special aspect circle, which may be variously constructed. In my own practice, I have repeatedly noticed that conjunctions and oppositions with latitude (of both significator and promissor) are often more effective, especially when fairly close to the horizon, whereas other aspects work better without latitude. I haven't yet figured out why that should be, which is why I was interested to know Gouchon's reasoning.
Morinus used Regio, sometimes with latitude and sometime not (no reason given).
To be fair to Morin, he does discuss this in Astrologia Gallica 22.2.1. Basically, his argument is that when a planet is in a particular degree of the ecliptic, that degree is determined to the nature, etc, of that planet; for instance, if the planet is the Moon, then the degree in question becomes infused with lunar virtue. But of course the Moon itself possesses lunar virtue to an even greater extent! So the actual body of the Moon (with latitude) would be the most important, but its ecliptical projection could still have some effect. (Morin had his own system of calculating aspect circles, from which the aspects with latitude were taken.)
https://astrology.martingansten.com/