|
In this Book, Morin begins the lengthy Section I
by discussing rays emitted by the Planets, how they differ from aspects,
and how they form aspects at various angles. He points out that if the
latitude of the Planets is taken into account, the exact length of its
aspects will vary. He then rehearses at considerable length the previous
astrologers on this matter, an with diagrams and
accompanying trigonometric detail how they calculated small corrections to
the aspects. But as usual he disagrees with most of them. Finally, he
explains what he believes to be the correct way to calculate the variations
in the lengths of the aspects.
The reason for varying
the length of the aspects from their usual figures of 30°, 60°, etc. is
that if a Planet has latitude, then a right triangle is established with
the Planet slightly above or below the ecliptic (due to its latitude), and
the nominal aspect distance is measured along an arc from the Planet's body
to a point on the ecliptic, rather than from the Planet's elliptical
position to another point on the ecliptic. It is easy to see that there
will thus be a small difference in the longitude of the aspect point.
The reader who is not
interested in the details of all the mathematical calculations, may skip
these abstruse explanations and proceed to the “Translator's Comment''
following Chapter 9. There, I have set forth Morin's own theory in (I hope)
an easily understood manner.
In Chapter 10 he states
which aspects are benefic and which are malefic, and he explains why. Three
topics of particular astrological interest are then discussed.
In Chapter 13, he sets
forth what he believes to be a rational theory of orbs. He bases the extent of the orbs on the ability of the Planet to be seen when the Sun
is at a definite distance below the horizon. This in effect relates the orb of a Planet to its apparent
brightness in the sky (or its visual magnitude, as the astronomers call
it). And he concludes by specifying a definite orb for each Planet.
Interestingly, he allows Venus an orb of 13 degrees, or l degree more than
the Moon's 12 degrees.
In Chapter 14 he
defines partile and platic aspects and dexter and sinister aspects.
After that, in Chapter
15, Morin takes up the topic of antiscions.
He begins by stating that the older astrologers simply reckoned an antiscion as being that point of
equal distance from the nearest solstice, but on the opposite side from a
Planet. Then he considers what effect the latitude of the Planet might have
on the precise location of its antiscionpoint. And he finally adopts the
idea of finding a point on the ecliptic that has the same declination as
the Planet. That causes the simple antiscion
point to be shifted to one side or the other. It is thus a sort of
half-way house between what we might call the classical antiscion and the modern
adoption of parallels of
declination as a sort of aspect without any reference to antiscions.
And to close Section I,
Morin talks about whether the fixed stars cast aspects among themselves, and
whether they cast aspects to the Planets and to points in the astrological
chart.
In Section II, Morin
explains that aspects that
are not exact can be classified as forming or passing away, and that leads
to definitions of applications
and separations and a
discussion of their varieties along with some examples, after which he
passes to other types of aspects. Finally, he discusses doryphories.
The topic of combustion is discussed in
detail in Section III. Morin disagrees with some of the traditional
interpretations of combustion. Unlike the majority of astrological writers,
Morin does not simply enunciate a rule or an opinion, but he gives an
explanation of why he believes it to be valid.
In order to make my
translation of Morin's text easier to comprehend, I have italicized a
number of technical terms. And I have broken up some of his long sentences
into shorter ones. I have also subdivided the text into paragraphs, and I
have also added some words to the translation, since Morin sometimes speaks
rather shortly, especially towards the ends of sentences. And I have added
some footnotes either to clarify the text or to provide my own comments.
In converting 17th
century French money into current U.S. Dollars, in my earlier translations
from the Astrologia Gallica, I assumed that in the 17th century the French
livre (which literally means "pound") was still equivalent to a
troy pound of silver, and I used the price of silver at $5.20 per troy
pound to arrive at a value of the livre = $62.50. However, I have recently
found that by 1760 the livre had been greatly depreciated and was
equivalent to only about 0. 15 troy ounce of silver. So my earlier
valuations of the livre were not very accurate.
I have been unable to
discover the silver equivalent of the livre in say 1650, when Morin wrote,
but in this translation 1 shall assume that it was equivalent to 0.5 troy ounce. At the present price of silver at $12.50 per troy
ounce, the 1650 livre day therefore have been equivalent to $6.25, but
since the equation 1 livre = 0.5 troy ounce is a guess, 1 livre = $6.25 may
be too high.
Note: by the date of publication, the price of silver had risen to a
range of $16 to $18 per troy ounce, so the estimated current values of
money amounts in French livres that are mentioned in the translation (based
upon l livre = $6.25) should be increased by at least a third to reflect an
estimated conversion rate of 1 livre = $8.35.
|