|
Jean-Baptiste Morin’s comments on House Division
in His Remarques
Astrologiques Republished with
the permission of the American Federation of Astrologers Translated from the French by James H. Holden, FAFA Abstract English translation
of a 17th century discussion of House Division by the famous French astrologer
J-B Morin (1583-1656), who explains his reasons for preferring the
Regiomontanus system of House Division and his own Morinus system to the
Equal House, Porphyry, Alchabitius, and Campanus systems. The translation is annotated and followed by a brief comment
by the translator Statement by J.B. Morin de Villefranche Now, having
been earnestly requested and urged by some of the more learned men with whom
I am acquainted in this science to let go and give to the public at least
some of the principal points of my Astrologia Gallica,[1]
so that, by this specimen, one might be able to judge the whole piece and to
wish with more ardor to see it in the light, I have finally let myself be
conquered by their requests and urgings, and, having previously brought to
light the Cabbala of the Twelve Houses that I discovered,[2]
which proves clearly the natural properties of these houses, I have not
wished to pass by Aphorism 37[3]
without demonstrating that the true, unique, and natural method of
domification is the Rational;[4]
that it can be universal for the entire earth; and that all the other methods
are false, and especially the Equal [House] method so vaunted and recommended
by the Marquis de Villennes,[5]
but which completely ruins his Commentary on the Centiloquy, which is built on the foundation of
equal houses. Let us begin with the latter. I Say
then, in the first place, that the Equal Method, which divides the whole sky
with respect to the person who is born into twelve equal parts by circles
drawn through the poles of the ecliptic, of which the first passes through
the point of the ecliptic that ascends upon the horizon, is false for three
principal reasons. First,
because each house is found according to this division partly above and
partly below the earth, except in one case only, viz. when the poles of the
ecliptic are found in the intersection of the horizon and the meridian, as
can happen in the latitude of 66 degrees and 30 minutes. Now this is
expressly contrary to Chapt. 11 of Book 3 of Ptolemy, on which Mr. de
Villennes imposes the Equal Method, along with all those ancients who have
not understood Ptolemy. For, in this chapter he distinguishes the houses that
are above the earth from those which are below, and those above are named by
him as the 12th, 1lth, 10th, 9th, 8th, and the 7th. And he does not want his apheta
or significator of life[6]
to be under the earth except in the first house, which is the house of life.
But he wants it to be in houses 11, 10, 9, or 7, although he has erred in the
selection and placement of his apheta as I prove in my Pratique
d'astrologie; and
nevertheless, in the Equal Method, the apheta could be in houses 11, 10,
9, and 7, but under the earth, since each of these houses is partly above and
partly below the earth. A circumstance that would still give a good bit of
work to an ignorant astronomer -- to calculate the super-terranean part of a
house along with the subterranean Second, because,
with the agreement of all the astrologers convinced by experience, the
beginning of each house is the strongest and most efficacious point of the
house, and consequently, in the Equal Method, the degree of the ecliptic
which begins the 10th house must be the strongest and most efficacious for
the actions, honors, and dignities that belong to that house; that which
nevertheless is found so false by experience that the partisans of the Equal
Method have always been constrained to observe the degree which is
encountered in the Midheaven and to direct it as the most powerful
[significator] for those things, even when it was considerably elongated from
the beginning of the tenth [into the ninth][7]
houses to which these future things do not belong; that if such an absurdity
is found for the 10th house, the same will be found for all the other houses,
and nothing will be enclosed
within its true and natural limits, not even the first [house], which would
be riding piggyback on the second, or that one on the other. Whence it
follows that very often the planets will complain of the sergeant who will
not have them lodged in places suitable to their functions and will disturb
their mysteries, making them at the least to serve as false prophets or
significators.[8] Third,
because at the arctic circle and upwards it is impossible to divide the sky
into twelve houses by this method,[9]
when the ecliptic is found entirely in the horizon or that it will not have
any degree at the eastern horizon.[10]
For what degree of the ecliptic will one take for the ASCENDANT when there is
no ASCENDANT, and what degrees for the beginning of the other houses?"
This method then is not universal for all the earth and consequently it
cannot be true; and, as for experience, I prove so clearly the falsity of
this method by many famous nativities in the 18th book of the Astrologia
Gallica (Chapt. 2), that
one would have to be blind not to recognize it. And the Marquis de Villennes
would be obliged to admit it in his own figure in Aphorism 97.[11] Now, for
the aforesaid reasons, it follows that the method of Porphyry is also false,
for it divides each of the two arcs of the ecliptic which are between the
horizon and the meridian, above and below the earth, into three equal parts
by great circles drawn through the poles of the ecliptic. Doing this, each
house will be partly above and partly below the earth, and one will be unable
to divide the sky into twelve houses at the arctic circle and above as in the
Equal Method.[12] It follows
also that the Alchabitius method is false, for it divides each of the two
semi-diurnal and semi-nocturnal arcs from the degree of the ecliptic which
arises on the horizon into three equal parts by great circles drawn through
the poles of the equator. Doing this, each house will still be partly above
and partly below, and one will not be able to divide the sky into twelve
houses at the arctic circle and above, just as with the Equal Method.[13] I could
add here two others of my own invention, more reasonable and approaching the
true and natural method. Namely, drawing great circles through the
intersections of the horizon with the meridian on the points of the divisions
of Porphyry and Alchabitius, for there would be six houses above and six
below the earth, as Ptolemy would have it. But the division of the sky into
twelve houses could not be made at the arctic circle and above, any more than
they could be with the Equal Method, whose other absurdities I do not wish to
mention here. It remains
then to bring forward the method of Campanus and Gazulus, which, of all the
others that are false, has the most to recommend it in the view of many
astrologers who have been deceived by it, believing that they have found the
bird on his nest, for this method always divides the sky into twelve equal
parts by great circles drawn through the intersections of the horizon and the
meridian and gives six houses above and six below the earth, imitating in
this respect the Rational Method. And besides, it can be made universal for
all the earth, except under the world's poles, in the same proportion that it
divides the oriental half of the prime vertical, which passes through the
zenith and the equinoctial point of the orient into six equal parts by the
great circles mentioned above; then, by this division of the vertical, it
divides the equator and finally the ecliptic in the ordinary manner by right
and oblique ascensions. Now it is
easy to prove that this method too is false. Firstly, because it divides the
sky, which has real and influential virtue, with respect to the earth instead
of dividing the earth with respect to the sky. It is a great error to base
the division on a circle which is neither celestial nor real but purely
imaginary and of no virtue, as is the case with this [prime] vertical and to
leave in the lurch celestial circles that are real and of great virtue, such as
the equator, which belongs to the primum mobile, the premier cause of all physical causes, and the ecliptic,
which belongs to the starry sky and in which all the planets have their
greatest virtue. Secondly,
because such a vertical depends upon the equator elevated above the horizon
and is posterior to it, since it must be drawn through the intersections of
the equator and the horizon, consequently, the equator should[14] not have its division into celestial
houses, nor its real virtues in them, from that which is posterior to it and
purely imaginary. Thirdly,
it is not a question of dividing the primum mobile into equal
parts according to its substance, for such a division could still be made by
dividing the meridian, which is on earth, into six equal parts by great
circles drawn from the intersection of the equator and the horizon, which
would give six houses above and six below the earth.[15]
But it is a question of dividing the primum mobile into equal parts
according to its proper movement from the east to the west, by means of which
it transports the signs, the stars, and the planets in all the celestial
houses for the generation and change of sublunar things, in such a way that
we may have six houses above and six below the earth. Which same should only
be done by the division of the equator, the measure and principal circle of
this movement. And the division of the movement must be done with such
equality that one degree of the equator does not remain longer in one house
than in another throughout the earth, as is the case with the Rational
Method. I may add
that the division of the ecliptic by this method will come up short, like all
the others, at the arctic circle, and that putting this method of Campanus to
the test of experience in nativities, as I have done in the Astrologia
Gallica, one will see clearly that it cannot stand. And it is not
necessary to amuse oneself with the fact that has deceived the ignoramuses
who have followed methods other than the Rational, namely that they have encountered
some verities in their judgment. For because of the size of the twelve
celestial houses, which contain the whole sky, there is no method so
erroneous that it does not often have the same planet in the same house or
have the same lord of that house as it would if the method were the true one. But since
none of the false methods above [is acceptable],[16]
and since among them the most false is the Equal [Method], which nearly
always needs a vicar-general that is called the Heart of Heaven[17] to perform the function of the tenth
house, which is not the case with the other methods, it remains for us then
to prove and establish the Rational Method and render it universal through
true and natural principles, which we may do as follows. In our Cabbala
of the Houses,[18]
it appears that in the natural division of the primum mobile into twelve parts or houses, with
respect to a man being born or to some place an the earth, it is necessary to
have some parts that rise above the horizon, others that descend beneath it,
and others that pass through the midst of the sky. Now, under the world's
poles, or at the equator, there is no part of the primum mobile that ascends
or descends, but one half of it is perpetually above the horizon and the
other perpetually beneath it, divided by the equator united at the horizon.
Then, it is impossible at the world's poles to make the division of the primum
mobile into twelve houses
for the celestial and astrological figure. But, as
soon as one moves out from under the poles, Nature, separating the equator
from the horizon, exposes to us the two principal circles necessary for such
a division, namely the horizon to divide the houses which must be above the
earth from those which are beneath, and the equator, of which one half is
found above the earth and the other beneath, to serve for the division of the
primum
mobile into twelve houses. Now, of
these two circles, it is not the horizon which must be divided, for each of
the houses is found partly above and partly below the earth, which we have
rejected above. It is then the equator, already divided by the horizon into
two equal parts. But which way will its division be continued? For Nature, in
this simple commencement, gives us only the two intersections of these two
circles and their two poles. Now, drawing great circles through these
intersections, they subdivide neither the equator nor the horizon. But if
through the two poles of the horizon and the equator that Nature furnishes
and indicates to us, one draws a great circle, which will be the meridian, it
will subdivide for us the equatorial circle, which is purely celestial and of
celestial virtue and influence, into four equal parts. For it is certain that
Nature does not give us these two points for nothing and that it would be a
transgression against the natural luminary to abandon them in order to take
others purely imaginary or without a solid house, since the two poles of the
equator and the ecliptic are appropriate only to this division. Now in
this way, we have already in the equator four principal or cardinal points:
one of them is in the east, another at mid sky or the meridian, another at
the west, and another at the bottom of the sky, different in virtue because
of the characteristics of the four cardinal houses at the point of which they
are found, namely houses 1, 10, 7, and 4, to which, through their essential
characteristics belong the rising, vigor, decline, and destruction[19]
of all that which Nature produces here below, which correspond for animals
and men with life, action, marriage, and suffering, [20] as we have said in our Cabbala of the houses. And
because each of these four points has two others in the equator, that are of
the same virtue or generic characteristic, namely those with which it is in
triplicity, it follows that this actual quaternary division of the equator
contains virtually the duodenary [division]; it needs only to be continued
and effected through the same points where the horizon and the meridian are
cut, and which have already made the quaternary and general division of the
equator, for it would only be confusion to continue it through other points
which would only be imaginary and without reason, as all this is proved in the
Astrologia
Gallica (Book 18). And so we
have given the true and natural foundations of the Rational Method, which
divides the equator into twelve equal parts by circles converging in a
section with the horizon and the meridian, of which there are six above and
six below the earth. It only
remains then for us to reply to the same objection made by two kinds of
persons, those who are enemies and entirely ignorant of astrology, and those
who are devotees of astrology but attached to false methods of the division
of the sky into twelve houses for the celestial figure. And their objection
is that at the arctic circle and above the sky cannot be divided by the
Rational Method when all the ecliptic is found in the horizon or in same
other circle of position. As for
the ignorant, no other response to them is necessary than that they are fools
that want to judge and render sentence on a thing that they are ignorant of,
even though they may be learned in other things. These are spirits who wish
to soar here without wings and to speak of the higher secrets of natural
philosophy, in order to make believe that there is nothing they don't know
about it, and yet they can only speak of astrology in such a way as to make
the learned laugh. But as
for those astrologers who are attached to some false method, like the Marquis
de Villennes with his Equal Method, for the practice of which there is no
remedy at the arctic circle and above when the ecliptic is found entirely in
the horizon, it is necessary to reply scientifically as follows. It is certain that the dodecatemories or
signs of the zodiac are divided among themselves by circles of latitude drawn
through the poles of the ecliptic, and, by consequence, extending from one
pole to the other. And it is likewise certain that the Moon, for example, is
the Ruler of Cancer,
from one pole to the other and not just of the arc of the ecliptic that
traverses this sign, although in this arc is found the greatest force of the
sign, since experience makes us see that the greatest virtue of the planets
is when they are in the ecliptic. And that appears from the fact that if a
planet[21] is in Cancer with a north latitude of 5 or 6 degrees, the Moon does
not leave off being its lord on that account. Thus, since the equator is the
circle that it is principally necessary to divide and since it is divided
into twelve equal parts by the six circles which distinguish the houses, it
is only necessary to find in the ecliptic the longitudes of the points that
divide the equator, that is to say the degrees of the ecliptic which
correspond to them in longitude, and one will have the sign that commences
each house, and consequently one will know the planet which is lord of the
sign. And this is why the Rational Method is universal, for one can find this
degree of the ecliptic for each house by the method that we have given in the
5th chapter of the 2nd section of the 18th book of the Astrologica Gallica,
and one will not have any sign intercepted in the whole figure.[22]
And as for the directions according to the Rational way, this method does not
change them or disturb them in any way because they must be made with regard
to the equator and not with regard to the ecliptic, although the arcs of
directions are afterwards referred to the ecliptic for the longitude. But
there is something to observe in this method, the principal of which I want
to put here. It is
that when the circle of position that begins a house is found cut by the
equator and by the ecliptic and the two sections belong to different signs,
the sign of the section of the ecliptic will indicate the principal lord of
the house, and the sign of the section of the equator will indicate the
second, of less importance. That which is not repugnant to experience and
must not be found strange, since in all the methods it happens almost always
that a house is ruled by several planets and that the one which rules the
point [cusp] of the house is judged to be the principal one.[23] And when
all of the ecliptic falls in the horizon, then the point where the equator
and the horizon cut themselves, which is the beginning of Aries and of Libra,
will indicate that Mars or Venus will rule principally at the ASCENDANT over
all the other planets. And if one asks who will then be the lord of houses
12, 11, 10, 2, and 3, since all the ecliptic is in the horizon, I reply that
the true lord of the house will be
the planet that presides at the point of
the equator cut by the circle of position of this house, and thus no
difficulty will remain.[24]
But in all the other methods rejected above, there will occur the same
inconvenience of all the ecliptic in the horizon preventing the division of
the sky and [the assignment of] the rulership of the planets in each house of
the sky, if one divides some circle other than the equator[25] and if the points of these divisions
are reduced to the ecliptic to find the lords of the houses, as I have done
above.[26] Whence one sees that the Rational
Method rendered universal, as above, must be preferred to all the others,
since it is the only one that Nature indicates to us and that experience
confirms above all the others. There is
still something left to say, and in particular how the planets and the fixed
stars are to be placed in these houses of the universal Rational Method and
how [the place of] the Part of Fortune is to be found. But all this is taught in the Astrologia
Gallica, and it would be too long to put it all here. Let us pass on
and leave the more speculative to dream upon what I have said, for I am quite
assured that they will find nothing any more solid, or any more reasonable,
nor anything more approved by experience, in accordance with which I have
carefully examined all the methods above, as one will see in the Astrologia
Gallica. Commentary by James H. Holden, FAFA (Translator) Morin's main theoretical objections to the
Equal House system are these: (1) it creates houses that are partly above the
earth and partly below the earth, thus violating a supposed dictum of Ptolemy,
and (2) its partisans continue to use the (astronomical) midheaven in
calculating primary directions. To these he adds a practical objection: he
has compared the house positions in a number of nativities calculated by both
the Equal House and Regiomontanus methods and found that those of the latter
system correspond more closely with the lives of the natives. The first
of these theoretical objections rests on shaky ground. Ptolemy does not
discuss house division specifically in either the Tetrabiblos or the Almagest. His only allusion to it is in Tetrabiblos
iii. 10 (Robbins's ed. and trans. in the Loeb Classical Library [iii. 11 in
the edition used by de Villennes and Morin]), where he defines the first aphetic
place as extending from 5
degrees above the eastern horizon to 25 degrees below it and the others as
being in dexter sextile, square, and trine to it, and in opposition to it,
thus defining the 11th, 10th, 9th, and 7th houses. It is an established fact
that Sign-House and Equal House division were standard at the time when
Ptolemy wrote. His statement is in perfect agreement with the Equal House
method of division. And it is hardly credible that the premier astronomer of
antiquity would have devised a totally new system of house division and never
bothered to mention it or to explain how to calculate the intermediate cusps. If then we assume that Ptolemy had the
Equal House system in mind when he wrote Chapter 10 of Book 3, his statement
"...the whole region below the earth must, as is reasonable, be
disregarded when a domination of such importance is roncerned..." must
be taken to refer to the ecliptic portion of the houses, where the planets
lie, and to be merely a simple way of referring to the houses above the
horizon as distinguished from those below. Morin’s second
theoretical objection is also weak. Some astrologers who used the Equal House
system did insert the astronomical MIDHEAVEN as a "special point"
and directed it (or directed planets to it). Cardan, for example. Morin says
that if they did this, were they not ipso facto admitting that it was the cusp of the 10th house? Not at all!
Many of the same astrologers calculated directions involving the Part of
Fortune. It was not used to define a house cusp. The astronomical MC could be
handled in the same way: a calculated point with astrological significance. Morin’s practical
objection is possibly more valid. The only way the question can be settled is
by comparing the results obtained by two
or more systems and determining which one gives the best results. Morin did
this and found in favor of the Regiomontanus system. Others have obtained
different results. The suspicion of favoritism always arises, Still, we have
here the testimony of a competent astrologer. One vote for Regiomontanus! Finally,
it is interesting to read Placidus's statement about his method of house
division. He says that his system (and his alone) is in accordance with what
Ptolemy really had in mind. 51. The twelve houses or mansions in
heaven, authors divide several ways, but they all disagree. Rejecting the
opinion of them all, we, with Ptolemy, distinguish them by the two temporal
hours; for so it is, that there is proportional and equal division, not
indeed of the heavenly and aerial space, but of the successive influx of the
stars and houses; and the Mundane rays appear equal and proportional. But it
is our opinion, that the division of the houses, by great circles passing
through the common sections of the horizon and meridian, and the twelve equal
divisions of the equator, which late authors make use of, are, of all, the
most remote from and abhorrent to natural truth.[27]
With this and other statements, Placidus trod heavily on the
Frenchman's toes. For not only did Placidus totally reject dividing the
houses by circles of position through the equator, but he also stated that he
never bothered with solar and lunar revolutions. His books appeared too close
to the end of Morin's life for Morin to mount a full-fledged attack against
him, but he did tack on a brief comment at the end of a chapter on
revolutions: Astrologia Gallica Book 23, Chapter 17 [p. 663, col. 2]
Besides which incidentally I caution [you]
to take note that from these [solar and lunar revolutions] I have
demonstrated how false and erroneous is that new doctrine of Didacus Prittus
Pelusiensis [Placidus] in his Astrological Theses,[28] where not only did he reject the
circles of position in erecting figures and directing significators, but,
over and above that, revolutions both annual and monthly, which he does not
even consider in his judgments.[29]
He promises demonstrations of his own doctrine, which are expected not as
demonstrations of verity (as I easily infer from his Theses), but as demonstrations of his own hallucination, which,
if I am not mistaken, having been made wiser he will suppress
Well, it didn't work out that way. The Regiomontanus system remained
the predominant system until the end of the 17th century. But in
Thus, the Regiomontanus system effectively died in the 17th century to
be replaced in the 19th by the system of Placidus. In the 20th century, we have seen a resurgence of the Equal
House system in England, an abortive effort to revive the Campanus system,
and the invention of two new systems, the Koch in Germany and the Topocentric
in Argentina, neither of which
makes any claim to be Ptolemaic. Certainly a turn of events that none of the
17th century astrologers could have foreseen.
Still, each system has proponents that claim near infallibility for
their favorite. Obviously, most of them are mistaken. REFERENCES Holden, James H. "Ancient House Division." Journal of Research of the American Federation of Astrologers 1 (1982): 19-28. Holden, James H. "House Division II." Journal of Research of the American Federation of Astrologers 5, no. 2 (Winter 1989): 33-51. Holden, James H. & Hughes, Robert A. Astrological Pioneers of (a biographical dictionary of American and selected foreign astrologers) Holden, Ralph William The Elements of House Division. Romford, Essex: L.N. Fowler & Co., 1977. Morin, Jean Baptiste Astrologia Gallica. [French Astrology] Morin, Jean Baptiste Astrologicarum domorum cabala detecta a Joanne Baptista Morino .... [The Cabbala of the Astrological Houses, Discovered by Jean Baptiste Morin .…] Remarques Astrologiques .... (with an intro., notes, and bibliography by Jacques Halbronn) Ptolemy, Claudius Tetrabiblos. Ed. & trans. by F.E Robbins Loeb Classical Library Sibly, Ebenezer A New and Complete Illustration of the Occult Sciences ... Sibly, Manoah Supplement to Placidus de Titus, containing the Nativity of Oliver Cromwell, calculated by Mr. John Partridge, M.D.; to which is prefixed Primum Mobile, or a com plete set of Tables. Titis, Placido de Astronomy and Elementary Philosophy, translated from the Latin of Placidus de Titus ... [by Manoah Sibly]. Titis, Placido de A Collection of Thirty Remarkable Nativities ... translated from the Latin ... [by Manoah Sibly]. Titis, Placido de Primum Mobile. Trans. by John Cooper (repr. in facs. with an intro. and bibliography by Michael Baigent) NOTE: This document is a
transcript of a paper published in the A.F.A. Journal of Research 6, no. 2 (Winter 1990): 19-35. The above material may
not be translated, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted,
reproduced, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the AFA and
the translator. © 2001-2009, ForumOnAstrology, LLC. All rights reserved. All trademarks are owned by the respective company. |
|
[1] French Astrology, the title of Morin's famous masterwork on astrology that
he had completed in MS but had not yet published at the time (1651-1656) when
he wrote the present 'Remarks.' As it turned out, his book was published
posthumously in 1661, [2]
This discovery was set forth in an early book by Morin, Astralogicarum domorum cabala detecta
a Joanne Baptista Morino... [The Cabbala of the Astrological Houses,
Discovered by Jean Baptiste Morin...] ( [3] This discussion of house division follows Morin's critique of Aphorism 37. [4] This term usually designates the method of Regiomontanus (1436-1476), but Morin uses it here to designate both the Regiomontanus system and his own variation of it, the so-called Morinus system. [5] The translator of Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos and pseudo-Ptolemy's KarpÙs or Centiloquy. [6] The so-called Hyleg. [7] The text has 'from the beginning of the ninth'. But Morin is speaking of the fact that the astronomical MC degree often falls in the 9th Equal house, and, as he alludes to next (by his use of the plural houses), in latitude 48 or above, it can even fall in the 11th house. [8] This is obviously a specious contention, since it could just as well be argued by a proponent of Equal House division that the Rational System disturbs the 'true' placement of the planets and throws them into the wrong houses. [9] That is, by the Equal House method. [10] It is possible, at or above the arctic circle, for the ecliptic to coincide momentarily with the horizon. At such a moment, what Morin says is true. However, the coincidence is instantaneous, and at all other times, there will be an ASC and a DSC, which will permit house cusps to be measured off at equal intervals. Morin's argument is therefore false. [11] In his discussion of Aphorism 97, Morin mentions that the Marquis had 0º30´ Sagittarius rising, which put his Moon in Libra in the 11th Equal house but in the 10th house by the Rational Method, and the 10th house position was more in accord with the Marquis's fortunes in Morin's opinion. [12] The first objection is true, but the second is false. The Porphyry system is a quadrant system and therefore shares the ASC and MC with the other quadrant systems, such as the Rational System. If there is an assignable MC and ASC, then obviously Porphyry intermediate cusps can be calculated. [13] Again, true and false, as in the preceding note. [14] The text has 'does', but I think Morin meant to say 'should'. [15]
This is the so-called ' [16] Something is missing from the text as it stands. I have added the words in square brackets to complete the sentence. [17] The name given by Cardan and others to the astronomical MC in their Equal House charts. [18] See Note 3 above. [19] In Latin, artus, vigor, declinatio and irteritus. [20] In Latin, vita, actio, coniugium, and passio. [21] The text has 'sign' by mistake. [22] Here Morin refers to his own system of house division, the so-called Morinus method, not the system of Regiomontanus. His discussion is somewhat confusing, since he calls his own system 'rational,' which term is also used to describe the Regiomontanus system. In the Astrologia Gallica he is more explicit and refers to the Regiomontanus system as the "ordinary rational system" and to his own as the "universal rational system." [23] Here he seems to refer to the cusps of the houses as determined by the Regiomontanus method and simultaneously by the Morinus method. In some cases the Regiomontanus cusp and the Morinus cusp of a particular house will fall in different signs. He says the Regiomontanus cusp ruler will be the principal lord of the house, and the Morinus cusp ruler will be a secondary lord. [24] The text seems to be somewhat muddled here, since the natural conclusion of this sentence is not marked. I have altered the following clause slightly in order to begin a new sentence at this point. [25] The text has 'ecliptic', but the context seems to call for 'equator'. [26] What Morin seems to be trying to say is that when the ecliptic falls exactly on the horizon, only a system that divides the equator equally and projects the divisions onto the ecliptic will yield house cusps. [27]
Placidus de Titis (1603-1669) Primum Mobile trans. by John Cooper ( [28] Theses 34 and 55, as numbered by John Cooper in his translation of the Primum Mobile. They are taken from Placidus's Quaestionum physiomathematicarum libri tres... (1650), Thesis 34 from Book 1 and Thesis 55 from Book 2. [29] In Observation 14 preceding the Thirty Remarkable Nativities, Placidus says he has not seen the revolutions taught by some astrologers, but cautions against "placing so great a value on them as some authors usually do.' This treatise forms part of his Tabulae Primi Mobilis, which was published in 1657, which was the year following Morin's death, but perhaps Placidus's earlier work had some similar remarks or else Morin had noticed that Placidus was silent on the subject of revolutions. [30] See the entries for Partridge, Placidus, and the Siblys in Holden & Hughes, Astrological Pioneers of America (Tempe, Ariz.; AFA Inc., 1988). |