The sequence of the planets in the Egyptian bounds

When I got into traditional astrology some years ago, I came across a form of essential dignity called terms (or bounds). In short, each planet (with the exception of the Lights) is supposed to have dignity in certain degrees of every sign. What was strange about terms was that everybody said they worked, but the logic behind the table was lost in time and despite the efforts made by contemporary astrologers, no sufficient explanation could be given neither about the sequence of the planets nor about the number of the allotted degrees. What also creates a lot of difficulties is the fact that several tables of terms/bounds exist, especially variations of Ptolemy’s table. There doesn’t seem to be any disagreement among authors, however, regarding the sequence of the planets in the Egyptian bounds.

So, which table to use? That was left up to the individual, based on purely personal, therefore subjective, preferences. Those horary astrologers whose studies are based mostly on Lilly’s work, use Ptolemy’s terms (or at least Lilly’s variation of Ptolemy’s terms) usually with no questions asked. The Hellenistic astrologers prefer the Egyptian bounds, because they don’t like the changes (with the exception pf primary directions) Ptolemy made in Hellenistic astrology in general. The bizarre excuse Ptolemy offered that he found his own version of the terms in an old book of an unnamed author, didn’t help much either. I also started using the Egyptian bounds for the same reasons. It is extremely difficult to prove which set of terms works better, but if I could at least understand the sequence of the planets (forget about the number of degrees allotted), I would be satisfied.

Before we go any further, what are the obvious facts? Firstly, both Lights are excluded from this form of dignity and only the five planets have bounds.  Is there a reason behind this exclusion? I can’t really say if there is a deeper reason behind this, but the obvious reason seems to stem from the fact that the number of degrees each planet gets has to coincide with the number of the years they are allotted in traditional astrology. Which set of years however? The least, the mean or the greater one? Keeping in mind that the final number has to be 360 (the degrees of the whole zodiac), if you add up all the years in each set, only the mean set comes close to 360 (356 to be precise), but close is not exact. If you take out the degrees of the Lights however, the total of the number of greater years of the five planets is 360 (57+66+79+82+76 = 360).

Secondly, the malefics are primarily placed at the end of the signs (in both tables that is). Thirdly, just like in Ptolemy’s terms, Mars and Saturn seem to play the part of domicile ruler in Cancer and Leo accordingly, in view of the absence of the Sun and Moon. I would go even further and say that, as a result of the change of rulerships, Saturn’s sign of detriment (only for the bounds, naturally) is Aquarius and Mars’ is Capricorn. Finally, face rulership seems to play an important part in times of indecision.

Here is – in my opinion – the logic behind the sequence of the planets in the Egyptian bounds.

Sequence of the planets

1)                  The first column is a place for what I call the triplicity almuten, that is the planet that has the most dignity in all three signs of a single triplicity. In the fire triplicity, with the absence of the Sun, the most dignified planet there is Jupiter (domicile rulership in Sagittarius and triplicity rulership by night). In the water triplicity, Mars is the most dignified planet because he has two domicile rulerships (Cancer, Scorpio) and triplicity rulership by night. Since Saturn doesn’t rule Aquarius, Mercury is the most dignified planet in the air triplicity (domicile rulership in Gemini and triplicity rulership by night). Saturn has exaltation and triplicity rulership, but domicile rulership tops exaltation. Finally, in the earth triplicity Mercury is again the overall triplicity ruler (rulership and exaltation in Virgo). Venus has domicile and triplicity rulership in the earth signs, but exaltation is preferred over triplicity and Mercury wins. However, if there is a planet that has double major dignity in a particular sign, then that planet is preferred for that sign only. 

More specifically: 

Jupiter is given 1^st place in all the fire signs because he is the triplicity almuten and there is no other planet in any of the three signs capable to outshine him. 

Mercury is the triplicity almuten in the earth signs, so he is given the 1^st place in the earth signs with the exception of Taurus, where Venus is preferred because she has double dignity in Taurus (domicile rulership and triplicity rulership).  

Mercury is given 1^st place in the air signs with the exception of Libra where Saturn is preferred because he has double dignity there (exaltation and triplicity rulership).

Mars is the triplicity almuten in water, so he is given 1^st place there with the exception of Pisces, where Venus has double dignity (exaltation and triplicity rulership).

2)                  The second column is the column of the benefics. Only Venus or Jupiter can be placed here, unless the triplicity almuten wasn’t used in the first column and has to be placed here. However, if the triplicity almuten that wasn’t used in the first column is a malefic, he can’t be used, as this is a place only for benefics. In case neither benefic was used in the first column, we choose the benefic that is a face ruler in that particular sign.

So, in all the fire signs the only choice is Venus, because she is the only benefic left, as Jupiter was used in the first column in all three signs. In the earth signs: Mercury, the triplicity almuten, wasn’t used in the first column in Taurus, because of Venus’ double dignity. So, he will take second place. In Virgo and Capricorn we have to make a choice between Venus and Jupiter. Venus is preferred in Virgo and Jupiter in Capricorn (face rulers). In the air signs: In Libra, Mercury, the triplicity almuten, wasn’t used because of Saturn’s double dignity, so he takes second place. In Gemini and Aquarius we have to make a choice between Venus and Jupiter. In Gemini, Jupiter is preferred and in Aquarius, Venus (face rulers). In the water signs: In Pisces, Venus took first place, so only one benefic is left, Jupiter, who takes second place. Mars, the triplicity almuten can’t be used here, as he is a malefic. In Cancer and Scorpio we have to make a choice between Venus and Jupiter. In both cases, Venus is the face ruler, so she takes second place.

3)                  The third column is the column of the non-malefic planet that is still left. In case two non-malefic planets are still left, the face ruler is again preferred. 

In the fire signs, Mercury is the only non-malefic planet left, so he gets third place in Sagittarius and Aries. In Leo, however, Saturn takes third place, because as Leo’s ruler, he functions as a non-malefic in this sign and therefore we have two non-malefics left, Saturn and Mercury. Saturn, as a face ruler, gets third place. In the earth signs, the non-malefic planet still left is used. In the air signs the same, but in Libra we have two non-malefics still left, Venus and Jupiter. Jupiter will be used as he is the face ruler.  Water signs: In Pisces, the non-malefic still left, Mercury, is used. In Cancer and Scorpio, we have two non-malefics still left. In Cancer, Mercury prevails as the face ruler. In Scorpio, neither Mercury nor Jupiter is a face ruler. Jupiter, as a superior planet, will take 4^th place (the last two columns befit more the superior planets) and Mercury will take third place.

4)                  The last two columns are places of the malefics. The non-malefic still left will take 4^th place.

In Cancer, Leo and Libra we have a non-malefic still left, so they will take 4^th place. Between Mars and Saturn, the general order is Mars (the less superior) in the 4^th place and Saturn in the 5^th, unless Saturn is a face ruler and in that case he will take 4^th place (Taurus, Sagittarius). In Pisces, they are both face rulers, so the general order is kept and that is also the case in Aquarius, where neither of them is a face ruler. Capricorn is a special case here. Since Mars is a face ruler in Capricorn, he should have taken 4^th place, but that isn’t the case. If this isn’t a mistake, it may be that detriment was taken into account here. Mars, by ruling Cancer, is in detriment in Capricorn and so he takes last place as the greater malefic in this particular sign. The fact that Saturn takes last place in Aquarius, where one perhaps would expect him to take 4^th place, in spite of him not having face rulership there, also corroborates this.

An interview with Barbara Dunn

Barbara Dunn has recently hosted a horary astrology workshop in Athens during the alterscope festival and gladly gave the organisers an interview where she also announces my appointment as a QHP Head Tutor for greek-speaking students. 


-How did you get into astrology?

The reason for studying astrology arose out of my search for explanations as to why some people seem to lead such fortunate lives, while some others don’t. I could not accept that good fortune, misfortune, good health or poor health were simply random phenomena. I was hoping that astrology could explain that unfairness, or at least confirm it. That was when I decided to study it in a serious manner.

-What kind of studies did you do?

I initially studied at the Faculty of Astrological Studies and received their Diploma, but I became disillusioned fairly soon. The sort of astrology I was taught had very little to do with prediction. Instead it felt as if astrology simply consisted of some vague notions and ideas. It certainly had no rigour in its theory, nor was it underpinned by any coherent methodology. I didn’t feel I was learning anything important until I came across Olivia Barclay’s Qualifying Horary Practitioner course (QHP). After completing the QHP I became a Tutor and subsequently Head Tutor. The QHP was the very first horary course in the world, established in 1984 and taught world-wide. All teachers of the main schools of horary astrology around the world today were once students of Olivia Barclay.

 -Based on the answers you got from your studies, how do you stand on the issue of fate vs free will?

Olivia Barclay used to say that the planets even determine the time we go to the loo! (Laughs) I don’t know if I can adopt this view, which is perhaps quite extreme. Yet I am certainly open to discussion. Having said that, I have yet to hear a convincing argument in favour of free will. In fact, drawing on many years of experience as an astrologer, the indications appear to be that astrology and free will are incompatible. If an astrologer is able to make a clear and unambiguous prediction from an astrological figure (chart), how can it be possible to have free will? 

-How did you succeed Olivia Barclay?

As Head Tutor, I was teaching by her side for many years. When she died in 2001, she left me the QHP course and her vast collection of books, among which was William Lilly’s Christian Astrology in three volumes. She had bought these books many years previously for about 25 pounds. All Olivia’s students were taught using photocopied editions of these very books, published by Regulus Publishing in the UK. The truth is that we horary astrologers are much indebted to both William Lilly and to Olivia Barclay. Both the QHP and my traditional/horary astrology book, Horary Astrology Re-Examined: The Possibility or Impossibility of the Matter Propounded are recommended by Robert Hand for all serious students of astrology.

- What do you think about modern astrology?

I’m afraid that modern astrology isn’t exactly astrology. Very often modern astrology is a combination of some type of astrology and some other discipline, for instance psychology. I’m not saying that such theories and their symbolism have no value, nor that ‘psychological-astrology’ is not a useful counselling tool. However, in reality this is a sort of hybrid, which certainly should not be given the name astrology. 

-What do you say to people that claim that since the world has changed and evolved, so must our astrology?

Have the planets and the luminaries changed their orbits or locations over recent centuries? No. So why should their influence change? Furthermore, why change something that works? If you think it doesn’t work, are you sure you have used the techniques correctly? Ancient authors also had differences of opinion in certain matters, but not one of them attempted to change the fundamentals and create their own astrology. I’m not referring only to modern ‘psychological’ astrologers here, but also to some astrologers who claim to practice traditional astrology, yet feel the need to make serious modifications to traditional theory. I don’t think we have the necessary experience to challenge 2000 years of accumulated wisdom. Naturally, everybody is free to do whatever they want, but I would rather they didn’t claim their personal theories are part of the tradition.

 -What do you plan for the future?

I would like to expand the QHP course to non-English speaking territories, such as Greece and Cyprus. I’m hiring tutors at the moment and I am delighted to have appointed Petros Eleftheriadis as Head Tutor for all Greek-speaking students. He speaks the astrological language of our predecessors and I am very happy to have him on board. I’m certain that Olivia Barclay would have been thrilled at the prospect: the return of this ancient knowledge to a place where it developed and flourished. I also plan to publish a new book, specifically designed for the Certificate level of the QHP, which is going to appear in both English and Greek.

I would also like to organise some weekend courses in London, or perhaps abroad, something that I’ve been thinking about for quite some time. On a more personal level, I’m currently researching medical astrology at the University of Exeter and in terms of my research findings I am collaborating with the University of Cambridge. I am focusing primarily on the work of Simon Forman and Richard Napier, a most
interesting project. 

-Thank you very much!

Thank you for inviting me to your beautiful country and for your amazing hospitality!

Joan Rivers horary: Different approaches yield the same result

This is the chart that I cast for Joan Rivers when I found out that she was in a coma:

"Will Joan Rivers die?"

1st approach = General condition of the chart. Is it a fortunate or an unfortunate chart? No need to turn the chart.

It is a VERY unfortunate chart. The malefics are angular, while the benefics are in aversion to the ascendant and square the malefics. Saturn, the Greater Malefic, is a significator. The Moon is in fall and the nastiest testimony of all is that she is applying to conjunct a peregrine Saturn, which is a very negative testimony in ANY chart, no matter what the question is, regardless of whether Saturn is a significator or not. It would take lots of positive testimony elsewhere in the chart to override this. Saturn is the natural significator of old people and death (also here the ruler of the ascendant) and he's the Moon's next aspect. End of story. 

2nd approach = Turning the chart and finding specific significators for querent and quesited. Planets in houses are not rulers of houses, nor co-rulers.

I am the querent, so I get the 1st house and since I have no personal connection with Joan Rivers, she belongs to the 7th house. Death is the radical 8th house ruler or the turned 8th house ruler (although personally I don't like this, either you turn the chart or you don't). Joan Rivers is the Moon in fall, applying to conjunct the turned 8th house ruler, Saturn. End of story.

3rd approach = Whole sign houses. Planets in houses are co-significators. No need to turn the chart.

Joan Rivers is Saturn the 1st house ruler and her death is the Sun (8th house ruler) and also Venus and Jupiter who are posited there. The Moon is translating light from Jupiter (death) to Saturn (Rivers). End of story.

4th approach = Not turning the chart and using outer planets

Same as above, only in this case the Moon is separating from Pluto (death) and applying to Saturn (Rivers). Pluto is also conjunct the Ascendant.

The timing seems to be a day off (it's less than three degrees here and she died less than four days later), but a day before she was pronounced dead, she was moved from the intensive care and taken to a private room. I think she was already gone by then and the official time of death is the time they took her off life support.

My point here is: Stop being so fanatic about the method you prefer, by simply saying "But my method consistently works!" Unless you've tried many different approaches over time, this statement doesn't mean anything. Anything at all. Perhaps there is another method out there which works more consistently than yours, how would you know?

Paul Walker's tragic death and chart rectification

We don't have a birth time for Paul Walker (at least I don't) so I'll "play around" with his chart and try to find one possible birth time. I do not know much about him, so I'm going to rely on two major events in his life that are known to everybody. His death yesterday (30th November 2013) and his big breakthough with the first film of the Fast and Furious series, in 2001. Naturally, two events, however major, are hardly sufficient to provide any certainty about the birth time, but let's give it a shot.



Let's start with the time of death. If we follow Ptolemy, the primary candidates as killing planets are Saturn and Mars. In Paul Walker's chart they are both in a severely debilitated state. Saturn is in detriment and conjunct the South Node and Mars is also in detriment in Taurus. We see that around 40 years of age (a little more, a little less -depending on which method of calculation you prefer) we have the direction of the Sun (19o49' Virgo) to the the square of Mars (8o54' Leo). You can already see that the zodiacal distance between these two points is around 41 degrees. Of course we need the distance in right ascension here, but it's not going to be a lot different than 41, in fact somewhat less. This direction also seems to fit the manner of Walker's death, as he died in a fiery car crash (Mars, a fiery planet that rules machines).

However, this means that the Sun must be the hyleg. In order to satisfy most of the methods on how to identify the hyleg, we should make Walker's nativity a diurnal one and we must avoid the 9th, 8th, 12th and perhaps 7th (where the Sun sets) houses of the chart, which leaves us with the 10th and 11th houses.

We also know that Walker became famous in 2001 with the release of the first Fast and Furious film. If we put the Sun in the 10th house, there doesn't seem to be an obvious and important direction for such a significant event that changed his life. If we put the Sun, however, in the 11th house, that would place Leo in the 10th and the Sun would be its ruler. So, a primary direction of the Sun to the conjunction of the Midheaven would give us the desired result. Based on that direction, we would have an MC at 20o53' Leo and an ascendant at 14o24' Scorpio. With these placements, both events are covered.

Does it fit generally, however? It seems that it does. A Scorpio ascendant would give us Mars as its ruler, which, in turn, would be angular in the 7th house and in detriment. This fact alone, signals danger.  This year's solar return has Mars (in Leo!) conjunct the ascendant and square Saturn in Scorpio. The lunar return has Sagittarius ascending with Jupiter retrograde in Cancer in the 8th house! Finally, Saturn is currently conjunct this ascendant.

Feel free to comment, particularly if you disagree or have another birth time to propose.

Free will and predestination

John Frawley has written a very interesting article about the so-called battle between free will and fate, but I think there are some issues that are left unclear, to me at least. Here are two paragraphs from the article:

"Much the same can be said of prediction. When we predict we are in a sense looking into the little book that is eternity, because we’re not looking at life as a straight line of which we know only the particular point where we are right now. When we predict, we’re looking at the life as something the whole of which exists now. Else we wouldn’t be able to see it. The whole movie is in the can. Hence the fact we can look anywhere we want in that life. It’s a bit like a photo album. You have a photo album covering 20 years of your life, and you can open that album wherever you like. Those 20 years in a sense exist now, completely. Both prediction and prayer assume that the whole of our life exists in much the same way as those 20 years in the photo album, the only difference being that the photo album exists only after we apparently perceive the life, whereas the prayer and prediction seem to us to exist only before we experience it. But because before and after are things we perceive only because of our position within the constraints of time, they are not necessarily to be taken too seriously. Before and after are not necessarily the determining words on the subject."

"Our situation regarding prediction and the apparent contradiction between free will and predestination, is not the situation of the one watching the movie and wondering what’s going to happen next. Our situation is that of the person in the movie. We are Rick, wondering if it will be him or Victor Lazlo getting on the plane with Ilsa. What will I choose to do? Rick has his free will. It’s his choice whether it’s him or Lazlo who gets on the plane. But - the decision has already been made. The movie’s in the can. Yet only by exercising his own free will does the movie unfold as it must do, as it can only do, as it will inevitably do. The predestination (the movie being in the can) is obtainable only by Rick exercising his free will. "

The whole article can be found here: 

http://www.real-astrology.com/js/ckeditor/kcfinder/upload/files/Fate_Free_Will_.pdf

1) So, we as astrologers do not predict, because there is no such thing as a past and a future. Everything already exists, therefore we cannot make a prediction in the literal sense of the word, because we are not seeing something in the chart that "will happen", but simply something that is part of our script. We are just stating a fact. So far so good.

2) We, as people, do not know the script beforehand, because that would be extremely unpleasant. Look at Jesus, John says. He knew his script beforehand and he didn't like it, at least parts of it. He played it out of course, because that is the only possible "choice" for everybody, but it was unpleasant nonetheless. So, what are we doing as astrologers? Why are we trying to find out about what the various scripts say? Are we making our lives - and other people's lives for that matter - unpleasant? Should we stop? Can we stop? Naturally, what we will eventually do (stop or don't stop), will be determined by our script, but if we consider astrology to be a divine art, isn't that perhaps what we are supposed to do? Shouldn't we try to emulate Jesus? Can it be that this is our purpose, that is, to find out all we can about our script, despite the potential unpleasantness?

3) John finally says that the script can only come to life by us exercising our free will. Curious choice of words here and this is the part that is unclear to me. By free will does he mean conscious action? That I can understand.  My "choice" is written in the script, but this choice has to be acted upon, it has to be realized. The script has to become a movie, it can't just stay simply words on paper forever. But free will? What does he mean by that? Isn't that an illusion? I can only call it free will, if I do not know that a script exists. But I'm deluding myself because a script does exist. And even if I do know my script by heart (Jesus), I still have to play it out, regardless of whether I like it or not. Can this be called free? I can't help but remember Cypher from the first Matrix, who got out of the Matrix, only to realize that freedom is an illusion. "You call this free?" he told Trinity. Trinity failed to respond.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWaodAu6uLM

Serena Williams

She could be the greatest female tennis player of all time. She is only two grand slams away from the all time record, currently held by both Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova. What Steffi Graf, who is considered by most as the best player ever, couldn't accomplish, seems to be an easy task for Serena. Her chart, however, at first glance doesn't seem to promise greatness with all those 6th house planets, her temperament (a phlegmatic/melancholic tennis champion? Really?) the Moon in very poor condition and two planets in detriment or fall, one of them the ruler of the ascendant, no less. What is going on here?

Granted, she's had more than her fair share of injuries and she's had to stay away from the game for sometimes long periods of time, which explains the loaded 6th house. She also does seem to have a slow movement and tries to save energy by ending the point with a powerful stroke, instead of getting into a long set of rallies, which could partially explain the cold temperament. She's had problems with her weight, a common characteristic of a phlegmatic temperament. She's suffered from a bout of depression (melancholic temperament), but that was after the violent death of her half-sister, Yetunde, which is understandable. And finally, she does give the impression that she would rather compete only in slams, because all the other tournaments bore her enormously. Where, however, does she derive her heat and power from?

I think most of it comes from that very powerful square between Venus and Mars. Venus, the ruler of the ascendant and ruler of all those planets in Libra, is in detriment, yes, but she's also in that quite rare (for Venus) and very fortunate state of hayz. She's a nocturnal planet, in a nocturnal chart, nocturnally placed in a nocturnal sign. Because Venus is so close to the Sun, she's almost always diurnally placed, where the Sun is, that is. So it's not easy for her to be in hayz. Serena's Venus however, is, which strengthens this Venus a lot. What's more, Venus is in her own terms (the best place for a Venus in Scorpio to be) and there's a mutual reception between Venus and Mars (domicile/terms) which helps to make the square less of a problem. Mars, an extremely hot and dry planet by nature, is in Leo here, which makes him even hotter and drier. So this Venus receives, quite willingly, a lot of fixed fire. Hence the power. Mars is also the co-almuten of the 10th house (exaltation and face ruler) and by being placed in the 5th house, makes the connection between sports and profession.

Serena, at 32,  is currently the oldest female player ever to be No 1 in the ATP rankings. It would be interesting to watch her break many more records in the future, if she manages to stay injury-free.

Venus in water (Cancer, Scorpio, Pisces)

Venus is quite comfortable in the element of water. She is a cold and moist planet and water is cold and moist. Although Venus by herself is not particularly emotional, emotions tend to be an integral part of relationships and they are a sort of a by-product when two people are brought together.

Venus in Cancer = Not bad, but not a very good Venus either. That’s because this tends to be a clinging Venus with a sort of childish emotionality. Easily hurt, with a tendency to brood and sulk and that can put off a great number of people, who soon realize that she can’t stand a healthy - and sometimes necessary - dose of conflict. The problem is that when this Venus gets romantically involved, the other person automatically becomes a member of the family. And members of the family stay together, no matter what. That can be a great burden for the other person, who may want more freedom in a relationship and may hate always being on their toes for fear of saying or doing something that might hurt this sensitive Venus. The good side of this Venus is that she is extremely nurturing and takes great care of her loved ones, but this can also be a great burden sometimes.

Venus in Scorpio = This Venus is highly problematic and that’s because she finds herself in a sign that is totally contrary to her nature. Where Venus wants harmony and balance, Scorpio wants poisonous passion. Mars, the planet that rules Aries and Scorpio, is not a planet of relationships. He doesn’t understand them, or rather, the need for them. Passion yes, can be very interesting for Mars, because it’s something that sends the adrenalin sky high. Passions however, have a sell-by date and then a new person has to come along to stir up the passion once again. It's a sad fact that love and passion rarely have anything in common. Love is loving the other person, passion is loving what the other person makes YOU feel. So we cannot talk seriously about love for this Venus, although, to be fair, it is slightly better than Venus in Aries, because Scorpio is a fixed sign and an emotional one. Relationships may last with Venus in Scorpio, but they can never be peaceful, relaxing and enjoyable, because Scorpio can’t survive without tension.

Venus in Pisces = This is the third best Venus, after Venus in Taurus and Venus in Libra. This Venus represents the emotional part that emerges from a relationship. Pisces is a place where Venus can pretend to be all about feelings without her usual possessiveness (Taurus) or need for rules (Libra). This is why astrology authors usually call her an idealistic Venus, because she tends to have an idealistic view about love matters and often chooses to ignore the down-to-earth reality of the other person. Some authors call her promiscuous, but, if this is so, I think it is either because she's often coupled with an Aries Sun or because she finds it difficult to turn people down for fear of hurting them or because she wants to save them through love (or sex). Anyway, this is a very good Venus and despite the problems that arise sometimes, this is usually a Venus that can love and respect the other person's needs. Need we ask for anything more?