Solar Eclipse conjunct natal North Node

Minderwiz

Moon/Jupiter 2009 - moved to Toronto and finally felt better; still here found a good job in Toronto and things started looking brighter.

Jupiter is on the third cusp of short journeys - and 'internal' travel We're still in the Moon phase though so the link to partnerships and marriage is still the main backdrop to events

Ronia said:
Moon/Mars 2010 - my marriage was over, emotionally and verbally we were separated, still I made a last attempt to save it moving back tot he city we lived before in the end of 2010 - big mistake; went on a summer vacation with my son and met someone very special for me, on a personal level but it was a chance meeting, nothing serious, however made me think of returning to my home country; still here my divorce was finalized and I moved back;

Given Mars' natal chondition and placement, it seems that this echoes what is going on in your life

Ronia said:
Moon/Sun - I'm still here since the end of 2011, I can't say anything is happening, it's a very tough period, still no job, very tough...

There seems to be echoes of your previous Sun sub period here with there being difficulties.

The Venus sub period begins next March so that shows some indication for improvement in the light of the previous Venus sub-period.

Ronia said:
Now, I'm not sure how to connect these to the Solar and Moon return charts? I'll need a bit of help, thank you!

I'm not sure either!!! :) ;) I'm running the idea past a couple of far more competent Astrologers than me. At the moment all I can say is that those 1994 charts at the beginning of the metonic period seem to highlight the same planets that mark the Firdaria in force for much of the period. If not exactly co-extensive, their dates are not far off.

There are one or two further time lord systems that might be interesting to look at in this connection so I might take a look at those to see if there's anything interesting and if there is get back to you.
 

Minderwiz

Liily the Siderealist???

This might well be of interest to Dave:

I've started reading Lilly's Annus Tenebrosus, dealing with Solar and Lunar eclipses. I have just read the following passage relating to the Solar Eclipse of 29th March 1652 (Old Style Date)

'Consider the stars rising or....at the point of greatest obscuration.This eclipse falling out in the 19th degree of Aries and some few minutes, is in the last part of that asterism we attribute to Pisces, of which Jupiter is the Lord'

and of the Cancer Ascendant, he says

There doth arise with the degree ascending a most notable fixed star of the first magnitude seated in the right shoulder of Orion of the nature of Mars and Mercury and these are in the last part of the Asterism of Gemini, whose governor is Mercury'

Lilly is clearly aware of precession of the equinoxes and uses the 'asterism' rulers in his astrological analysis of the eclipse, along with the sign' (tropical) rulers. In effect Lilly uses both sidereal and tropical zodiacs in his analysis.

This is the first time I've come across a Traditional Astrologer explicity drawing upon the sidereal zodiac It's clear from context that Lilly is using not just the longitudinal width of the constellations but a 30 degree segment to represent the 'asterisim'
 

dadsnook2000

1652 Solar Eclipse

This eclipse moved across the Arctic Ocean above Asia and Russia then cut South West over Scotland and southern Ireland and ended east of the Caribbean.
Start at 11:24 125 East, end at 09:08 (3 H west of Greenwich) near 050W 20N.

I'll have to look later today at details of the chart relative to the UK location. Dave
 

Minderwiz

1652 Charts

Dave,

These are the charts for the Eclipse, All are set for London, (as is Lilly's original)

1. Lilly's own (29 March OS)

2. Splar Fire Tropical (8 April NS)

3 Solar Fire Sidereal Same Date, Djwhal Kuhl)

Clearly the selection of the Ayanasma is arbitrary, but I chose one that agreed with Lilly's description. Most of the Sidereal ones give between 1 and 6 degrees of Cancer on the Ascendant, two only give a Gemini Ascendant. Lilly gives no information about an Ayanasma and most of the current ones were established well after Lilly's time.

The eclipse is in the tenth House, and given that that is the House of the king (well Lord Protector in this case) and it's the exaltation of the Sun, Lilly sees this eclipse as being of particular importance to governments. I've used Regiomontanus houses, to keep faith with Lilly's original but I think using Placidus will get the same results
 

Attachments

  • Lilly Solar Eclipse SQ.jpg
    Lilly Solar Eclipse SQ.jpg
    91.2 KB · Views: 199
  • Lilly Solar Eclipse NS.jpg
    Lilly Solar Eclipse NS.jpg
    59.5 KB · Views: 184
  • Lilly Solar Eclipse Sidereal.jpg
    Lilly Solar Eclipse Sidereal.jpg
    59.8 KB · Views: 189

Ronia

Minderwiz, thanks you for the comments. Yes, planets on cusps have something to say, I just focused on rulership and missed the point. I've never been sure about Mars in my chart. And never knew the Sun was playing such a nasty role, I've always liked my Sun. LOL

I've been digging in past SR charts to catch a trend related to the Firdaria but I can't really say I see it. I mean, the Firdaria works well as it seems, the SR charts I looked at (especially for clues about the Sun's role) sometimes look appropriate, sometimes not.

I dislike the 2014 SR though. If the Solar and Moon return indeed have influence over the next 19 years, then I'm not sure I like this influence. :(

I'm still wondering about the eclipse on the North Node and I haven't found anything to clarify it.
 

Minderwiz

Oops

Dave

Got to the end of Lilly's book and he does actually list the 'asterisms' it's clear that he does not see them as co-existent with 20 degree segments, all though that seemed the import earlier on.

He lists his longitudinal co-ordinates for each constellation. Whilst I won't bother to list them here, what I might do is see if I can find a modern version allowing for precession since Lilly's time ((just over 5 degrees)'

It's still the case that he is aware of precession given the obvious misalignment between the constellations and the signs. It's also a reasonably modern (since the start of Horoscopic Astrology) use of the constellations having Astrological significance.

Ronia

I'vw not come across anything other than the Lilly example I used earlier. I'll keep looking/reading though.
 

dadsnook2000

Sidereal Eclipse Chart

If I use Alderbaran at 15 Taurus to mark the Sidereal Zodiac, I get an Ascendant of 1:20 Cancer. This is as close as I can get to your chart's 27:43 Gemini. Setting 15 Taurus to the position of Alderbaran, one of the four primary fixed stars used to locate the Sidereal Zodiac in ancient times, is the most logical approach in my opinion for recent-past astrologers to use. If Lilly was conversant with "Sidereal" to any extent (in terms of written material from the past) then this might have been one of his choices. I don't see how (in my limited knowledge of the subject) he could have used any of the Indian base systems for fixing the Sidereal Zodiac.

Perhaps we can attribute his chart as being limited by his calculation skills or available information of the day. Or, since I have the Moon 0:04 minutes of arc behind the Sun, perhaps his LMT was off a bit. Adjusting the time to make for an exact conjunction, we would be moving the Ascendant forward two degrees or so for that 4 minutes of arc travel distance for the Moon. Still, we would be back or close to the 3 degrees Cancer given as the Ascendant using the Fagan-Bradley Sidereal marker. Dave
 

Minderwiz

If Lilly was conversant with "Sidereal" to any extent (in terms of written material from the past) then this might have been one of his choices. I don't see how (in my limited knowledge of the subject) he could have used any of the Indian base systems for fixing the Sidereal Zodiac.

He didn't use an Indian system, I did :) (as I noted in my post) - to get an Ascendant that fitted his description (though he did not give a degree of Gemini for the 'Ascendant'. In the body of his work he only assigns degrees to Signs - i.e the tropical zodiac. At the end of his book he gives the longitudes of the constellations and he quotes Gemini as being:

The first part of Gemini is from the 26th og Gemini to the sixth of Cancer The stars in this part are mostly harmful, yea even in our days

The middle part is from the sixth of Cancer to the fourteenth of Cancer, containing Saturnine stars in the arms and knees of the Twins, These are temperate inclining to dryness.

The latter are from the fourtheenth to the twenty fourth of Cancer, these are mixed and uncertain stars declining to dryness because of some Saturnine, some Martial and some Mercurian stars.


It is this latter part that he attributes to the Cancer Ascendant at 16 degrees 50 of Cancer

It's also clear from this whole list that he has no common factor for precession of the 'asterisms' as one would have for sidereal signs - for example he starts the 'asterism' of Aries at 28 degrees Aries as against the 26 degrees of Gemini where the 'asterism' of Gemini begins. The 'asterism' of Taurus on the other hand begins at 17degrees Taurus and continues to 25 Gemini, some 38 degrees. He's dealing with constellations on the ecloptic, not signs (either tropical of sidereal) here. And as I said in my last post I was wrong to say that he he seemed to use a sidereal zodiac as an alternative :(

Now all definitions of constellations are arbitrary in terms of longitude and latitude and indeed the Astronomical community have revised these several times since Lilly's day. So there are issues both in terms of his definition of the beginning and end points in themselves and the accuracy of scientific instruments of his day to measure these distances accurately (as you said) and indeed to measure time accurately - you will note that Lilly gives his chart a 16 degrees 50 Ascendant in Cancer and an MC of 15 degrees 46 Pisces. Solar Fire gives the Ascendant of 21 degrees 13 Cancer, and MC of 19 degrees 12 Pisces. or a little later than Lilly thought (assuming that modern computer algorithms accurately project backwards 360 years), or more likely there are small errors in his tables.


On the issue of the accuracy of measurement, the problem is compounded by how we define the beginning and end of these constellations. Lilly does advance a definition but he can't be blamed if Astronomers a couple of hundred years later chose to redefine those constellations. Where there are errors in measurement in the seventeenth century he's a victim of his time.

Should we use these definitions now? Only if we wish to check what a Lilly method prediction would look like compared to a modern prediction (though as there are a whole host of other differences between Lilly and a modern Astrologer, it's difficult to say that this will yield a major difference).

It's of course easier where Lilly mentions a particular star, because that stars modern placement can be identified and adjustments made for it's movement since Lilly's time.

My view is that he implicitly recognises precession but does not advance any reason for the discrepancies in the longitude of the constellations compared to the signs that he notes. Whether he does it in other works I don't know, it certainly does not occur in Christian Astrology but there is a third great work the 'Prophetical Merlin' which deals with Mundane Astrology and he might touch on it there. I've not seen that work in print but I'm hoping to get it at some point.
 

Ronia

I can only say by now, regarding the eclipse on my NN, that I bumped into my first boyfriend ever, someone I hadn't seen for 15 years or so. LOL I don't know what the significance of this is but it was a weird thing, really.