ASTROLOGIA MUNDA - Classical Astrologer Weblog
ASTROLOGIA MUNDA - Classical Astrologer Weblog
ASTROLOGIA MUNDA - Classical Astrologer Weblog
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Book IV – Astrologia Munda<br />
Section III – Chapter III<br />
break of day, the Sun is to be considered in the same manner as you have been<br />
shown, and not the Moon, it being so near to the day-breaking. And over and<br />
above what has been delivered to you, you are in the consideration of the<br />
strength of either the Sun or Moon, to see if either of them is to suffer an<br />
eclipse during the time of that Revolution and if so, to look at the place thereof,<br />
i.e. in what house of heaven, in what sign and degree of the zodiac, and the<br />
Almuten of those places, and the state of those planets in configuration with<br />
him, or the place of the eclipse, i.e. whether they are strong or weak, good or<br />
bad, and accordingly judge. But more of this in the next section wherein we<br />
shall treat of eclipses.<br />
[Considerations from the Lord of the Hour, Part of Fortune and is dispositor]<br />
Again, you must know that in every Revolution the Lord of the Hour, or planet<br />
ruling the time in which the Revolution is made, is to be regarded, as also <br />
Part of Fortune and its dispositor. For if, they are well dignified, well placed<br />
and aspected of the fortunate and adjuvant planets, you may assuredly conclude<br />
that the good signified by the Lord of the Year, or significator of the King, shall<br />
be augmented if the Lord of the Year or significator of the King denotes any<br />
good. But if they 1 portend evil and the Lord of the Year, Part of Fortune and<br />
dispositor is also ill disposed, unfortunate and weak, the mischief will also be<br />
augmented. But if, then, the Lord of the Hour, Part of Fortune and its dispositor<br />
are strong, the mischief will be diminished, and so the contrary if they may be<br />
weak and the Lord of the Year 2 strong, they 3 shall diminish the good signified<br />
by them. 4<br />
circle means it has finished its circle and no longer visible. As long as the Sun is above the horizon, it<br />
has not finished its course and it [not just its light] is visible! So I disagree with Ramesey. If the Sun<br />
has set below the horizon, it has handed over the ‘vault’ of heaven to the Moon even if his light may<br />
still exist above the horizon. That is something different; i.e. its light still existing above the horizon<br />
even though it has finished its course and has set! The same is also true of daybreak! While<br />
Ramesey says we should consider the chart diurnal if it is about one hour to sunrise, it is not sunrise<br />
until the Sun rises above the horizon. In the matter of sect, whether the chart is diurnal or nocturnal it<br />
is much more correct to use the ancient’s conception of when that was rather than Ramesey’s since<br />
it was the their conception [sect], not Ramesey’s.<br />
1 Ramesey is without doubt referring once again to the Lord of the Hour and the Part of Fortune and<br />
its dispositor. ‘They’ is more than likely a slip of the pen since he in the same sentence refers the<br />
reader to both the Lord of the Year then the Part of Fortune and its Lord! In the beginning of this<br />
paragraph, he refers the reader to the Lord of the Hour, the Part of Fortune and its Lord!<br />
2 NOTE BY RAMESEY: and also the significator of the King.<br />
3 I.e. the Lord of the Hour, the Lot of Fortune and its Lord<br />
4 I.e. the Lord of the Year or the significator of the King<br />
150