ASTROLOGIA MUNDA - Classical Astrologer Weblog

Book IV – Astrologia Munda
Introduction
the throne of some Dynasty. A «Beginning» could have been the chart of a
lunation just prior to, or just following a specific ingress or when the Sun
entered every sign. Another type of «Beginning» chart was the chart of any
particular conjunction at the moment of the conjunction. Not all «Beginnings»
occurred in the Aries ingress so it is quite possible for the Sun to be in any
number of signs!
2.) The planet had lordship of the year (the Lord of the Year) or it had lordship
of the time distribution. This particular reference does specify the planet as
Lord of the Year in which we are also specifically speaking of the annual
ingress chart. But he also says, if it had lordship of the time distribution. That
could be if it happened to be lord of the profected ascendant in some beginning
chart, lord of the dawr or Firdar etc.
3.) Finally, if the planet were joined at some time to either of the Moon’s nodes
or some comet in a particular sign, then the indications he lists were also
relevant.
Certainly, some of these instances would be judged for the chart of the Sun’s
entrance into Aries, but not all! Because Abu Ma’shār is listing indications for
diverse instances and circumstances, not just the annual Revolution, then he
necessarily must also list the Sun for the instances it is not during an annual
Revolution, but perhaps a «Beginning» chart that was cast at some other time
than just the Sun’s ingress into Aries! The chart of an eclipse is a good example
of this since it is a lunation «Beginning» chart that could fall at any time within
a year when the Sun could have been in any of the 12 signs and had
predominance over the Ascendant of that eclipse or lunation!
Ramesey’s condemnation is based on taking something out of context of what
Abu Ma’shār was saying, i.e. if one of any of these possibilities! Ramesey,
apparently following Bonatti, makes it exclusive to the Lord of the Year in an
annual Revolution while Abu Ma’shār most certainly did not!
That is why I say that while I agree with Ramesey that we should not witlessly
recite some liturgy of the ancients, we better make certain that we have
understood the entire matter before judging their delineations.
What is perhaps a short-coming of Ramesey’s work is that rather than try to
specifically explain his difference of opinion by examining the basis of the
ancients reasoning, he wants us to just ignore them and use his own reasoning.
11