Bored with CCA.

Starting Morin book 21 Horoscope Interpretation. Technically this needs other bo

oks to be read before, but hey we can always do a 'spike'. So
Morin's Language, like Lilly's is very odd to the modern ear. Since the text was
translated from Latin, there is a certain formality, and since it was written
long ago, there are all kinds of weird (to the modern eye) concepts, e.g: the id
ea that Adam and Noah had a 'pure' astrlology which was then corrupted by the Gr
eeks etc.
Preface:
Morin says that ancient astrologers got the principles of prediction wrong, beca
use they either invented stuff unfounded in nature (in which he includes decans,
arabic parts, lots, the annual, monthly, diurnal directions) or they used princ
iples which were founded in nature, but only partly understood or wrongly unders
tood (like universal significators). Example used = Sun as denoting father, hon
or etc.
Morin says (I think, this is quite confusing) that while the *Universal* signifi
cance of the Sun includes Father and honors, it is wrong to evaluate the 'state'
of the Father in a natal horoscope by evaluating the Sun (this is exactly how V
edic astrology does this heh heh)
Morin says (again i *think* this is what he is saying, this is very confusing la
nguage) what a planet denotes in a horoscope can be understood only via his 'ru
les of determination' based on house occupation and rulership and aspects, (wha
t about signs?) and not on universal signification.
In a very confusing paragraph Morin *seems to be saying* that Ptolemy discarded
an 'old method' (which did involve judging planets by house position, house rule
rship, and aspects to rulers of houses) and created a new method involving the u
niversal significations of planets (So Sun always indicates health etc as per Pt
olemy). The contrast he draws with judging health from Sun, is (the old method)
of judging length of life from the condition of Ascendant and its ruler (??)
(skimming the books so lots of stuff skipped. I'll skim read once, then re read)

On page 15: Morin gives a specific example. In his horoscope the Sun is in the 1
2th and conjunct Jupiter. He says that this Sun does *not* refer to his father (
who has done him no harm) but to Cardinal Richelieu who is his (Morin's) enemy.

(lots skipped, needs a re read now skimming)

(page 25)
Morin says that the 'first determination' of a planet occurs via the sign it occ

upies. The Sun (say) and Aries( say) 'determine' each other's influence. Morin s
eems to say that Mars also 'determines' (and is 'determined' by) the Sun's prese
nce in Aries, since the sign (Aries) and its ruler (Mars) have the same 'nature.
Morin also says that when a planet (say Saturn) conjuncts another (say Mars) or
a fixed Star (Oculus Taurus aka Aldebaran) they 'modify each other as if they
were partners in the same action' - this is the second determination, but this
effect is still generic to the whole world (even when the nature of the aspect i
s factored in) , and *not* particular to an individual.
Morin says that ancient aphorisms of planets took into account only these two 'd
eterminations' but erred by treating them not as celestial state , i.e applicabl
e to everyone, but rather applied them to individual nativities. Morin's stand
is that a given celestial state of a planet - occupying a sign, and in aspect to
other planets and fixed stars - can "assist *or* vitiate" (emphasise mine) the
particular action of that planet on a specific individual (not necessarily a hum
an, also a horse or metal)
Morin then says that the individual nature of the "recipient" of this planetary
influence can change the 'impact'. And then also by the specific house the plan
etary influence 'falls in'.
The houses affect the planets in four ways
1. location (i.e which house) 2. dignity (isn't this a sign based thing?) 3. ant
i scion 4. aspect (House based aspect? )
(lots of complex stuff skipped)
celestial = sign occupied by planet, ruler to which planet is subordinate (not s
ame as sign ruler?) and aspects with other planets
terrestrial = location in house + rulership (in 4 ways as above) of other houses
Morin emphasizes that we should evaluate both terrestrial and celestial states o
f planets. If only celestial state (and aphorisms based on them) are relied upon
, then a universal state is 'force fitted' to an individual, (Sun as father etc)
generating an error.
Conversely if terrestrial state only is evaluated, then also erroneous readings
are generated since the celestial state is what is 'stepped down' by the terrest
rial determinants.
[skimmed upto page 32 of 109]
Time to go deep into Morin. Reading paragraph by paragraph. Will try to do 3-5 p
aragraphs a day.
1. unusual (perhaps usual in those days, or perhaps an artifact of the translat
ion from Latin)
'universal' is treated as == 'innate, non specialized'. So the Sun's 'universal
effect' is to pour forth heat and light. also called (confusingly) the particula

r effect of the Sun. Also confusing called "formal effect" (of the Sun)
2. "Accidental" effects are those which also involve a receiver who specializes
the 'universal' effect. Thus the Sun's influence works one way for person X, and
another way for person Y or animal Z.
The 'universal cause' 'determines' (i.e the UC being in a particular point in ho
roscope indicates) the effect on the receiver (though the nature and actions of
the receiver can also change/modify this).
3. Morin sees the Celestial Sphere itself as a Universal Cause along
s etc. (But it isn't clear what this means in practice). As far as I
t, Morin's position is that heat, light etc are intrinsic to the Sun
lemental (Fire) nature, but *celestial* effects (health, wealth etc)
by the Sun appearing in specific *houses* (or at least that is what
is saying, this is pretty dense writing)

with planet
can make ou
and of an e
happen only
I think he

4. Morin sees the CS, planets, *and signs* to have active effects (by which I th
ink he means properties of their own) but he sees the houses as having only 'de
terminative' effects. i.e they don't have any effect by themselves, but do 'step
down' the effects of 'universal' causes (like planets and signs). Interesting t
hat the signs are said to have effects of their own, but makes sense in a way be
cause they have the nature of their 'lord' planets and affect the ascendant etc
by being 'present' there. Morin says signs are part of the CS that 'are determin
ed by the planets at creation' ???
Chapter 2 Morin: Book 21
para 1: The essential natures of the planets as well as the CS (by which Morin s
eems to mean the signs) have been assigned to them by God.
para 2: The effect of a planet is difficult to determine because
1. The same essential (planetary) quality causes differing results w
hen 'applied to' a plant, an animal, a metal and a human.
2. The same essential planetary quality causes different effects in d
ifferent humans.
3. The planetary effect varies by which sign it is in
4. also by aspects to it from other planets
5. Thus determining the effect of the planet on a given individual is
extremely difficult but
6. since the planetary influences acts in all classes of objects, and
within a class within each individual, at the same time, studying the effects i
n one class, say humans, will in course of time yield a certain capacity to ju
dge this effect.
para 3:
1. When a planet is in domicile, the essential natures of the sign and pla
net are the same. especially when there are no aspects to it, so the nature of
the planet is 'pure'.
2. The houses do not directly influence or actively concur (?) in the effe
cts of planets but instead qualify or 'determine' them (What Mr M seems to be sa
ying is that houses direct *where* the planets work, but don't affect their natu
re, instead they just step down the effect to a more individual level.. Ok but t
hen what about accidental dignity etc?).
3. Understanding the elemental nature (this seems to a combination of hot,
cold, wet, dry) of the Sun and Moon is easy since they have only one domicile si
gn (this seems to imply that the *signs* combine hot/cold, wet/dry, and then pla
nets which have only one domicile have the nature of the sign).
4. But this is more difficult in the case of the other planets which have two
domicile signs, so each of this domiciles have a different 'sign signature' so

which does the planet 'take on'?

e.g Saturn has both Capricorn (dry + cold), and Aquarius (wet + warm) as domi
ciles. So what is the nature of Saturn then?
5. Astrologers err by attributing the elemental (really, temperamental) nature
of the sign to the planet. Thus it is an error to say that Saturn is cold + dr
y in Capricorn and hot + wet in Aquarius.
6. M
and
are
nian

states that the signs themselves have an elemental nature, assigned by God,
this effect shows when the signs are empty (so no planetary influence) but
at the ascendant (say). However signs ruled by Saturn have to have a Satur
nature, so Capricorn and Aquarius are *both* Saturnian (somehow) (*)

7. (this is interesting) Morin posits that a planet (say Saturn) has an intrin
sic elemental nature but its 'influence' (?) cane be any of hot/cold + wet/dry.
In other words, the planet has an intrinsic elemental nature, but this nature i
s *modified* by the sign's elemental nature.
8. Thus Saturn's "influence" can be any combination of hot/cold + wet/dry. But
its 'elemental' nature is cold + dry. So when in Capricorn the net effect is (c
old + dry) [Planet] + (cold + dry) [Sign]. In M's terminology, Capricorn has ref
erence to the elemental nature and influence of Capricorn' In other words, Capri
corn amplifies the 'elemental nature' of Saturn. And (this is key) since Capric
orn is by nature malefic, Saturn in Capricorn is quite malefic.
Aquarius though has temparament (or elemental nature) of cold + dry ( = 'air')
. This counteracts Saturn's nature. Or in Morin's terminology, "Aquarius has re
ference only to the influence of Capricorn, and not its elemental nature" or "Sa
turn's coldness and dryness are remitted" in Aquarius or "in Capricorn Saturn's
injurious elemental qualities reveal themselves" but in Aquarius " a balance is
struck through that sign's elemental nature of Air"

(*) This is a problem since Morin doesn't explain *how* Aquarius is Saturnian.
Morin Book 21: Chapter 3
This is all about the common mistake of interpreting (say) the Sun as (say) the
Father in all horoscopes. But I'm going paragraph by paragraph this time and not
skimming.
para 1:
Planets have general significations - The Sun stands for father, king, gold, hus
band, nobles etc. .
Astrologers use these to make predictions about specific factors. i.e they look
to the Sun for predictions about the father of the native. Morin says this is an
error and the Sun (for e.g) stands for the father only when the Sun's *house an
d its ruler* are also aligned to that interpretation (so 10th?). He also seems t
o be imply that the 'celestial state' of a planet is it's 'houseless' state i.e
based on sign and 'relationships to other planets' (aspects?) only.
It just struck me. This actually makes sense in Vedic astrology (using whole sig
n houses) because then signs *are* houses. So there is no distinction between th
e interpretations. Yes ascendants move but if the exact degree is only noted and
not used as the basis of a house system, then it loses quite a bit of significa
nce. Hmm then why exactly is Bhava (vs Rashi) used ? As usual no clear writing
about Vedic astrology

para 2:
The Sun (and other planets) have essential natures which *correspond* (by analog
y) to specific things in the physical world. The Sun by its essential nature is
prominent, luminous etc, so persons corresponding to the Sun would be luminous,
illustrious etc and not obscure or common, and so given a context refers to peo
ple and things embodying these qualities. So given a country and referring to pe
rsons within the country, the Sun would refer to the king or ruler, given a fami
ly (in the ancient world) the Sun would refer to the father, given the context o
f a(n ancient) marriage, the Sun would refer to the husband and so on.
But (and this is important) one can't assume the Sun specifically mean any (or
all) of these things in a given horoscope. If it meant all of these things at t
he same time for the same native, we have Cardanus's question.
" Ptolemy introduced a great deal of confusion when he assigned several meanings
to one significator, and made the Moon, for example, the significator of the bo
dy, the morals, the health, the wife, mother, daughters, maid-servants and siste
rs.
What then must be the condition of the Moon in the horoscope of one whose wife h
ad died in childbirth but himself lived a long life, who had many healthy daught
ers but also maid-servants who ran away, who had a sound body but a mother who d
ied young, and who himself showed a poor
moral character? "
para 3:
Morin expands on the foolishness of following Ptolemian guidelines of judging th
e father of the native by looking at the celestial state of the Sun in the horos
cope. For then, the Sun is in Leo for a month, and (say) Jupiter is in trine asp
ect to it for a few days running, then no child born during that period would ha
ve an unfortunate or short lived Father (or bad health, if combined with the err
or identified above).
Net net, the houses are key to picking out the exact signification of a planet f
or a native. Signs + planets give only a 'celestial' or 'universal' picture of
planetary influence. (but probably important as the first step of analysis)