| |
|
| |
IT SHOULD cause wonder that such an important and complex branch of astrology as genethlialogy be based on such an uncertain foundation as the time of birth. Whether it comes from memories or official documents, is in fact completely irrelevant, since nothing can guarantee its veracity. If birth were to be controlled by an electronic chronometer, as in the Olympics, when would we jot down the datum? In other words: which is the birth time? The one when baby is expelled from the womb or when it makes its first wail? Or some other time? We believe that the cosmic moment of any human birth is that of the first inhalation: passing through the vagina, the lungs of the foetus are compressed in order to facilitate the breathing in, just as a sponge would do. This, however, is only our opinion
Well, the various methods handed down by Greek-Egyptian astrologers show that the problem was known and had probably been solved in earlier times. The most authoritative method, which can be traced back to Hermes Trismegistus, has come down to us under name of trutina Hermetis, i.e, Hermes' balance.
Modern astrologers do not care about this and consider the data in official records as certain. In brief, everyone today renounces verifying the time of birth, or rather, most do not even feel the need to do so, or do not even know what it consists of; but then, when they try their hand at the not-so-easy calculation of the primary directions, accounts never add up, and so they invent the most abstruse methods to make predictions that punctually fail to come true.
Ptolemy deals with this issue in the third book of his Quadripartitum, proposing a solution of his own, disregarded. He was well aware that the so-called trutina Hermetis sets two conditions: the first was that the alleged time of birth could not be too far from the true one, i.e. it had to have taken place within about two hours; the second, unknown to most, was that the birth had to take place in the same place where parents had copulated. Hence the need for a method that would at least dodge the second condition. Ptolemy does not say where his method—which he does not claim to have invented—comes from, but we can assume that it goes back a long way. The famous 51st sentence of the Centiloquium says: "Where the Moon is at the time of birth, that sign rose at conception; where she is posited at conception, that sign will arise at release”; and there are those who attribute it to Ptolemy who—let it said once and for all—is not the author of the Centiloquium. Hephaestion (2,1 [Pingree]) attributes that sentence to the Egyptian school of Petosiris.
The verification of the time of birth is not a matter of fussiness, but is imposed by art. It is, in fact, inconceivable to make complex calculations and predictions based on a datum that has no astronomical foundation.
In this article we will deal with the first part, which is the simplest, namely the duration of pregnancy. It goes without saying that pregnancy must only be a cycle that begins with conception and ends with childbirth. In some texts and on the web one can read the most preposterous ramblings, which have no basis whatsoever.
The clearest text is that of Vettius Valens (2nd century A.D.), an astrologer from Antioch:
"Having reached this point, it is time to talk about conception, without tortuousness and without jealousy.[1] (As for the duration of pregnancy) there are three terms of reference—minimum, middle, and maximum—and each one distances the other by 15 days,[2] which when subtracted or added to one term gives the other. The minimum is of 258 (days), which will be indicated by the degree on the (horizon) west, i.e., when (the centre of) the Moon is about to set;[3] the middle (is) of 273 (days), when the Moon is exactly on the horoscope; the maximum of 288 (days), when the Moon is exactly at sunset.  The text is very clear and needs no more, even though Valens goes on to give further examples and further possibilities for calculation. The waning or crescent Moon, above or below the Earth, has nothing to do with this: it is just vacuous fantasies generated by incompetence and ignorance of the texts. The chart we propose (here on the left) should further clarify Valens' text.But where do the three terms come from? Hephaestion[6] writes: “The conception of human beings is said to occur, for those generated in the tenth month, at the left square of the Sun at the moment of release: it is there, in fact, that the Sun was when conception took place; for those born in the seventh month, the Sun was in opposition.” This observation derives from an experience more than a thousand years old: childbirth took place, in the vast majority of cases, when the Sun of birth was in the left square of that in which the menses were interrupted. On the graduated circumference of 360°, therefore, pregnancy corresponded to 270°. As, however, the tropical year comprises 365¼ days (to be exact 365,2422 average solar days), 270° correspond to 273d 22h 21m 35s (273,93165).[7] The Greek texts, in truth, give 273d + ⅓d, i.e. + 8 hours: an irrelevant difference for the purpose of calculating the length of pregnancy, regardless of the non-uniformity of the true solar days. The modern concept of average solar day or average day is, in fact, “the arithmetic average of a large number of true days within some whole tropical years”.[8] A different calculation is that based on the lunar month which, from Earth, is the time between one new moon and the next. This average lunar month comprises 29d 12h 44m 03s (29,53059).
Before proceeding, it should be noted that the subdivision of the sphere into 360" has a symbolic value and can be understood as 9 parts + 3 parts, i.e. 9 months (270°) + 90 years (90°), symbolically signifying that the earthly cycle of a human being (360°) is given by the pregnancy + the years of life. This applies to human beings, of course; for plants and non-human animals the symbolism of the sphere changes, as is the prerogative of all symbols.
If, mutatis mutandis, we apply this calculation to the average lunar month, we will have that the average duration of a pregnancy will be given by 9 lunar months, which cover three quarters of the sphere + a quarter of the same month, i.e. 29d 12h 44m 03s + ¼ of 29d 12h 44m 03s,[9] whose sum gives 273d 3h 47m 28s (273,157958), the average lunar duration of a pregnancy. As a counterproof, we divide the average duration of 273d 3h 47m 28s by 30, the symbolic solar month (360 : 12), and we will obtain 9months 3d 3h 47m 28s, which is the average duration of pregnancy expressed in solar months. Comparing this datum with the one calculated above according to the tropical year (273d 22h 21m 35s), we will have a difference of 18h 34m 07s.
In conclusion, between the 273d 22h 21m 35s and the 273d 3h 47m 49s, both derived from the symbolism of the 360° (270d + 90y), we cannot help but admit that the 273d + ⅓d of the Greek astrologers seems to be a correct compromise for the purposes of calculating the duration of the pregnancy.
 How shall we proceed? It is simple. You have to erect the chart, considering the true MC, not the average MC given by the software.[10] Then, insert the position of the Moon, which will be above or below the earth. If she is above the Earth it means that the duration of the pregnancy is less than the middle term. If, on the other hand, she is below, the duration will be longer than the middle term. Giuntini had already prepared a helpful Table of the foetus' stay in the mother's womb (see the table on the right).
[11]
The calculation suggested by Valens would only be correct if the horizon corresponded to the beginning of a sign and if the MC was placed exactly 90 longitudinal degrees from the horoscope. Which is never the case. But Valens only wants to show the principle; so much so that by illustrating the first example, which is real (see above), he clarifies what he means. If in fact we assign 2,5d to each 30°, the quadrant between the horoscope and the inferior meridian, comprising 2½ signs (see chart),would be 6,25d, whereas Valens clearly states that, since the Moon is “on the inferior meridian, the generation ends in 280 days and 12 hours,” which is the sum of the middle term + 7,5d. At this point, all you have to do is check where the Moon was on the day of conception. In order to avoid tedious counting with the error always lurking, simply entrust the calculation to Excel. By entering in any cell, e.g. Al, the formula '=DATE(62;07;29), the cell will return the date in the format according to your setting; [12] then in cell A2 insert the following operation: '=A1-280,5', the result of which will be October 21 (19)61. Finally, scrolling through the ephemeris of the year 61, you will remark that the Moon enters Cancer (horoscope sign) just before 3 a.m, on October 22, which will be the day of conception.
Nothing is complicated. If, however, the Moon lies within a quadrant, i.e. not exactly on
a pivot, the most precise calculation will be given by the hourly distance: as 6 hours are to 7,5 days as the hourly distance of the Moon is to 'x'.[13] The resulting days will be added or subtracted depending on the position of the luminary.
With the duration of the pregnancy calculated in this way, the Moon will have to be in the sign of the Ascendant at birth or, much more rarely, in the opposite sign.[14]
It is not uncommon for the Moon to be in the sign of the presumed ascendant at birth one or two days before, or after, the calculated one: this only means that the given time of birth is rather approximate. In any case, the Moon at conception cannot be more than 12° away from the sign of the ascendant at birth: it must in fact be remembered that the first above-mentioned condition of the trutina Hermetis is that the presumed time of birth must be within a two-hour lapse from the real one.
And now, as proof of the existence of a well-defined cycle ruling the duration of pregnancy, we offer a few examples of characters, whose time of birth is known and, consequently, the rising sign as well.
ENNIO MORRICONE. — The data are those already indicated in a previous article of ours.[15] The Moon, although located in ♏ 1° 46', i.e. in western hemisphere, is in fact already in the eastern hemisphere, and is 39m 59s from the I.C. Applying the following proportion, i.e. 6 hours are to 7,5 days as 39m 59s are to 'x', we will find the distance in days of the Moon from the I.C. Then let us add the middle term (273,3333) to 7,5 and subtract the obtained distance in days (which is equal to about 20 hours, that is less than 1 day). The result in decimals (280,000314) is to be subtracted from the date of birth [i.e. '=DATE(28;11;10)'] according to the given formula: cell with date -280; the turned out date is February 3, 1928. Since the Ascendant is placed in Leo, you have to scroll through the ephemerides of 1928 to check if the Moon was in Leo on that day. Actually, the Moon enters Leo on February 4 around 4.00 p.m. GMT. The (not infrequent) discrepancy makes one suspect that the time of birth is rather approximate. It is the calculation of the precise time that will determine the end of the cycle.
MARYLIN MONROE. — According to S(olar)F(ire) M. Monroe was born in Los Angeles on June 1, 1926, at 9.30 a.m. At that time the Ascendant was in Leo and the Moon was 31m 50s from the descendant. Applying the usual proportion (6h : 7.5d = 31m 50s : x) we find that the days to be added to the minimum term are 0,6633 (almost 16 hours). We then subtract the duration of pregnancy (almost 259 days) from the date of birth and the formula will display the date of September 15, 1925. Let us check on the ephemeris where the Moon was on that day: precisely in Leo.
FRYDERYK CHOPIN. — Although the widely accepted date of birth is March 1, 1810, Julian Fontana (a fellow student and copyist of the composer), Jósef Sikorski (author of the first essay on Chopin [1849]), and Moritz Karasowski (his biographer [1877]) have pointed out that the year of birth was 1809, not 1810. What is more, the baptismal certificate states that the birth date would be on February 22, 1810. Thus, we have three dates! Let us begin with 1809: on 1st March of that year at 6 p.m. (alleged time) the Ascendant was in ♍ 17° 36' and the Moon in 4° 36' of the same sign. So, the duration of the pregnancy would be of about 272d 4h 40m, whence, applying the usual formula, we obtain that the day of conception would have been June 1, 1808; and, in fact, on that day the Moon entered Virgo shortly after 8.30 a.m. GMT. — Let us move to 1810. On March 1, 1810 at 6 p.m. the Ascendant was in ♍ 17° 26' and the Moon in ♑ about 18° 6', resulting in a pregnancy duration of about 283d 6h 34m, which connects with May 21, 1809. Well, the Moon entered Virgo on May 22 shortly after midday GMT. — We finish with February 22, 1810. The Ascendant was in ♍ 12° 50', while the Moon was in ♎ 11° 16', a position which determines a pregnancy of about 276d 13h, and refers to May 21, 1810, exactly as for the 1st of March 1810.
What can we conclude? Well, as for 1809, at noon on June 1st the Moon was in Virgo 4° approximately with a distance from the Ascendant at birth of about 13°: almost acceptable. In 1810, on the other hand, at noon on May 1809 the Moon was still in Leo 17°, imposing to move to noon of May 22, when it was preparing to enter Virgo, with an Ascendant more than 17° away; hence, either the time of birth is very approximate, or both the date and the time are definitely wrong. Finally, as for February 22, which refers to the same May 21, 1809, the Moon's ingress into Virgo after midday of May 22 1809, i.e. at a distance from the Ascendant of almost 13°, legitimises the dating of conception on May 22, 1809. It follows that on initial investigation the cycle or duration of pregnancy, considering the approximation of the time of birth acceptable, places the date of birth on March 1, 1809. It goes without saying that such a special case will require a careful examination of the primary directions and transits, including death, which will allow the date of birth to be confirmed.
In any case, it should be emphasised that in the three dates, the duration of pregnancy always refers to a date when the Moon was in the sign of the Ascendant of birth or in close proximity.
RUDOLF STEINER. — Another special case is that of the founder of anthroposophy, whose presumed date of birth is between 25 and 27 February 1861 in Donji Kraljevec, in present-day Croatia. The documents raise some perplexity; the time is not indicated there, but is placed at 11.15 p.m., because Steiner was a "Mitternachtskind", a midnight birth (like Jesus Christ... and this is not our joke!)[16]). Well, on February 27 the Ascendant marked 24° Scorpio and the Moon was in ♎ 17° 37'; in that position she determined as the day of conception the 1st June 1860, the day on which she passed from 5° to 20° Scorpio, the sign of the birth Ascendant. If, however, we consider the 25th of February, with the Ascendant in Scorpio 13° and the Moon in ♍ 17° 30', the Moon's position refers to the 2nd of June 1860, not the 1st. The
Moon, on the 2nd of June, left Scorpio at approx. 5.30 p.m. GMT, and at noon was transiting in 26° the same sign, just over 13° away from the Ascendant. Therefore, assuming the time of birth as almost correct, the date of birth would be the 27th, not
the 25th of February. This, however, will have to be confirmed by further investigation.
ALAN LEO. — We use the following data for this famous astrologer: born in Westminster (England) on August 7, 1860, at approx. 6.00 a.m. The Moon was in ♈ 15° 25' and the Ascendant in ♍ 0° 2' 19". In that position the Moon, being distant about 2h 2m from the M.C., determined a pregnancy of 263d 7h, which, subtracted from the date of birth, makes the conception fall on 17th November 1859. Well, from noon of 17th to noon of the 18th November 1859, the Moon goes from 24° ♌ 2' 18" to 8° ♍ 6'.
SILVIO BERLUSCONI. — At his birth, which took place in Milan on September 29, 1936 at 6.06 a.m., the Ascendant was within the 1st degree of Libra and the Moon in ♓ about 12° 28'. In that position the luminary was approx. 1h 24m away from the descendant, corresponding to about 1d 18h to be subtracted from the maximum term. Going back 286 days and 14 hours from the date of birth, we arrive at December 17, 1935; the day on which the Moon was crossing Virgo, so that we are forced to move on to December 18. At noon on the 18th December the Moon was in ♎ 1° 59' 32”, sign of the Ascendant at birth.[17]
And we end with a BABY CONCEIVED “IN VITRO”. — On October 4,1984, the Italian newspapers “Corriere della Sera” and “la Repubblica” announced the birth of “the first Milanese baby girl conceived in vitro”. The article of "Corriere" was written by Edoardo Stucchi, who, in addition to the names and address of the parents, specified that the birth had taken place on October 3, at 8.55 a.m.; “la Repubblica", on the other hand, gave a different time: 9.14, informing that insemination had been made on January 13, 1984, so pregnancy lasted 264 days. The chart shows an Ascendant in the first degrees of Scorpio and the Moon in Capricorn about 26°. Considering the true position of the luminary and applying the usual formula, the pregnancy cycle would have begun—according to Hermes' balance—on December 28, 1983, not January 1984. Nevertheless, on December 28, 1983 the Moon enters Scorpio at about 15.30 hrs. GMT. To clarify the discrepancy, let us see where the Moon was on January 13, 1984: at midday she was in Taurus, the opposite sign to that of the Ascendant. The child's father told the journalist: "Twelve years of waiting is a long time even for a test-tube baby ..." In other words, there must have been several attempts at insemination, but this was the only successful one. Why? Because, without realising it, the gynaecologists had proceeded with the insemination at the only useful moment, that is, when, within the cycle that had begun on December 28, 1983, the Moon was for the first time in the sign opposite to that of the Ascendant (15 days later) already decreed by unchangeable celestial mechanics. A few days earlier or a few days later, the insemination would have failed like the previous ones.
This shows that life cycles—from the one mentioned by Valens to the test-tube baby—pre-exist, and the Moon determines them all, from plants to animals, to human beings, in specific ways bound to all planetary cycles (past, current and future) with respect to the local horizon, the hour, and the individual living species. No living being can be born outside one of the cycles determined by the Moon.
The hour of conception, which requires a much more complex procedure, will be the subject of another article.
NOTE. [1]
Valens (1,23 [Kroll] = 1,21 [Pingree]) is getting at those who, being jealous of what they know or think they know, expound it in a tortuous way. It must be added, however, that he does not behave too differently, when he illustrates the various possibilities of calculation to obtain the same result, so much so that the calculation has been misunderstood and filled with such a mass of nonsense as to leave one baffled.
[2]
Ms. Bara, in her edition of the first book (Leiden [Brill] 1989) accepts the reading μοιρῶν, which makes no sense.
[3]
The Greek text says ἐν τῇ ἐπικαταδύσει, which is not the place under the descendant—as some think—but that of the pivot itself, neither above nor below. The misinterpretation derives perhaps from a misunderstanding of a Ptolemaic passage (Alm. 8,4), where the astronomer deals with the configurations particular to the non-wandering stars, i.e. fixed stars, with the Sun, and there are nine of them: "The third configuration is called setting in the morning (πρωινὸς λίψ), when the sun is near the eastern horizon and the star is near the western horizon. Of such a configuration one appearance is called (oriental-)morning setting (ἑῴα ἐπικατάδυσις), not visible, when, at sunrise, the star sets immediately (after); the other is called (oriental-)morning co-setting (ἑῴα συγκατάδυσις) true, when at the same time as the sun rises, the star sets; the further one is called (oriental-)morning pre-setting (ἑῴα πρόδυσις), visible, when the sun rises immediately after the star has set. [...] The ninth configuration is called setting in the evening (ὀψινὸς λίψ), when the celestial body is near the western horizon together with the sun. Of this configuration one appearance is called evening after-setting (ἑσπερία ἐπικατάδυσις), visible, when the celestial body, beginning to occult itself, sets immediately after the sun; the other one is called evening co-setting (ἑσπερία συγκατάδυσις) true, when the star sets at the same instant and at the same time as the sun; the still other one is called evening pre-setting (ἑσπερία πρόδυσις), not visible, when the star, beginning to emerge from the sun [i.e., to appear], sets before the sun.” Now, a fixed star is a very small point of light; when the diurnal motion leads it to the western horizon, it disappears in an instant. The Moon, on the other hand, being much larger, is ἐν τῇ ἐπικαταδύσει, when its centre coincides with the western horizon. Both Bara's translation (dans son coucher postérieur), and Riley's (in the Place just following the Descendant), are wrong. And it is Valens himself who confirms this, when, speaking of the maximum term, says ἐν τῇ δύσει, lett. inside the setting, that is when its centre is below the horizon. Otherwise, there would be a conflict between ἐν τῇ ἐπικαταδύσει and ἐν τῇ δύσει, since there would be an absurd mixture of the beginning of the minimum term with the end of the maximum one.
[4]
In his edition (Leipzig 1986, p. xviii) Pingree dates the example on July 31, 62, without specifying, though, that it is a Julian date, to which corresponds, in the Gregorian calendar, the 29th July of the same year. Valens, in fact, gives the coordinates, so that we can erect the chart for the 29th July 62, at 3.42.27 a.m. in Antioch on the Orontes: the Moon was on the cusp of the IV house. The aforementioned Bara (see n. 2) with the drawing on p. 215, where she places the signs in the opposite direction (Libra is at noon!), shows that she has not understood anything at all, and in the Preliminary notes to the intelligence of the text she even has the audacity to mock “mystical” astrology!
[5]
Kroll in his edition gives the following text, also accepted by Pingree: πρὸς τὴν ποσότητα [ἐκ] τῶν ἐκκρουσθεισῶν τριακοντάδων, i.e. he expounges ἐκ. In our opinion it is preferable to integrate the article, which is also better justified from a palaeographical point of view: πρὸς τὴν ποσότητα <τὴν> ἐκ τῶν ἐκκρουσθεισῶν τριακοντάδων.
[6]
Loc. cit.
[7]
We put the corresponding decimal number in round brackets for those who want to try their hand at calculation.
[8]
Cf. F. Flora, Astronomia nautica, Milano (Hoepli) 51975, p. 189.
[9]
While the Sun travels the entire zodiac in 12 months, the Moon travels it in one month, and ¼ of a lunar month is 29,53059d : 4, i.e. 7,38265d.
[10]
See our article About the natal chart calculated and graphically represented by astrological software.
[11]
Cf. Speculum astrologiae,... autore Francisco Iunctino Florentino, Tomus Prior, Lugduni (In Officina Q. Phil. Tinghi) 1581, p. 131.
[12]
The astrology student should not mind if Excel applies that formula to the twentieth century, since the days are the same. It might be a difference of 1 day, in case one of the two years were a leap year, but in Valens' example neither is a leap year.
[13]
Let us recall that the hourly distance of an errant star, or any other point, from a pivot, is obtained by dividing its distance in right ascension from a meridian by its own unequal hour, which is one sixth of its diurnal or nocturnal semi-arc, which in turn is obtained by subtracting or adding its ascensional difference (Δa) to 90°; and the ascensional difference is obtained from the following formula: sin(Δa) = tan(δ)*tan(φ), where δ is the declination and φ the geographic latitude. But these notions should be an astrologer's bread and butter.
[14]
Compared to the pseudo-Ptolemaic sentence cited above, the addition is by Hephaestion (2,2): "The Egyptians of the past, of the school of Petosiris, peremptorily assert that, wherever the Moon is found during the delivery, that (sign) arose at the moment of insemination, and wherever it is found at the moment of insemination, that (sign) will arise at the moment of delivery, or the (sign) opposite to it".
[15]
See above note 10.
[16]
Cf. Judith von Halle, Rudolf Steiner — Meister der weißen Loge, Dornach (Verlag für Anthroposophie) 2011, p. 99.
[17]
When the time is very close to that established by the cycle of pregnancy, the day of conception, calculated in the manner illustrated above, almost always coincides with the position of the Moon, but if the Ascendant of birth arrives at the end or beginning of a sign, it is natural that the calculated day may not coincide exactly with the position of the Moon in the sign of the Ascendant. Which, however, is irrelevant, because the Moon only crosses a sign once a month!
[2024 © Franco Luigi Viero] | |
 | |
Let it be, for example [see figure on the left], the year 8 of Nero, between the 6th and 7th Mesori [= 28-29 July 62 A.D.],