We have here a deliberate case of "juggling", such as astrologers are prone to do with most anything that does not work their way. In order to satisfy any reader who has studied astrology, I merely would have to tell him tight here: Oh, that Pluto was ncc alive yet back in 1792; he only is used after the astronomers had found him and had figured his path! This happened in 1930, at Flagstaff, Ariz., so why bother about that boy, and besides, he is not in the Ephemeris, anyhow. Such statements I had heard years ago, several times, when J still had ears for the chatter of would-be astrologers, when, once in a great while discussions went on about Neptune and its place for charts before 1830, sincc that planet was found about the year 1852. At any rare, the stress was placed by them as: "WE, the big cheese, did not know of these unknown planecs, so they can have no force, for want of having NOT notified us before hand that they are in the heaven. More about the I and US is said at another place.
If we want to do exact work with the Stock Horoscope, it would be our business, definitely, to drop everything, sitdown and figure the place of ^ on hand of big Tables, such as astronomers use, which, if sufficiently interested, you may do.
But, the question in all astrological work is: Is it worth che time? Answer-No. Why should we bother to find an eighth planet, when we have found 76 places for planets already with our Five-Fold Horoscope! If all our 76 positions work well, and, supposing should play tricks on us- by aspects, what of it! It could only be for a few days, since the definitely known positions of the ochers Come again with aspects and nullify its effect. This docs not happen unless 3 has moved 13* further.
Such finagling reminds me of Board-toom traders who used to play for a quarter point profits, at a time when commissions were low and taxes also. They caught a quarter point here, a quarter point there, the third time they pocketed a 3 point loss, because the Market made a gap on thenr, taking the wrong direction, according to theic style of figuring. In short, in most cases, exact work is essential, but we must be able to differentiate when It gives us a pile of worse complications.
This is why we place right in the plact of the MC for our Stock Horoscope, in other words, we make him fade away and don't bother about him any more.
The Five-Fold Horoscope for Stocks, Fig. 24, is progressed in the figure for May, 1944. 3 daily motion for that year is 2.21' each day. During 1943 (May 17th, 1943, to May l<Sth, 19*44) 3 morion was 13*12' which, if divided by 366 (a Leap Year), gives 2.17' per day; because Feb. 29th, 1944, is contained therein.
The Progressed Chart for Stocks for 1944 must be erected for October 16, 1792, 4h53m P.M. London of that day. This is then May 17, 1944, Noon, New-York. But, for the other planets we have to go about as follows: 9 progressed is to be figured for October 18, 1792, at 10h4lm A.M. London; t} is figured for Oct. 16, 1792, at 3h38m P.M., about 1/6 day after that Noon; 3 for 3h26m P.M., Oct. 16, 1792; }? is figured for Oct. 18. 1792, at lh4Jrn A.M., about Vi day before that Noon; Q is figured for 7:13 P.M., of October 13, 1792, according to the rules of figuring planers for entry into horoscope, each one by itself.
The unknown progressed planets we have to estimate, allowing some years 1' nrotioo or, in case chey would now be running we would have to take off 1' each year. In fact, I suggest to leave them stationary for several years now, since 1 gave them all a. forward motion and we know the more distant pianets move 1/3 of the year
For the Progressed V we use: if places for 1792:
JJ< May 11, 15*3'£L;- May 21, 15" 16 a.; October 1, 22'18it; October 11, 22*4 5'£\,; October 21, 23'7i\, ; November 1, 23*27'£l, interpolating properly the given ten day intervals.
Was this article helpful?