# Animodar

#### petosiris

##### Banned
1. Examine the preceding syzygy, whether it was a new moon or a full moon.
2. If the preceding syzygy was a new moon, observe its degree at the time of the nativity.
3. If the preceding syzygy was a full moon by night, we observe the degree of the syzygy. By day, we observe the degree opposite the syzygy, which is the degree of the luminary above the horizon (in that case the Sun).
4. Observe the degree at the approximate time of the nativity, and give a point to any of the following planets with rulership over the degree at the time of birth

5. Give a point to any planet in the same sign as the degree or in sign with some aspect (sextile, square, trine or opposition) to it.
6. If one star is familiar with the degree in all or most of these ways, whatever degree of its sign it is passing at the time of birth, the same numerical degree is rising (Asc) or culminating (Mc) at the time of birth.
7. If two or more stars are predominators, observe the one that is closer to the approximate time. If it so happens that we do not have the nearest hour of birth, we can establish it through combination of accidental qualities. The foregoing rectification is for time with approximate hour.

Last edited:

#### petosiris

##### Banned
I have found a method that is more physical than this and does not involve the preceding syzygy or numerology.

36. Nativities
When the moment of nativity is known, it can be examined instead of the moment of conception, the hours must be determined with knowledge of accidental qualities, and with one of the planets in perfect configuration with the Hour-Marker or the Midheaven at every conception and nativity

So, let the Ascendant or the Midheaven be in perfect conjunction, sextile, square, trine or opposition with one of the seven planets regardless of other factors.

We might theorize why this is so - conceptions and births of humans are powerful moments in nature that require the strongest influence of a planet on angles.

#### JUPITERASC

##### Well-known member
I have found a method that is more physical than this and does not involve the preceding syzygy or numerology.

36. Nativities
When the moment of nativity is known, it can be examined instead of the moment of conception, the hours must be determined with knowledge of accidental qualities, and with one of the planets in perfect configuration with the Hour-Marker or the Midheaven at every conception and nativity

So, let the Ascendant or the Midheaven be in perfect conjunction, sextile, square, trine or opposition with one of the seven planets regardless of other factors.

We might theorize why this is so - conceptions and births of humans are powerful moments in nature that require the strongest influence of a planet on angles.
discussing this with another member
who is questioning

becuause
"regardless of other factors"

means could be any ascendant or midheaven

#### Aria Venue

##### Well-known member
I have found a method that is more physical than this and does not involve the preceding syzygy or numerology.

So, let the Ascendant or the Midheaven be in perfect conjunction, sextile, square, trine or opposition with one of the seven planets regardless of other factors.

We might theorize why this is so - conceptions and births of humans are powerful moments in nature that require the strongest influence of a planet on angles.

Dear petosiris i have the same question reading your comment above.So in this method do we disregard completely the preceding syzygy and we focus only on which planet makes the closest aspect either to mc or asc..?
would be possible to give as a rectification example step by step?

Last edited:

#### petosiris

##### Banned
Since <human> conceptions and births are very powerful events in nature, they naturally require the perfect configuration of some planet with one of the powerful angles to give the impulse to life (it is always configured with the opposite angle as well). This is useful and reliable method for establishing the precise fraction of the hour of birth.

Dear petosiris i have the same question reading your comment above.So in this method do we disregard completely the preceding syzygy and we focus only on which planet makes the closest aspect wither to mc or asc..?
would be possible to give as a rectification example step by step?

Yes, nowadays I ignore the syzygy and focus on the planet which makes the closest exact aspect to the Asc (and Dsc) or the Mc (and Ic). A major technical difference between this and the Ptolemaic Animodar is that mine requires a planet to be at the angle or in aspect, while Ptolemy seems to allow it to be disjunct, only requiring the numeric degree it has passed within its sign to be the same (it is like an exact semi-sextile or inconjunct modern ''aspect''). This does not seem physical to me, but rather numerological and uncharacteristic of Ptolemy's intentions of astrology.

So I recommend that one follows a more limited approach with regard to aspects, but more broad approach with regard to rulers. Often, the two methods (the Ptolemaic Animodar and the Petosiris Animodar) will give the same results, since they are based on similar physical reasoning.

I recommend one step - a planet in conjunction, sextile, square, trine or opposition with an angle. Take for example the chart of Ptolemy's second biggest fan (after me) - Girolamo Cardano - https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Cardano,_Girolamo

There is no planet in aspect with an angle at 18:29 when the Ascendant is at 6° 22' Taurus. But noticing that Jupiter is nearby, we can put him exactly at the Ascendant giving us 18:20 time, or a 9 minute rectification. Jupiter rising rather than declining may better explain his life and fame.

#### JUPITERASC

##### Well-known member
Yes, nowadays I ignore the syzygy and focus on the planet which makes the closest exact aspect to the Asc (and Dsc) or the Mc (and Ic). A major technical difference between this and the Ptolemaic Animodar is that mine requires a planet to be at the angle or in aspect, while Ptolemy seems to allow it to be disjunct, only requiring the numeric degree it has passed within its sign to be the same (it is like an exact semi-sextile or inconjunct modern ''aspect''). This does not seem physical to me, but rather numerological and uncharacteristic of Ptolemy's intentions of astrology.

So I recommend that one follows a more limited approach with regard to aspects, but more broad approach with regard to rulers. Often, the two methods (the Ptolemaic Animodar and the Petosiris Animodar) will give the same results, since they are based on similar physical reasoning.

I recommend one step - a planet in conjunction, sextile, square, trine or opposition with an angle. Take for example the chart of Ptolemy's second biggest fan (after me) - Girolamo Cardano - https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Cardano,_Girolamo

There is no planet in aspect with an angle at 18:29 when the Ascendant is at 6° 22' Taurus. But noticing that Jupiter is nearby, we can put him exactly at the Ascendant giving us 18:20 time, or a 9 minute rectification. Jupiter rising rather than declining may better explain his life and fame.
having briefly tested the petosiris method
on charts with reasonably reliable times of birth
the method holds true for same chart whether using Aldebaran 15
and/or Tropical Whole Sign
simplifies considerably - many thanks

#### Aria Venue

##### Well-known member
thank you dear petosiris !!!that was indeed very helpful