Minderwiz
Solar Returns
Solar Returns can be traced back to Hellenistic Times but perhaps were at their peak traditional use in the Seventeenth Century - both Lilly and Morin make extensive use of 'Revolutions' in their works. Morin does not make use of Profections, so he sees Solar Returns as the second most important predictive method (followed by Lunar Returns and then Transits). Because of space I'm going to use Lilly's explanations, as they are more concise but Morin's book on Revolutions is an extremely valuable, if not very easy read.
I think I remember Dave having a go at Astrologers who try to read Solar Returns as a variety of natal chart, going from house to house. Lilly and Morin would agree wholeheartedly. Nothing in a Solar Return chart can alter the natal 'promise' - i.e. if your natal chart says your never going to make it big in politics or business, no Solar Return can indicate you becoming President, Prime Minister or the CEO of a multinational. The natal chart is often referred to as a 'radix' or root chart, solar returns and profections are derived from it and can never supplant it.
I have attached a copy of Bill Clinton's SR for 1998 (through to August 1999).
Lilly's first test is if the signs on the SR are the same as that of the radix. The answer to that is no.
Lilly's second test is what planet is Lord of the year (ruler of the SR Ascendant) and is it combust. With Gemini rising the answer is Mercury and being within 8 degrees 44 minutes from the Sun, Mercury is just and only just free of combustion. It is however 'under the beams' (within 17 degrees of the Sun) and is mildly debilitated by position.
Lilly's next test is the position of the Sun by House. In this case the Sun is angular in the fourth and also rules the fourth. The Sun challenges the MC (or is challenged by the MC). Is this a threat to Clinton's presidency? If so he is well placed to resist it.
Lilly's next test is the Moon. 'If the Moon be powerful in her own house (Cancer) or in any of her dignities (the others being rulership, triplicity, terms or face), especially in a nocturnal geniture (Clinton's is diurnal) the evil is diminished, but exasperated if she be both weak and unfortunate'. In Clinton's SR is the Moon is in Cancer (it's own house) and rules the third House. The third is cadent (not good) but does aspect the ascendant by sign through a sextile, so it's not weak and it's not unfortunate.
Lilly then goes on to see if the sign ascending (Gemini) is in square or opposition to that of the radix. Gemini actually trines Libra, so we have another good indication. Lilly also checks to see if there's any square or opposition from Mars or Saturn to the Ascendant. In this case there is no such aspect, though natal Mars does trine the Ascendant, awkward but not fatal by any means.
However there is one bad indication. Lilly says that if the planets are placed in the opposite side of the chart or have opposite dignity (ill dignified in the SR but well dignified in the radix or even well dignified in the SR but ill dignified in the radix) that is an indicator of trouble. In Clinton's SR only two planets are above the horizon (Saturn and Jupiter) and both of these are totally out of sect. The other five are below the horizon including the Sun. In his radix, four planets are above the horizon and the other three are in the first house.
Lilly then goes on to see if any of the SR planets (apart from the Sun) conjunct the natal planets. In this case:
SR Mars conjoins natal Saturn, though this is an out of sign conjunction. This signifies, according to Lilly, short journeys, slackness in business, quarreling, a wound thereby to the face, death or ill to the father'. Well quarreling is certainly going on. It's worthy of note that in the SR, Saturn rules the eighth and Mars rules the twelfth, so there is definite malignity here.
SR Venus conjoins natal Mercury (to 31 minutes of arc). This is a good aspect and one signifying favour of men, and honoured for his learning. This is the stronger aspect by far of the two and adds a positive dimension.
Clinton's SR for 1998-1999 does not suggest that the threats outweigh benefic indications. Benefic Primary Directions are likely to be supported and malefic Primary Directions weakened.
Lilly does not progress the SR chart in any way, though he does look at transits to the SR chart for dates. Morin looks at the lunar returns and transits to both sets of charts. Neither of them adjusts their SRs for precession, or indeed mentions it. Whilst that is something that is not surprising for Hellenistic charts, where precession is of minimal importance by the Seventeenth Century there had been 1,500 years of precession from classical Greece and Rome. Perhaps that's something that should have at least been considered.
Edited to add
I forgot to mention that I have relocated Bill Clinton's SR from Hope AK to Washington DC. Morin argued that any significant change in location should be taken into account - the chart relates to where the person is, not where he was. This is also a fairly common modern practice, though it may well make comparison of the shape of the chart more difficult.
Solar Returns can be traced back to Hellenistic Times but perhaps were at their peak traditional use in the Seventeenth Century - both Lilly and Morin make extensive use of 'Revolutions' in their works. Morin does not make use of Profections, so he sees Solar Returns as the second most important predictive method (followed by Lunar Returns and then Transits). Because of space I'm going to use Lilly's explanations, as they are more concise but Morin's book on Revolutions is an extremely valuable, if not very easy read.
I think I remember Dave having a go at Astrologers who try to read Solar Returns as a variety of natal chart, going from house to house. Lilly and Morin would agree wholeheartedly. Nothing in a Solar Return chart can alter the natal 'promise' - i.e. if your natal chart says your never going to make it big in politics or business, no Solar Return can indicate you becoming President, Prime Minister or the CEO of a multinational. The natal chart is often referred to as a 'radix' or root chart, solar returns and profections are derived from it and can never supplant it.
I have attached a copy of Bill Clinton's SR for 1998 (through to August 1999).
Lilly's first test is if the signs on the SR are the same as that of the radix. The answer to that is no.
Lilly's second test is what planet is Lord of the year (ruler of the SR Ascendant) and is it combust. With Gemini rising the answer is Mercury and being within 8 degrees 44 minutes from the Sun, Mercury is just and only just free of combustion. It is however 'under the beams' (within 17 degrees of the Sun) and is mildly debilitated by position.
Lilly's next test is the position of the Sun by House. In this case the Sun is angular in the fourth and also rules the fourth. The Sun challenges the MC (or is challenged by the MC). Is this a threat to Clinton's presidency? If so he is well placed to resist it.
Lilly's next test is the Moon. 'If the Moon be powerful in her own house (Cancer) or in any of her dignities (the others being rulership, triplicity, terms or face), especially in a nocturnal geniture (Clinton's is diurnal) the evil is diminished, but exasperated if she be both weak and unfortunate'. In Clinton's SR is the Moon is in Cancer (it's own house) and rules the third House. The third is cadent (not good) but does aspect the ascendant by sign through a sextile, so it's not weak and it's not unfortunate.
Lilly then goes on to see if the sign ascending (Gemini) is in square or opposition to that of the radix. Gemini actually trines Libra, so we have another good indication. Lilly also checks to see if there's any square or opposition from Mars or Saturn to the Ascendant. In this case there is no such aspect, though natal Mars does trine the Ascendant, awkward but not fatal by any means.
However there is one bad indication. Lilly says that if the planets are placed in the opposite side of the chart or have opposite dignity (ill dignified in the SR but well dignified in the radix or even well dignified in the SR but ill dignified in the radix) that is an indicator of trouble. In Clinton's SR only two planets are above the horizon (Saturn and Jupiter) and both of these are totally out of sect. The other five are below the horizon including the Sun. In his radix, four planets are above the horizon and the other three are in the first house.
Lilly then goes on to see if any of the SR planets (apart from the Sun) conjunct the natal planets. In this case:
SR Mars conjoins natal Saturn, though this is an out of sign conjunction. This signifies, according to Lilly, short journeys, slackness in business, quarreling, a wound thereby to the face, death or ill to the father'. Well quarreling is certainly going on. It's worthy of note that in the SR, Saturn rules the eighth and Mars rules the twelfth, so there is definite malignity here.
SR Venus conjoins natal Mercury (to 31 minutes of arc). This is a good aspect and one signifying favour of men, and honoured for his learning. This is the stronger aspect by far of the two and adds a positive dimension.
Clinton's SR for 1998-1999 does not suggest that the threats outweigh benefic indications. Benefic Primary Directions are likely to be supported and malefic Primary Directions weakened.
Lilly does not progress the SR chart in any way, though he does look at transits to the SR chart for dates. Morin looks at the lunar returns and transits to both sets of charts. Neither of them adjusts their SRs for precession, or indeed mentions it. Whilst that is something that is not surprising for Hellenistic charts, where precession is of minimal importance by the Seventeenth Century there had been 1,500 years of precession from classical Greece and Rome. Perhaps that's something that should have at least been considered.
Edited to add
I forgot to mention that I have relocated Bill Clinton's SR from Hope AK to Washington DC. Morin argued that any significant change in location should be taken into account - the chart relates to where the person is, not where he was. This is also a fairly common modern practice, though it may well make comparison of the shape of the chart more difficult.
