Translations of Kepler’s Astrological Writings Part III. Kepler on Astrological Theory and Doctrine Section 1. On Directions, 1601-1602

Abstract

The treatise on directions is among the most difficult material in this collection of Kepler’s astrological writings, in terms of both translation and comprehension. Aside from discovering what Kepler is doing astrologically, many sentences in the treatise have to be read carefully to be fully understood. This is not astrology writing (or reading!) for the faint-hearted. We need to keep in mind that this treatise was never formally published; it exists only in this manuscript form. When Kepler uses the term ‘directions’ in this treatise, he does not always mean primary directions, as in the style of Ptolemy. Although he is comparing primary, or diurnal, motion to secondary, or zodiacal motion, Kepler’s system in general is more or less what modern astrologers would call secondary progressions, using a day for a year symbolism. But in his worked examples (in ‘On Directions’ these include his own chart and those of his children Heinrich and Susanna; and elsewhere the chart of Rudolf II1 ), he appears to be using, at different times, a variation on quotidian progressions, secondary progressions using solar arc in right ascension, and solar arc directions. He uses (mostly) right ascension for the Midheaven, oblique ascension for the Ascendant, and solar arc for both the Sun and the Moon. He does not direct any other planets. Greater detail of the way Kepler analysed directions can be found in his interpretation of Rudolf II’s chart. Kepler seems to take some standard techniques and improvise on them. He is not really ‘making things up’ but rather pushing against the boundary of standard techniques, just as he did in his work with aspects. It appears that Kepler’s techniques were 1) modifications of Ptolemaic ones, 2) modifications of Regiomontanus and 3) modifications of his mentor Tycho’s system, which appears to be similar to the modern idea of secondary progressions, though they are called directions. We can see this from the table at the end of Kepler’s interpretations of Rudolf II’s chart (see Part I.2.1, p. 100 in this volume). If we are to take anything away from this treatise, it is that Kepler privileges the motion of the Sun in developing a system for directions. But neither does he neglect the importance of the Moon, the Ascendant and the Midheaven. It is also striking how much emphasis he places on the relationship between the day, the month and the year, and how the present and the past intertwine. As Kepler eloquently puts it, ‘life is a multiplication of the first breath’. For the notes to this section, I am indebted to the astrological expertise of Joseph Crane, Nadine Harris, Bernadette Brady and Geoffrey Cornelius, who helped me immensely. For translation and palaeographic assistance, I am also indebted to Charles Burnett.