Book 21 is the single most important volume of Astrologia Gallica, the 26-volume astrological masterwork of the 17th century astrologer, mathematician, natural philosopher and physician, Jean-Baptiste Morin de Villefranche. In Book 21, which was published posthumously in 1661, Morin sets out his theory of astrological signification and the related method of determination that is the foundation of his astrological work.
Morin is unique among astrologers in his deep investigation of astrological theory, which he founds in geocentric cosmology and first principles, and in his development of the method that he identifies as proper horoscopic method. The theory and the method of determination that follows from it are Morin’s most valuable gift to horoscopic astrologers and to the great art we practice. Despite the importance and unique nature of Morin’s astrological work and Book 21’s foundational role in that work, and despite the work’s great value for astrologers’ understanding of the horoscopic art, English-speaking students’ understanding of the work has been hampered by the absence of a true and complete translation of Book 21.
In 1974, Zoltan Mason Emerald Press published Astrosynthesis, a work translated by Lucy Little, a student of Zoltan Mason who was a leading teacher, practitioner and explicator of Morin’s work. It is, I believe, well known among English-speaking astrologers who study Morin’s work that Astrosynthesis, which is a translation from Henri Selva’s 1897 abridged French paraphrase of Book 21, is more a paraphrase than a translation, a fact that the translated text itself makes clear. It is also apparent from the work itself, and I believe it is also widely understood, that Astrosynthesis is an abridged version of Book 21 rather than a paraphrase of the full text.
On the other hand, Richard S. Baldwin’s version of Book 21, also published 50 years ago in 1974, neither gives an indication that it is more a paraphrase of Morin’s text than a translation nor informs the reader that it omits parts of the text. Neither, of course, does it reveal that it gets some things simply wrong, misstates others in a way that obscures Morin’s meaning, and even adds things Morin does not say. The Baldwin version of Book 21 likely is the one to which most astrologers who have sought to study Book 21 in English translation have turned, at least in more recent years. Although many English-speaking students of Morin’s work have relied on the Baldwin version of Book 21, we unfortunately have relied on an unreliable source.
When I began to suspect there were serious problems with Baldwin’s text, I began to compare passages of that text with Morin’s Latin original. Those comparisons confirmed that my suspicions were well founded. I here set out some of the kinds of errors and other deficiencies in the Baldwin version of Book 21, and give a few examples of the kinds of problems with which the Baldwin text is riddled.
1. Baldwin’s text directly contradicts some things Morin says.
The Baldwin version says: “For the spaces themselves have no determinative power.” Section 2, Chapter 1, p. 51. This statement directly contradicts what Morin actually says: “For in those spaces, by reason of their position in relation to the Horizon or to the person born in it, there is a determinative kind of virtue, which we call the virtue of the houses.” p. 51.
The Baldwin version says that the Primum Caelum “determines all things.” Section 1, Chapter 4, p. 23. In Morin’s theory, the Primum Caelum determines nothing. Rather, as Morin says in this statement whose meaning the Baldwin version completely reverses, the Primum Caelum “is accidentally determined in every way.” p. 21.
Similarly, the Baldwin version reverses the very title of Book 21—Of the Active Determination of the Celestial Bodies & the Passive Determination of Sublunary Things—and says that “the celestial bodies actively determine the individual…but are in turn determined passively.” Section 1, Chapter 4, p. 29. The new translation correctly translates Morin as saying that “the celestial bodies are actively determined to a kind of substantive effect by those subject to them, but the latter are passively determined by the former.” p. 27. In Morin’s theory, the celestial bodies actively influence sublunary things and passively determine them, while sublunary things, which have no influence on the celestial bodies, actively determine those bodies’ influence. This sentence in the Baldwin version has other problems not mentioned here.
The errors in these three statements alone would confuse and mislead anyone who seeks to understand Morin’s astrological theory and the method of determination he explains.
2. The Baldwin version adds things to Morin’s text, sometimes in a way that confuses, or even negates, the doctrine or rule Morin states.
For example, Baldwin’s version opens Chapter 11 of Section 2 as follows: “The aspects to the house cusps are to be compared, for by the prime motion from east to west the planets move to the cusps, and of these the dexter aspects, or those preceding the cusp (earlier in the zodiac) are generally said to be more effective than the sinister aspects, or those of the same kind following the cusp (later in the zodiac).” p. 111 (emphases supplied). The words italicized above are not found in Morin’s text, and the two additions of “the cusp” completely negate the point Morin makes here. The interpolated references to the zodiac are relatively harmless, but they are added to Morin’s text without acknowledgment of the addition. The new translation of this passage is: “The aspects of the Planets are compared in multiple ways. First, with respect to the cusps of the houses. The Planets are moved to the cusps by the primary motion, that is, on the primum mobile from Rising to Setting, and so their dexter, or preceding, aspects are commonly supposed to be more efficacious than their sinister, or following, ones of the same kind.” p. 111. Not only does the Baldwin version here add words that render the passage false, it also omits the first sentence, a sentence that orients the reader to all that follows in the chapter. In addition, it is otherwise confusing by, for example, saying that the aspects to the house cusps are to be compared (to what?) because (“for”) the planets move from east to west in the primary motion. This statement of the supposed reason for the doctrine Morin states makes no sense and is not what Morin says.
In another instance of an unacknowledged interpolation, we find in the Baldwin version this statement: “One should also note that a planet in the first house has an influence on the affairs of the ninth and fifth (the houses corresponding in this instance to the fire triplicity), and even more so if it rules the ninth or the fifth; and so on for the second, sixth and tenth, etc.” Section 2, Chapter 5, p. 82 (emphases supplied). The statement in the italicized parenthetical is pure Baldwin and not Morin. The new translation of this passage reads as follows: “As regards houses of the same triplicity, they are also to be noted here, for a Planet in the first house influences the significations of the ninth and fifth, and much more so if it rules over the ninth or fifth; and so of the rest.” p. 83. Note also that the Baldwin version omits Morin’s explicit reference to houses of the same triplicity, the concept at the heart of what Morin says here. Instead, it restates the text in a way that obscures the concept of the triplicities of houses that is so central to Morin’s Cabala of the Astrological Houses..
3. Baldwin’s version fails to properly translate terms of art essential to a proper understanding of Morin’s theory and method, and puts vague, confusing and even misleading terms in their place.
The Baldwin version reads: “So if Jupiter is in the first and trine to the Sun in the tenth, the Sun’s aspect will incline Jupiter to influence the affairs of the tenth house—that is, honor and prestige—and Jupiter’s aspect to incline the Sun to influence the affairs of the first….” Section 2, Chapter 10, p. 108 (emphases supplied). The new translation reads: “So, if Jupiter is in the first and trine the Sun in the tenth, the Sun will determine Jupiter to the significations of the tenth—of course, to honors and dignities—and Jupiter [will determine] the Sun to the significations of the first….” p. 108. Among other problems here, the Baldwin version says that a planet’s aspect will “incline” the other planet to “influence” the house where the first planet sits. Morin says nothing here about a mutual aspect “inclining” a planet to “influence” the house of the other planet’s location. Morin’s text is an explanation of planets’ mutual determination by their mutual aspects. In Morin’s theory and method, “determination” and “influence” are terms of art that must not be confounded with each other. The Baldwin version not only muddles these centrally important terms. On a careful reading, one can also see that this passage, in the way it refers to the planets’ aspects rather than simply to the planets, also otherwise confuses how mutual determination by aspect works in Morin’s theory and method.
In another example of a glaringly confusing and misleading translation, the Baldwin version says: “It must now be made clear that the primary houses…[are] the factors which modify or delimit the quality of the signs, planets or fixed stars so as to produce some kind of accidental quality or event in the life of the native, according to the essential attributes of those houses.” Section 2, Chapter 1, p. 51 (emphases supplied). The new translation reads: “Now with these premises, it is to be said that the primary houses…are only determinants, either of the signs or the Planets or of the fixed stars, to these or those kinds of accidents that are suitable to the native and are in accord with the essential significations of the houses set forth by us in Chapter 3, Section 1, Book [17].” The statements that the houses modify the celestial bodies’ “quality” directly contradict important statements Morin makes in multiple places and in multiple ways in Book 21. In Morin’s theory and method, the houses determine the celestial bodies to different kinds of accidents, but do not modify the quality of their influence. In addition to these misleading statements, the Baldwin version here also, as too often, uses vague and confusing terms in place of Morin’s clear and exact ones. It substitutes the vague and confusing “essential attributes” of the houses for the precise “essential significations.” It also omits reference to the essential role of the receiver of celestial influence by omitting the words “that are suitable to the native,” and omits the citation to another book of Astrologia Gallica.
4. In other places the Baldwin text may not confuse or mislead, but instead simply omits, without acknowledgment, significant, interesting and even notably important parts of Morin’s text.
As one example: “It is because of this fact that application has greater effect than separation—all other things being equal.” Section 2, Chapter 11, p. 111. The new translation gives the full passage: “And this doctrine is founded on the fact that application is more efficacious than departure, at least other things being equal, because in application the force is directed toward the aspect as it becomes closer to partile, but in departure it is slackened; from this it is also to be deduced that a preceding Planet does not have power superior to one following unless the former also applies to the latter. And this is to be carefully noted when the strengths of the Planets are counted up to discover which one is preeminent.” pp. 111-112.
5.In this example, Baldwin’s text mistranslates Morin’s text in a way that fundamentally alters its meaning and results in a statement Morin would consider to be false.
Baldwin version: “If a planet located outside the first house is debilitated therein and is connected with the ruler of the first through rulership or by aspect, or itself aspects the Ascendant, it will have a very debilitating influence on first house affairs.” Section 2, Chapter 12, p. 125. New translation: “But a Planet outside the first and debilitated in it, if it is connected by rulership or aspect to the ruler of the first, or aspects the Horoscope, will very weakly influence the significations of the first.” p. 124. This item is #6 in a list of seven items that are set in the descending order of the relative power of their effect. Morin’s statement here is about the relative weakness of the influence of a planet so placed rather than about its powerfully damaging effect.
6. Baldwin’s text frequently replaces Morin’s strong, clear and memorable statements with relatively unclear, weak, unmemorable paraphrases, some of which are reasonably accurate and some of which are not.
To give one example among many, the Baldwin version reads: “And so, this horoscope is an example of how the universal significators are not able to refer to any specific situation or event since, considered by themselves only, their meanings and application remain too general.” Section 1, Chapter 3, p. 20. The new translation much more accurately renders Morin’s memorable words as: “On account of which those celestial causes, so long universally esteemed, and used as if to signify something particular—though of course seen universally they are able to signify only universally, but not something particular to Peter or John—are hooted offstage.” pp. 17-18.
7. Other divergences from Morin’s text also weaken the work and make it substantially less accessible to readers and serious students.
For example, the Baldwin version frequently eliminates landmarks that Morin put in his text to make the structure and development of his argument apparent to the reader, and to help the reader follow his reasoning. The landmarks include the numbering of related points that are steps in an argument or that otherwise support a conclusion for which Morin argues. Those landmarks include also words or phrases that tell the reader what to expect from what follows, or that help the reader properly place what follows in the context where it is found. And in a work designed for professional astrologers, the Baldwin text simply omits Morin’s numerous cross-references to other volumes of Astrologia Gallica. Examples of these problems are readily found by comparison of the Baldwin text with the new translation or with Morin’s Latin original.
Numerous other examples of these kinds of mistranslations that directly contradict Morin or hopelessly confuse his meaning, and examples of the misuse of terms of art and substitution of such terms with words of vague meaning, of numerous weak paraphrases, omissions, and additions, can be readily identified in the Baldwin text. Despite the many problems in the Baldwin version, it does in many instances correctly translate Morin’s text, or at least paraphrases it reasonably well. As a result, it has been at least in part useful to English-speaking students of Morin’s work. But it also has at the same time obscured Morin’s work and has confused and misled its readers.
The Baldwin version of Book 21 does not meet standards of an adequate and reliable translation. I became unwilling to use it to study Morin when I began to see its numerous problems, only a few of which are specifically noted here. To do justice to Morin’s wonderful work, and make it more accessible to readers and students of Morin, this new translation is very much needed.