Mark wrote:
[...] But for me the most fascinating thing about declination and parallels and contra-parallels is when you find connections between planets that dont show up as zodiacal.

Exactly this is also my point: Parallels - bringing Planets together without any
reference to the ecliptic and its system.

But does anyone know the authorities who introduced these parallels of decli-
nation into astrology?

The solar zodiac in declination - Image: Marie-Christine Selifet

Etymologically, Solstice means 'Sun-standstill' and Equinoxes 'Equal nox or night'.

What might be confusing is that Antiscia are presented by longitude not declination in the classical literature (we always come back to the ecliptic somehow) and they are also associated with classical aspects (conjunction or opposition and to a minor extent to sextiles or trines) which in my view is a wrong labelling. To me, they represent a vertical measure not an horizontal one. Some will argue that they should be considered by whole sign relationship
In the article of Fallon, she points out that converting declinations to longitudes oftentimes creates anomalies, anomalies created by Out of orb planets and more so in the Solstice axis (Cancer/Gemini and Capricorn/Sagittarius). The chart of Little prince George, the son of Kate and William is a good example. He has 6 anomalies in his chart. Moon, Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn and Pluto. The result is that important events in his life will happen at different times if measured only by longitudes.

Darrelyn Gunzburg very much interested by visual astrology and astronomy wrote a paper
'Solstice/Antiscia Points - The Space in your chart for your partner'
https://darrelyngunzburg.com/

Quote
"The Antiscia of the Greeks have been handed down by tradition. I do not wish anyone to think that this has not been discussed by the Greeks. For even Ptolemy followed no other theory but that of Antiscia. Antiochus when he said that indeed Libra did not see Aries because the Earth was in the middle, as if through a mirror reached theory of the Antiscia. Dorotheus of Sidon, on the other hand, a very wise man who wrote about forecasting by the stars in very accurate and learned verses, explained the calculation of the Antiscia in clear terms in his fourth book."
Julius Firmicus Maternus
The Mathesis: Ancient Astrology Theory and Practice

IbnEzra (12th century) also called the equinox axis, the Line of Justice, another way to say of 'equal power'.
Lilly in chapter 19 of Christian Astrology says of solstices and contra-antiscia 'signs not beholding one another'.
'In Light of the Cardinal Axis: The Magic of Antiscia' Kate Petty and Gray Crawford.

Uranian astrologers consider the Aries Point as the Sun's node, the intersection of the ecliptic and Earth's equator meaning that an individual as he relates to the world or the general public.

Thanks a lot for your texts, interesting as ever, and for the quotations,
Ouranos.

But all these concern the antiscia and not the parallels of declination, this
thread's theme and the subject I'm so eager to know of who of the ancient
authorities mentioned it first or at all.

As far as I know, Ptolemy is the first one talking about declinations. Maybe I am wrong or some other sources lost in time or unknown to me. Chris Brennan mentions other possible sources: Antiochus, Maternus and Dorotheus of Sidon.

Parallel means two planets are at the same distance on the same side of the celestial equator, north, same side or south, opposite side.
Declination is a second dimension to locate a planet in the sky. To cast a chart, you need the longitude and latitude of a location. If you say 70W, this is the longitude or how we look at a chart. If you add 35N, you provide the latitude N from the Equator and this is more precise. Astrology presents us a flat chart which is the longitude only.

Best exemple is W.D. Gann who is famous for his stock market predictions.
In his system a cycle derived from prices will have two axis - Vertical price axis and horizontal time axis. Significant changes can be expected at important divisions of price or time. But the most significant changes should be expected at the angles made by combining the two.

In Timelords Nov 2021, Olga Morales (the specialist on Gann) wrote an article 'Time Cycles, Essential Forecasting Techniques'
She says 'The Moon's declination is one of the most important for Stock Market and Weather forecasting' and she goes on to describe that when the NN crosses Aries, it is the point of 'Major Lunar Standstill'.
Historically
1913-1914 WW1
1932-1933 The Great depression
1987 Crash
2006-2007 - Global Financial Crisis
2024-2025.....

I just found these links in Skyscript with threads concerning declinations and
latitude, but couldn't yet read the texts.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... t=latitude

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewt ... efa7f48c7d

Thank you for the links Johannes!
Yes, interesting discussion of course even with some broken links.
In a way, I am not surprised not to find much on declinations and parallels in the classical literature... when the Earth was the center of the universe!
Well, at least before Copernicus and the fact that his theory took more than a century to become widely accepted. After all, these measurements are all about the Sun's path.

I am also thinking how the astronomers measure the planets and stars by Right Ascension. Shouldn't we use this when we measure the declinations? Just asking.
And since I know you are also interested by Horary, I was reading again Jacobson who says of the Parallel of Declination 'The thing is as good as done now." (p.25) I need to think about this one again.
and 'the parallel and conjunction are always good, bringing two significators together to conclude the matter, even a parallel to Fortuna' (p. 79)

James Boehrer (1914-1983) was an American astrologer, the co-author-publisher-editor of "Stellium Quarterly" in the early '80s along with his wife, Kt Boehrer (a.ka. the declination lady) who wrote a book 'Declination - The other dimension' available from AFA ...
"There was a time when declinations (parallels and contraparallels) were used in delineation as a matter of course. Interest in declinations waned as other techniques, theories, and chart factors came into popularity. Kt Boehrer made it her mission to introduce as many people as possible to the insightful information that can be revealed through the use of declinations... Some traditional Arabian astrologers used declination, but this was mostly lost when their idea were borrowed by tht Greeks"

In a discussion on the Zarathuastrology forum, she has a conversation on declinations back in 2014. Caps are hers.
https://zarathuastrologyfo.proboards.co ... anets-orig

"Q: I have another question: in your book, I find something about it p 32, ...(title = Latitude ) also a little bit astronomical, but very important too (I guess): how do you relate longitude, latitude and declination. I know we speak here about to coordination systems. The one equatorial system with declination and right ascension; the other ecliptic system with (celestial) longitude and (celestial) latitude. I understand we can work with longitude and declination together (and thus mixing two coordination systems), because that's the way what we experience as earth, travelling around the sun (longitude) and the obliquity of the earth, what give us the declination, seasons, solstice points, antiscia, etc ...and we experience both measures on the same moment in one and the same experience... And then we have celestial latitude, all planets of the solar system travel within a narrow band of 8° above or under the ecliptic (except the very eccentric Pluto, and also the eccentric asteroïds) ; do we have to sum up latitude and declination to define of a planet is really OOB or not? If so, than is looking for declination not enough, and we always have to consider the latitude of the planet.... If we had to sum up latitude and declination than a planet with f.e. a declination of 25°N15', can lose his status of OOB, when the planet has a latitude South of more than (25°N15' minus 23°26-28')?? A planet can be off-the-ecliptic (by latitude) but not OOB (in the meaning of a declination above 23°26-28'). In that case you speak about: 'more than should be expected within normal limitations and conditions'. In the case of OOB you speak about 'beyond normal conditions or expectations': is it a question of gradation or not?(Luc)

K.T Boehrer: When a planet's declination is calculated, its latitude is taken into account in the process so there is no reason to be concerned about the any adjustment of a planet's declination because of its latitude. The only latitude that is of importance (and there are several different types of latitude -have forgotten the classifications right now) is the latitude that is given for planets north or south of the Ecliptic which may occasionally place a planet that is within the 23N/S28 maximum ecliptic limit declination OUTSIDE the ecliptic while NOT OUT OF BOUNDS. It will never move an OOB planet inside the ecliptic limit. This means that we occasionally have a planet that is outside the ecliptic but NOT outside the Ecliptic maximum declination - these planets are very individualistic in their influence - indicating traits and/or characteristics and/or events that are unusual but NOT completely outside the realm of reason (if you see what I mean!) I have written about that in my book, too. Kt
Some basics and why declinations is so important?

When you ask for the declination of the degree of 8 Sc 15 and its antiscia (or solstice point) that the declination will be given for that degree on the ecliptic and will be 18S38 declination but a planet may be in 8 Sc 15 AND NOT BE ON THE DEGREE OF THE ECLIPTIC THAT IS ASSOCIATED that degree of declination. IN other words, the ecliptic is simply the supposed arc of the Sun in relation to our planet earth and its equator - it simply measures the Sun's decline either North or South of the earth's equator. There is NO planet (other than Earth) whose relationship to the Sun is defined by the same arc of measurement. Since every degree of longitude may be measured from north pole to south pole (vertically) a planet may be in 8 Sc 15 BUT its arc may be so extreme that it is not ON the Ecliptic (where the Ecliptic and longitude intersect) and it may be in a very different degree of declination while in 8 Sc 15 DEPENDING ON THE ECCENTRICITY OF ITS ARC AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME. - IN OTHER WORDS IT MAY BE IN AN 'OTHER' DECLINATION. In other words, 8 Sc 15 longitude extends, in its elevation above and/or below ecliptic, through every degree of declination. The planet Pluto is an excellent example of this right now.

Longitudinally it transited through the sign Scorpio from Nov 1983 through Nov 1995 but its declination, due to the eccentricity of its arc continued to register in the sign Libra. You see, any single degree of longitude will extend through EVERY DEGREE OF DECLINATION and it is declination that measures the planet's arc above or below the equator (around the Earth's circumference) and the Sun's 'apparent' arc above and below the the Earth's equator. Longitude simply measures the simple circumference of the earth (like measuring the waistline of a human being.)
You have to understand that when we say a planet is in any given degree of longitude we are identifying only one measurement and that measurement extends in a huge circle of 360 degrees of space so that planet could be anywhere above the arctic circle or below the arctic circle. 


When we say that a planet is in a specifc degree of longitude AND a specific degree of declination it tells us EXACTLY where to look for that planet because it tells us the degree of inclination above or below the ecliptic. Without longitude the given declination could be anywhere in a 360 degree circle AROUND THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE EARTH. Without DECLINATION A given a planet could be anywhere AROUND THE POLAR (NORTH POLE TO SOUTH POLE - A 360 DEGREE CIRCLE FROM POLE TO POLE) CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE EARTH. And there is the added benefit that the declination will give us the degree of longitude where its specifc degree and sign intersect the Ecliptic (where the action is - at least for us Earthlings because we live on planet Earth and the ecliptc angle activated by the Sun in its cycle (or conversely, the Earth in ITS cycle) establishes the Ecliptic and makes life on this planet not only possible but largely pleasant! So when you are using both longitude and declination you are using a system that allows you to pinpoint the 'hot spots', so to speak, in space, in relation to the planet where we live. 
When you check a planet's declination to a degree of longitude different from its given degree of longitude you have discovered and identified another 'angle' or 'aspect' of that planet's influence (hidden safely away in it declination, just waiting for someone to discover the hidden dimension(s) of that planet. Today, March 7, 2002 Pluto is in 17 Sag 35 by longitude BUT by declination it is in 12S57 declination - a degree of declination that intersects the longitudinal 4th degree of Scorpio. Now, when Pluto finally enters 0 Cap in March 2008 it will be at 17S declination where it still registers in the longitudinal sign of Scorpio."

You can check in Planetdance > Declinations> Boehrer conversion and Boehrer Diagram

Ouranos wrote:In a way, I am not surprised not to find much on declinations and parallels in the classical literature... when the Earth was the center of the universe!

The earth, or rather the place of observation, is still and necessarily the centre of the cosmos for the purposes of astrology. I don't see any connection here. Rather, as mathematics and mathematical astronomy became more sophisticated and precise, astrologers wanted their art to follow suit (irrespective of whether they believed in a heliocentric model or a geocentric one, or, like Brahe and Morin, something in between).

I am also thinking how the astronomers measure the planets and stars by Right Ascension. Shouldn't we use this when we measure the declinations? Just asking.

Right ascension and declination are measured with respect to the same circle, namely, the equator. The former is position along the equator, the latter position north or south of it. They correspond to longitude and latitude, respectively, in the ecliptic coordinate system. Because these two circles are fixed in relation to each other (well, sort of), positions in one coordinate system can be translated into the other.

The earth, or rather the place of observation, is still and necessarily the centre of the cosmos for the purposes of astrology.

Half agreeing with you on this Martin. The heliocentric system can explain events the geocentric cannot explain sometimes.

positions in one coordinate system can be translated into the other.

Yes, it is in the translation that we raise concerns. Like when astrologers equate parallels to conjunctions and contra-parallels to oppositions. Not sure about this current belief.

Appreciate your input and view in all astrological matters Martin.

Ouranos wrote:Half agreeing with you on this Martin. The heliocentric system can explain events the geocentric cannot explain sometimes.

And I'm sure that if we included Neptune-centric, etc., perspectives, we could explain even more. But I meant simply that if you want to use things like houses, or even zodiacal placements, you need a reference point, and I'm not sure why another planet or star should be a better reference point for something happening on earth than the earth itself.

Yes, it is in the translation that we raise concerns. Like when astrologers equate parallels to conjunctions and contra-parallels to oppositions. Not sure about this current belief.

I didn't mean symbolically equating one with the other, though; just that if you have one set of coordinates you can derive the other set mathematically.

I'm not sure why another planet or star should be a better reference point for something happening on earth than the earth itself.

Totally understand your point of view Martin but sometimes astrologers (including myself), we base our judgement on a view that is too local so to speak. For example, if someone living at longitude 0 E/W and latitude 0 N/S says that the Equal House System is the only one valid - it works for him -... he is right! Yet, he is missing the larger picture, outside is geocentric view.

I didn't mean symbolically equating one with the other, though; just that if you have one set of coordinates you can derive the other set mathematically.

I did not imply this was your view. Sorry if I did not explain myself correctly.
Astrologer's mathematics are like election polls - they take a formula to explain their belief system. A Moon transit over your Sun will produce a myriad of results in your life. Sometimes, nothing. But we hear astrology columns saying all the time that 'you will get emotional'. The reason behind is that we equate a + b = c while it should be a + b + c + d and so on that will equate this result. Our view is partial all the time like the cookbooks.
I am very critical of myself in this comment... as well as to my collegues!

Best to you,
Ouranos

I have used parallels to angles for a long time and they are very useful. Someone mentioned Charles Jayne. His recommendation to shrink the orbs at extreme N/S dec is accurate imho. From his writing on the subject:

dec
degree
N/S
d m ---- max orb d m s
1 12' ---- 1 11'30"
5 36' ---- 1 10' 0"
14 24' ---- 0 58' 0"
18 48' ---- 0 45' 0"
20 30' ---- 0 15' 0"
23 12' ---- 0 10'30"

So transit MA at say, 19d30' north or south dec should have a max orb to an angle or planet in declination of about 25 minutes.