Hi all,

I often work with fixed stars, in natal work and horary sometimes too.
I often bump into a dilemma when working with them.

When I get a planet which is tightly conjunct a minor fixed star, and at the same time it conjuncts a major fixed star, but not-closely.
I find myself at a loss during such times. Which F. Star should I count as being conjunct the planet?

Here's an example: Say we have a planet in 24.30 Taurus, should we consider it as being conjunct to the "minor" Segin or the "major" Algol?

Lilly gives a 4 degree orb to Algol, so maybe Algol, but if we'd use such logic for every F.Star pair, a lot of the minor ones won't be used at all...
Me personally, I believe we'd lose some important star lore that way.

Sometimes I check the declination of the planet to see which of the Fixed Stars it's closer to, during that moment. Though some fixed stars are pretty much the same declination, so this won't solve the issue.

---

*Note A*
I don't use B. Brady's method, rather the method that V. Robson used.

*Note B*
Picture is from Deb Houlding's Fixed Star List on Skyscript.

Hi Dima,

Both stars would be significant and should therefore be included in your interpretation, in my opinion.

I agree with you that we tend to lose important information by limiting ourselves to the brighter fixed stars, although it stands to reason that the latter should be given wider orbs.

Personally, I only consider longitude when working with fixed stars. As our circle of reference is the zodiac anyway, declination would not seem significant.

Someone else's mileage may differ, though.

Yes, I differ. Co-rising has been part of astrological tradition from the earliest known times, and the ecliptic was not the only circle of reference (that's very much a 20th-century development). Personally I would only use stars that actually appear reasonably close to a planet/point (the dimmer, the closer, just as Michael says), which is a function of several variables. It is one of the few cases where I prefer a 3D visual representation to a table!

On the ecliptic or heliacal rising? Something Bernadette Brady has brought to our attention.

"The star Algol is projected to 24° Taurus on the ecliptic, but experiences its helical rise around May 8th, when the Sun is around 18° Taurus. So the star visibly rises before the Sun when the Sun is in an earlier degree of the zodiac than the star." And this may vary with your actual location.
https://www.medievalastrologyguide.com/fixed-stars


Another way to look at is the Fixed Star visibility at your location.
Here is an example for Jerusalem at latitude 31 N 77
In-the-sky.org has the technical stuff about the Fixed Stars in the section Objects
and PennState U helps you calculate the projection on the Ecliptic (zodiacal degree)
https://www.swift.psu.edu/secure/toop/convert.htm

> Constellations visible from Jerusalem for Dec 6, 2022
From your list of Fixed Stars, we learn that the constellations
Perseus, Cassiopeia and Taurus are visible all night

In Perseus
Algol (Mag 2) > Algol is visible in the evening sky, becoming accessible around 17:22 (IST), 37° above your north-eastern horizon, as dusk fades to darkness. It will then reach its highest point in the sky at 21:44, 80° above your northern horizon. It will continue to be observable until around 04:20, when it sinks below 14° above your north-western horizon.
Right ascension 3h08'10" Declination +40 57'20" Zodiacal degree 47.0417

Capulus > (Mag 4) ((Messier 34) is an Open Cluster. The Spiral Cluster is visible in the evening sky, becoming accessible around 17:36 (IST), 45° above your north-eastern horizon, as dusk fades to darkness. It will then reach its highest point in the sky at 21:19, 79° above your northern horizon. It will continue to be observable until around 03:22, when it sinks below 20° above your north-western horizon.
Right ascension 2h42' Declination +42 44' Zodiacal degree 40.5000

Misam> (Mag 4) k-Per or Kappa Persei is visible in the evening sky, becoming accessible around 17:36 (IST), 40° above your north-eastern horizon, as dusk fades to darkness. It will then reach its highest point in the sky at 21:46, 76° above your northern horizon. It will continue to be observable until around 04:12, when it sinks below 17° above your north-western
Right ascension 3h05'32" Declination +56 42'21" Zodiacal degree 46.3833

In Cassiopeia
Segin > (Mag3.4) (Ruchbah) is visible all night. It will become visible around 17:28 (IST), 51° above your north-eastern horizon, as dusk fades to darkness. It will then reach its highest point in the sky at 20:02, 61° above your northern horizon. It will continue to be observable until around 03:51, when it sinks below 15° above your north-western horizon.
Right ascension 1h25'49" Declination +60 14'06" Zodiacal degree 47.0417

In Taurus
Alcyone> (Mag 2.87) Alcyone is visible in the evening sky, becoming accessible around 17:30 (IST), 25° above your eastern horizon, as dusk fades to darkness. It will then reach its highest point in the sky at 22:24, 82° above your southern horizon. It will continue to be observable until around 04:07, when it sinks below 15° above your western horizon.
Right Ascension: 3h47'29" Declination +24 06'17 Zodiacal degree 56.8708

Looking at the zodiacal degree for each Fixed Star, choose the one closest to the planet or house you have on the Ecliptic.
Looking at the Declination (a measure from the Equator), choose the one closest to the Latitude of your location and Zodiacal degree. Jerusalem being at 31N, we find Alcyone at 24N, Algol at 41N followed by Capulus at 43N.
If you were living in the Poles, you would look for circumpolar stars for the prime influence.

That is how I would look at it and I am still very 'green' with all the astronomy side of it. I am sure other astrologers have a better understanding of the whole package.

Martin Gansten wrote:Yes, I differ.

What a shock!

Co-rising has been part of astrological tradition from the earliest known times, and the ecliptic was not the only circle of reference (that's very much a 20th-century development).

I beg to differ. While using parans is indeed a very ancient technique, there is no evidence that, for instance, Ptolemy employed it. Rather, he seems to have advocated simply projecting the fixed stars' positions on the zodiac in delineation, as per the most common approach today. I think that the way he talks about the fixed stars closer to the ecliptic first in Tetrabiblos actually supports this view.

And in his Almagest, he even goes as far as converting Hipparchus' equatorial coordinates to more aesthetically pleasing ecliptical ones (see e.g. Christian Marx: "On the making of Ptolemy’s star catalog", https://doi.org/10.1007/s00407-020-00257-w).

While the zodiac may not have been the only circle of reference the ancients ever used, saying that their strong emphasis on it is evident from their surviving works (and by no means those of Ptolemy alone) would be an understatement.

Personally I would only use stars that actually appear reasonably close to a planet/point (the dimmer, the closer, just as Michael says), which is a function of several variables. It is one of the few cases where I prefer a 3D visual representation to a table!

Michael Sternbach wrote:While using parans is indeed a very ancient technique, there is no evidence that, for instance, Ptolemy employed it.

I wasn't thinking of Ptolemy in particular, but of the simple fact that the concept of paranatellonta existed, which in itself is enough to show that ecliptical projections were not the only approach – nor, presumably, the oldest. Co-risings are directly observable, whereas ecliptical projections are not. And surely a distance of, say, 30 degrees in latitude between two points should count for something, just like a distance in longitude?

To be clear, I didn't mean that ecliptical projections didn't exist in premodern times; but the notion of the ecliptic as the only astrological circle of reference is a direct result of astrologers being less and less acquainted with mathematical astronomy.

Martin Gansten wrote:

Michael Sternbach wrote:While using parans is indeed a very ancient technique, there is no evidence that, for instance, Ptolemy employed it.

I wasn't thinking of Ptolemy in particular, but of the simple fact that the concept of paranatellonta existed, which in itself is enough to show that ecliptical projections were not the only approach – nor, presumably, the oldest.

Well, the history of the paranatellonta is a somewhat complex one. In its basic form, the concept refers to fixed stars and constellations rising (or culminating etc.) simultaneously with specific signs or degrees of the zodiac.

Later, the term was also used in reference to fixed stars that had the same longitude as particular zodiacal positions.

Parans as as we know them today were introduced alongside other characteristic methods via Hellenistic astrological literature, but have forerunners already in the star lore of Dynastic Egypt. It's noteworthy that this concept is NOT supposed to be of Babylonian origin, according to modern scholarship.

See in particular: J. F. Quack: "Frühe ägyptische Vorläufer der Paranatellonta?", https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/35121070.pdf

Co-risings are directly observable, whereas ecliptical projections are not.

Yes, in some cases.

And surely a distance of, say, 30 degrees in latitude between two points should count for something, just like a distance in longitude?

But following that kind of logic, a conjunction with a faint star close to the ecliptic like Psi Ophiuchi should be more significant than one with a bright, but high-latitude star like Vega.

To be clear, I didn't mean that ecliptical projections didn't exist in premodern times; but the notion of the ecliptic as the only astrological circle of reference is a direct result of astrologers being less and less acquainted with mathematical astronomy.

My perception is that astrological methods rather became more mathematically complicated over time. And not always for the better - there is wisdom in simplicity.

Michael Sternbach wrote:Well, the history of the paranatellonta is a somewhat complex one. In its basic form, the concept refers to fixed stars and constellations rising (or culminating etc.) simultaneously with specific signs or degrees of the zodiac.

Yes: rising with, not projected on to. The former is place-dependent, the latter isn't.

Later, the term was also used in reference to fixed stars that had the same longitude as particular zodiacal positions.

I have never seen that. Do you have a reference for it?

It's noteworthy that this concept is NOT supposed to be of Babylonian origin, according to modern scholarship.

Why, particularly?

Co-risings are directly observable, whereas ecliptical projections are not.

Yes, in some cases.

What is the case in some cases?

But following that kind of logic, a conjunction with a faint star close to the ecliptic like Psi Ophiuchi should be more significant than one with a bright, but high-latitude star like Vega.

Yes, in general I do think a close conjunction with a dim star is more significant than what is not really a visual conjunction but just a shared longitude.

My perception is that astrological methods rather became more mathematically complicated over time.

I don't think that is borne out by the sources. You mentioned Ptolemy, and his methods (particularly of direction) require a good deal of mathematical skill; but even the methods that he criticized as too simplistic challenge many astrologers today.

There have been eras (such as the Islamic Golden Age and the early modern period in Europe) when advances in mathematics led to greater sophistication in astrological computation (such as new house systems), but that was largely due to the great overlap between the people doing mathematics and those doing astrology in the first place. One would be hard pressed to find a historical style of astrology less technically (including mathematically) demanding than the mainstream 20th-century, post-Alan Leo variety.

Martin Gansten wrote:

Michael Sternbach wrote:Well, the history of the paranatellonta is a somewhat complex one. In its basic form, the concept refers to fixed stars and constellations rising (or culminating etc.) simultaneously with specific signs or degrees of the zodiac.

Yes: rising with, not projected on to. The former is place-dependent, the latter isn't.

Nevertheless, here the zodiac serves as the circle of reference as well.

Later, the term was also used in reference to fixed stars that had the same longitude as particular zodiacal positions.

I have never seen that. Do you have a reference for it?

Sure. Franz Boll discusses the various uses of the paranatellonta in his Sphaera, 75-90, at length. Pay special attention to page 78, where the author describes one variation that presupposes the whole sky to be divided into twelve 'orange slices' corresponding with the signs of the zodiac.

Sorry about the German.

It's noteworthy that this concept is NOT supposed to be of Babylonian origin, according to modern scholarship.

Why, particularly?

For two reasons:

If parans were the oldest and original method to include the fixed stars in delineation, we would expect to find them already in Babylonian astrology. Going by conventional historical standards, anyway.

That said, my own thinking actually tends more towards Wilhelm Gundel's, who never stopped believing in the largely Egyptian origins of our art. Parans being a legacy of Pharaonic Egypt (as per the linked article) would support this assumption.

Co-risings are directly observable, whereas ecliptical projections are not.

Yes, in some cases.

What is the case in some cases?

For instance, co-rising with the Sun prohibiting observability. And lower transit, obviously.

Interestingly, Franz Boll assumed that, early on, celestial globes were being employed for coming up with those lists of paranatellonta that we know of, rather than direct observation.

But following that kind of logic, a conjunction with a faint star close to the ecliptic like Psi Ophiuchi should be more significant than one with a bright, but high-latitude star like Vega.

Yes, in general I do think a close conjunction with a dim star is more significant than what is not really a visual conjunction but just a shared longitude.

I guess a case could be made for fixed stars close the ecliptic having a stronger influence, and you are surely not the only astrologer assuming that - but for me, proximity to the ecliptic would be just one consideration amongst several. As you know, two planets that we consider to be in conjunction may not seem very close to each other at all when we see them in the sky. But this doesn't greatly matter, because our circle of reference is the zodiac which we project the planets' positions on. Why shouldn't the same principle hold true for the fixed stars then as wwll?

My system of astrology includes the idea that the Sun and the course he describes (the zodiac) are relaying the astral influences. And I think that Ptolemy and many of his contemporaries would agree to this 'solar based' of natural philosophy.

My perception is that astrological methods rather became more mathematically complicated over time.

I don't think that is borne out by the sources. You mentioned Ptolemy, and his methods (particularly of direction) require a good deal of mathematical skill; but even the methods that he criticized as too simplistic challenge many astrologers today.

There have been eras (such as the Islamic Golden Age and the early modern period in Europe) when advances in mathematics led to greater sophistication in astrological computation (such as new house systems), but that was largely due to the great overlap between the people doing mathematics and those doing astrology in the first place. One would be hard pressed to find a historical style of astrology less technically (including mathematically) demanding than the mainstream 20th-century, post-Alan Leo variety.

Of course, calculating primary directions requires advanced mathematical skills - and this method was an intrinsic part of Ptolemy's system (even though probably not invented by him). By contrast, some of that 'greater sophistication' introduced by the Arabs was in fact more of a detour, in my view - especially regarding house systems.

In particular, the Hellenestic astrologers were already quite aware of the difference between the Midheaven and the Nonagesimal. The Tetrabiblos clearly mentions the Midheaven in a special context. Not employing it in determining the house cusps was a matter of choice, not of ignorance!

Likewise, other so called "improvements" have been made and celebrated throughout the history of astrology, due to insufficient understanding of this science's true foundations and the belief that it would require refinement.

Talking about the creation of modern astrology, yes, much of the prior art was omitted, while at the same time new material was introduced. And yes, some of the modern methods (e.g., house calculations) are so complicated that their representatives are fortunate to have computers doing the job for them today.

Contemporary interest in classical astrology can be seen as a fruitful attempt to recapture some of what has been lost in inter-cultural transition then. This will hopefully result in a new astrology that embraces the best of all that has come before!

Thanks for the discussion so far! We may not always agree with each other, but it's always a good exercise to confront one's views with someone else's.

I think we may be talking (partly) at cross-purposes, Michael. Of course the ecliptic is a (even the) major circle of reference for astrology, given that we are interested primarily in the planets which move in close proximity to it. It just isn't the only one, and never was.

Sorry about the German.

Deutsch lesen ist kein Problem. But I meant a primary source that defines paranatellonta as longitudinal conjunctions rather than as rising with a particular longitude. Boll's chapter is peppered with Greek phrases and sentences, but at a quick glance I couldn't find any such statement.[

As you know, two planets that we consider to be in conjunction may not seem very close to each other at all when we see them in the sky. But this doesn't greatly matter, because our circle of reference is the zodiac which we project the planets' positions on.

On the contrary, I think it does matter, sometimes a great deal, and the consideration of two planets being of the same or opposite 'winds' (northern or southern latitude) is an ancient one. And yet these distances are very small compared to those between the planets and some fixed stars.

In particular, the Hellenestic astrologers were already quite aware of the difference between the Midheaven and the Nonagesimal. The Tetrabiblos clearly mentions the Midheaven in a special context. Not employing it in determining the house cusps was a matter of choice, not of ignorance!

Agreed, just as Valens' and others' choice so to employ it was. But we're veering off topic.

Likewise, other so called "improvements" have been made and celebrated throughout the history of astrology, due to insufficient understanding of this science's true foundations and the belief that it would require refinement.

I'd mostly agree with that as well, in principle, though I imagine we have at least partly different lists in mind. Mine would include transsaturnian (not to mention completely made-up!) planets, asteroids, messing with the rulership scheme, so-called minor aspects, etc.

But don't let's forget that even ancient astrologers disagreed on several points. Precisely because horoscopic astrology represents a fusion of several traditions, some areas of contention have always been present. The True Foundations of the Science are found in the ideal realm rather than in the mists of history.

I think we may be talking (partly) at cross-purposes, Michael. Of course the ecliptic is a (even the) major circle of reference for astrology, given that we are interested primarily in the planets which move in close proximity to it. It just isn't the only one, and never was.

Martin, I never said it was the only one. My sole purpose being to demonstrate that the zodiac was indeed the primary reference for the ancients, and that this assumption was anything but some kind of twentieth century fad.

Sorry about the German.

Deutsch lesen ist kein Problem. But I meant a primary source that defines paranatellonta as longitudinal conjunctions rather than as rising with a particular longitude. Boll's chapter is peppered with Greek phrases and sentences, but at a quick glance I couldn't find any such statement.

Trust me, the information is in there! However, retrieving it might take a little more more than a quick glance, I'm afraid.

And while you're at it, you may also want to take an (extended) glance at Wilhelm Gundel's Neue astrologische Texte des Hermes Trismegistos, which contains some relevant notes on the paranatellonta as well (see index).

As you know, two planets that we consider to be in conjunction may not seem very close to each other at all when we see them in the sky. But this doesn't greatly matter, because our circle of reference is the zodiac which we project the planets' positions on.

On the contrary, I think it does matter, sometimes a great deal, and the consideration of two planets being of the same or opposite 'winds' (northern or southern latitude) is an ancient one. And yet these distances are very small compared to those between the planets and some fixed stars.

I would maintain that fixed stars considered just according to their longitude work just fine. But I should probably take another look at this matter overall. If you could direct me to some pertinent source material, specifically with regard to the 'winds' as connected to latitude, this would be much appreciated.

In particular, the Hellenestic astrologers were already quite aware of the difference between the Midheaven and the Nonagesimal. The Tetrabiblos clearly mentions the Midheaven in a special context. Not employing it in determining the house cusps was a matter of choice, not of ignorance!

Agreed, just as Valens' and others' choice so to employ it was. But we're veering off topic.

Agreed, let's forego opening another can of worms for now.

Likewise, other so called "improvements" have been made and celebrated throughout the history of astrology, due to insufficient understanding of this science's true foundations and the belief that it would require refinement.

I'd mostly agree with that as well, in principle, though I imagine we have at least partly different lists in mind. Mine would include transsaturnian (not to mention completely made-up!) planets, asteroids, messing with the rulership scheme, so-called minor aspects, etc.

This may come as a surprise, but I mostly concur with you on all this, with the caveat however that some of those "modernistic' elements could actually be appropriately integrated into the traditional scheme, provided the latter is more fully understood in the first place. In other words, working from first principles!

But don't let's forget that even ancient astrologers disagreed on several points. Precisely because horoscopic astrology represents a fusion of several traditions, some areas of contention have always been present. The True Foundations of the Science are found in the ideal realm rather than in the mists of history.

This is without doubt a rather astute observation, and one that happens to be in accordance with the approach I am taking in my forthcoming book - which is an attempt (based on thirty years of research) to derive The True Foundations of the Science from a singular, essentially Pythagorean/Platonic scheme. It just so happens that the obtained results are in astonishing agreement with ancient astrology's most widely accepted theses - especially as compiled by Ptolemy.

Yes, classical astrology's edifice may have been patched together over time from various sources, but then, this was largely done in fulfillment of a 'prototype' that as such indeed belongs to the 'ideal realm' in the Platonic sense.

[For anyone else possibly following this thread, if my previous post seems less than coherent, it is because parts of it were accidentally deleted by Michael in replying. Never mind.]

Michael Sternbach wrote:Martin, I never said it was the only one. My sole purpose being to demonstrate that the zodiac was indeed the primary reference for the ancients, and that this assumption was anything but some kind of twentieth century fad.

What you actually did say was As our circle of reference is the zodiac anyway. Which it is for many things, but not for all things, which is exactly the reason that paranatellonta were considered in the first place. But perhaps I misunderstood your intention.

Trust me, the information is in there! However, retrieving it might take a little more more than a quick glance, I'm afraid.

Well, I don't have time to search high and low for it at the moment, but if you find a primary source indisputably using 'rising with' in the sense of 'sharing the longitude of', do let me know.

Regarding latitude/winds, as you're keen on Ptolemy, I know he mentions it in I 24 and also in III 10 (using Robbins's chapter division), the latter in connection with directions. I don't have any other references at hand, but they are scattered here and there in the Greek literature. Riley's translation of Valens is searchable, so finding 'wind' there should be easy (although it will, of course, give a number of hits that are nothing to do with latitude).

I would maintain that fixed stars considered just according to their longitude work just fine.

If we are going to discuss what works, we'll probably need examples, as one astrologer's 'working fine' can be another's 'rubbish'.