Hello Tom

So using the rules as set out by Lilly and Morin, I concluded that Obama does not have the requisite "Royal Chart" and if either 9:00 AM or 9:06 AM are correct, McCain does albeit barely. If the 6:25 PM chart is correct, McCain still has a Royal star on the MC. So he has the edge in charts.

Taking a strictly pedantic line on this you are of course correct. However, as I already pointed out this star was invisible in Europe by the middle ages due to the effects of precession. Lilly and Morin may not have even been aware of its existence. Ptolemy however certainly was. I find it strange you wish to exclude the 3rd brightest star in the sky simply because it doesn't make Lilly or Morin's shortlist. I'm sure if Lilly or Morin had been working with charts from Hawaii (what a thought!) they would have worked with any bright stars that could be observed in their location. I therefore, agree more with the approach suggested by Maria Mateus in her article which applies the spirit rather than the letter of Lilly's approach to fixed stars.

Having said that there there are serious objections to assuming Rigel Kentaurus is on Obama's Midheaven. This brings out a major difficulty with the approach of both Lilly and Morin.

Firstly, this star is way outside the ecliptic ( 42.35 degrees south) so its actual position in the sky in Hawaii would not relate to where it can be projected on to the zodiac. Using the zodiacal projection method the star is at 28 Scorpio for all of planet earth that day. However, in reality, the same star rises at different zodiacal degrees depending on ones location on earth. This effect is more pronounced the further a star is outside the ecliptic. Thus the further a star is outside the ecliptic the less reliable projecting its position on to the zodiac is. Rigel Kentaurus is a classic case in point. Other examples are Sirius, Canopus, Algol, Altair, Arcturus, Deneb, and Vega. Medieval and 17th century astrologers like Lilly and Morin seem to have totally ignored this problem. In this respect at least some of the hellenistic astrologers were more sophisticated in their use of fixed stars.

A further specific objection is that the declination of this star ( -61 south of the celestial equator) ) means it can only be seen up to a maximum latitude of 29 North. At a latitude of 21.18 North, Honolulu is close to the visual limit of this star. The culmination of this star in Honolulu would never have reached the midheaven point in that location. In fact from that location the visual arc of the star would barely have risen above the horizon before sinking down again. The idea that the star Rigel Kentaurus was on Obama's Midheaven at his time of birth is therefore purely symbolic and has absolutely no basis in reality.

Unfortunately, I cannot check for the in mundo position of stars in either Obama or McCain's chart right now as my laptop is down. It is these kind of star connections that the ancients would have looked for to demonstrate eminence. I suspect Obama has something powerful going on in terms of fixed stars in mundo at his time/place of birth.

Actually that is a long held astrological myth.

It may well be, but it doesn't change anything. The method either works or it doesn't. The status or lack of is irrelevant.

Fair enough if you want to take a pragmatic approach. Although if pragmatism is our only guide I would question the special status given to Regulus, Aldebaran, Antares and especially Fomalhaut. I was simply pointing out your reference to these four stars as 'the royal stars of Persia' is incorrect. Many astrologers seek to give these stars an ancient astrological status by emphasiing the antiquity of the Persian link. In reality though there is considerable academic ambiguity on this. Nevertheless, it seems clear Sirius was in reality one of the actual stars given special status by the ancient Persians.

Still, the Roman writer Firmicus ( 4th century CE) certainly does introduce the idea of these four stars (Aldebaran, Regulus, Antares and Fomalhaut) as 'royal'. One possible explanation is that at least three of these stars (Regulus, Aldebaran, and Antares) are amongst the brightest fixed stars close to the ecliptic. Fomalhaut is an oddity as it is so far south of the ecliptic. However, it seems the 'royal stars' proposed by Firmicus were also linked in the fixed signs ie Taurus, Leo, Scorpio and Aquarius.

Nevertheless in terms of brightness and proximity to the ecliptic Spica is a clear candidate for any shortlist of important fixed stars. Its brighter than either Regulus or Fomalhaut and right on the ecliptic. I have noticed it has a marked effect in any chart it occurs in prominently. So I do not accept the idea that a star needs the title of 'royal' to raise a person up to a position of fame and prominence. Spica manages to be an extremely powerful star without the title of 'royal star'.

The problem with stars way outside the ecliptic like Fomalhaut and Rigel Kentaurus is that projecting their position on to the zodiac is too simplistic. We really need to study their in mundo position relative to the location of a chart.

I accept there is less astrological lore connected to Rigel Kentaurus than some other bright stars but that is because the ancient Greeks could hardly see it from their latitude in Europe. This 1st magnitude, white and yellow star is after all the closest star system to the Earth, beaten in brilliance only by Sirius and Canopus. Its radiance drew particular attention from the ancient Egyptians, who aligned many temples with it around the 3rd millennium BC.

" - known to the Egyptians as Serk-t, its heliacal rising at the autumnal equinox was a basis for the orientation of at least nine temples in northern Egypt dating from 3800 to 2575 B.C., and of several in southern Egypt from 3700 B.C. onward."
R.H. Allen, Star Names: their Lore and Meaning, Dover Publications 1899, p.153.

A fascinating discussion.

I had forecast the re-election of GWB four years ago and wrote at the time that I doubted a Democrat would be elected President until at least 2012. I hope to be proved wrong because I worship the dust of Obama's lotus feet. Astrologers are divided on the matter (so what else is new?) and although I would love to see Obama elected and take great hope from the techniques outlined by Maria Mateus, I'm not entirely convinced that it's a done deal yet.

Hi, all of you.

I enjoyed reading every single word of this thread though elections (any elections) is usually the last thing on my mind. It is one fascinating discussion, indeed!

Now, I was wondering- I've seen a bunch of Horary charts concerning this matter here on the forum and now this discussion about the Natal charts of the candidates but don't think I've seen (at least not recently) any similar topics in Mundane astrology part of the forum. What does the chart of the USA say about the forthcoming period (ie 4 years)? If Obama would win, he'd be the first black president in histrory of that country and such a change should be readable from the chart, right? (progressions would be most accurate choice here, i guess ).

The national morning news shows this am were discussing the latest poll questions on temperment -- (Whose got the best temperment for the White House?) --

I haven't quite figured out how to derive temperment from the charts -- so if anyone has who has an interest in the Am Political scene -- PUH LEEZE -- what's the word on the candidates?

Sonja

I use the 7GE 34 Rising -- which yields an 18AQ10 moon --

And also the degree of Obama's Ascendant which explained to me his phenomenal success on the campaign trail;

though I'm still really curious how the medieval temperament types and temperament analyses (choleric, sanguine, phlegmatic, melancholic) parse with the individual candidate charts.

Sonja

I use the 7GE 34 Rising -- which yields an 18AQ10 moon --
And also the degree of Obama's Ascendant

This is the sort of thing that Robert Hand suggests we look for - something in the natal chart that "resonates (his word)" with the USA chart. Having one of the lights on the USA ASC is pretty good testimony. The question, as always, is, "Which USA chart is correct?" I'm not sure any single chart is always correct, so I would not discount this connection. But he isn't running uncontested so a similar effort using identical methods should be used for the opponent's chart.

Tom

RC wrote:I am pretty much convinced that the 9AM time for McCain is the correct chart, NOT the 6:25PM that someone put out.

RC

The following are progressed lunar returns to Mar 15, 1973, the date of McCain's release by the North Vietnamese. I am using 12:00 pm, Hanoi, Viet Nam, for a time. The MC moves about 1 degree every 2 hours. The birth data used was Aug 29, 1931, 6:25 pm, Colon, Panama.

Progressed lunar returns are tertiary progressed charts with the twist that the angles are progressed by the lunar arc. Operative points are those planets and/or midpoints being swept by the progressing angles of the return.

I think the first chart shown (McCains progressed demi-solar demi-anlunar) is an accurate portrayal of the emotions of someone being freed after nearly 5 1/2 years of imprisonment and torture showing Saturn and Neptune (possible fear that something might go wrong) across one axis while showing the Moon and Jupiter (emotional happiness) across another. The speculum for the chart follows it.

The first image is an excerpt from his account in US News&World Report.

This story originally appeared in the May 14, 1973, issue of U.S.News & World Report. It was posted online on January 28, 2008.
The second chart and its speculum are for McCain's progressed natal lunar return which began at 4:11:29 am on March 15 in Hanoi just hours before his release.
Bob

Hello Tom,

Like you I am travelling away from home although in my case it is for the pleasure of the UK History of Astrology Conference in London.

You point that the star is bright and obvious is well taken, but I'm not sure that is sufficient to overturn practice.

Its seems to me looking at the brightest stars in the locality of the person is consistent with the most ancient traditions or 'practice' of astrology going back to Ancient Egypt and Mespototamia. Applying the methods of the 17th century astrologers comes up against a real practical difficulty with an undeniably important star in the classical era like Rigel Kentaurus which European astrology lost sight of both literally and symbolically. How are we supposed to apply such an approach rigidly to someone born in say New Zealand? Do we include stars that never appear that far south or have a limited phase there? Following Lilly's list rigidly we should. However, does that make sense? Should we also exclude (as you seem to suggest) some of the brightest stars in the sky in New Zealand ( The Crux, Rigel Kentaurus) simply because medieval and reniassance astrology could no longer see these stars? Is it not more logical, pragmatic and 'traditional' to take into consideration sources that did mention these stars ie Ptolemy?

In fact as Lee Lehman noted, astrology had pretty much gone indoors by Ptolemy's day.

I am not sure I would entirely agree with this. We know relatively little on Ptolemy's astrological approach to fixed stars but judging by his 'Phases of the Fixed Stars' he took great account of the visibility of stars. In Tetrabiblos he also remarks on stars literally co-arising with zodiac degrees which probably indicates their in mundo position. We also know that as late as Anonymous of 379 a purely visual approach to fixed stars was being advocated. More generally, in his book 'The Hellenistic Legacy' Joseph Crane suggests hellenistic astrologers only projected stars along the zodiac on to the ecliptic. Other stars well outside the zodiac/ecliptic were plotted based on either their similar declination to a planet ( Hephaistio of Thebes) or their actual in mundo position ( Anonymous of 379)

The period when astrology moves entirely indoor therefore seems more clearly in the late hellenistic/early medieval era.

I would suggest the real question is not when did astrology go indoors but rather when astrologers stop using the in mundo rising, culminating and setting times of stars? This can be every bit as much an indoor approach since once you know a location you can reliably predict which stars will rise and set for many years before the effects of precession invalidate the tables. Anonymous of 379 offers such a table for stars rising, setting and culminating in Rome in his era .

I agree Ptolemy was a crucial figure but for a different reason. His ''Handy Tables'' allowed the quick plotting of planets and stars. Gradually this allowed astrologers to consult tables rather than the real skies. Still, the deterioration of technique really seems to have taken hold following the transmission of astrology from the hellenistic era onwards.

I admit I have a problem with the approach that what we can see trumps what we can't. This permits astrologers to move in and outdoors as they see fit and the moment suits. I see this with things like combustion, and whether or not aspects work across sign lines etc. If we believe that visual astrology is the way to go, then by all means go that way. But if we look at astrology more philosophically than astronomically, it is not necessarily a shortcoming.

Good point. Ultimately though I dont see this as a contrast between a symbolic and literal approach. Lets never forget all astrology is ultimately symbolic. Its more a question of how far we are willing to accept our symbolism should depart from what it seeks to describe. The planets and stars are real bodies after all. When we state a chart has Venus on the midheaven we trust that at least roughly approximates to some kind of reality. However, when we look a chart with a Midheaven of 26 Taurus and describe Algol as 'on the Midheaven' the reality more often than not completely contradicts this kind of approach. In reality Algol will most cases not be there at all. I suggest this isn't symbolic astrology its simply lazy ,poor astrology. Especially in the era of computers making such calculations is simplicity itself. Imagine if astrologers adopted such a completely rough and ready approach to plotting the position of planets. Would we find that kind of symbolism acceptable? I think not. So why allow such an inacccurate and astronomically naive technique to prevail with stars outside the ecliptic?

Lilly was not an innovator or a philosopher. He was a pragmatist and although I'm sure the presence of a new bright star in the sky would have interested him and perhaps motivated him to watch it, I don't know that he would have incorporated it like moderns incorporate every piece of space dust they find mentioned in the NY Times. This is of course only my opinion and in matters like this, our opinions are all we have.

Lilly read his Ptolemy and as Ptolemy rated Rigel Kentaurus well worth consideration I am sure Lilly would have too if he had had to do horaries or nativities in a location where it was prominent.

Morin is a different case, but again he was not the Dane Rudyhar or Marc Edmund Jones of the 17th century. He took Ptolemy and others and approached them differently or explained them in such a way that astrology would fit in the mid 17th century mindset, i.e. the mind set that was turning to what would become the Enlightenment. Again, like Lilly I can't imagine Morin throwing out the baby with the bathwater because he spotted a new star.

Its not that Rigel Kentaurus has burst on to the scene as a 'new star'. Following the example of Ptolemy it is perfectrly 'traditional' to incorporate this star in fixed star work. However, it was a purely academic issue for Morin or Lilly. Both astrologers only practised their astrology in northern Europe from where the star was invisible in their era. However, for astrology in Latin America, Africa, South and SE Asia and Australia/New Zealand it would be nonsensical to ignore this star. Lilly and Morin were clearly never presented with this dilemma but it is a real one for traditional astrologers today trying to practice such techniques for clients across the world.

The method mentioned by both Lilly and Morin is not original with them. I cited Lilly because lots of people on this list own CA and can check it out for themselves. I doubt many own the requisite Morin text, so I didn't look that up. The method was, in the minds Lilly and Morin tested and true. Whether it was so or is so is another matter. Following Lilly and Morin then is to follow a particular tradition. It is not pedantic. This particular forum is not limited to traditional astrology and the traditional forum is not limited to a single tradition, but traditional outlook has some merit or else it would have been abandoned by now and we would all be gasping over Eris since the Chiron swoon has passed

.

I suppose there are two issues here for me. Firstly, following a traditional approach means looking at the tradition as a whole. If you study Lilly you see he used hellenistic , Arab,, Latin Medieval and early modern era ideas. He was also considering the newer ideas of Kepler. Sometimes I worry a simplistic notion of 'traditional astrology' can be used to create intellectual blinkers that its actual practitioners never wore.

In regards the technique of Lilly ( I am not familiar enough with Morin)
my only area of difficulty would be his use of zodical projection for stars well outside the ecliptic. However, he is certainly not unique in this respect. In fact this was simply mainstream medieval and renaissance astrology. I accept this approach is ''traditional''. I just happen to strongly believe the medieval and renaissance astrology represented a distinct deterioration of the earlier hellenistic technique. In that respect, I feel the medieval tradition offers a dumbed down and astronomically erroneous approach to stars outside the ecliptic.

Following Lilly and Morin then is to follow a particular tradition. It is not pedantic

I hope I have made clear its not a case of simply appying the technique of these astrologers rigidly without reflection. For example, in terms of fixed star work southern hemisphere charts present issues these astrologers never had to confront. Indeed the same could be said of the whole medieval and reniassance approach to fixed stars. Is it therefore more 'traditional' to simply ignore such issues or to creatively engage with them in the light of the whole tradition?

Mark

Hello, I'm new here and this is my first post.
I specialize within astrology. I am Rudhyarian in my approach. I do chart axis analysis utilizing the Sabian Symbols as interpreted by Rudhyar. I also utilize these symbols as per the Arabic Parts or Lots. According to the author Dave Mastry these Symbols are literally the attitude or action one must employ to activate the nature of that Part [or Lot...I prefer the word Part]. Except in the case of certain Arabic Parts such as the Part of Catastrophe, then the symbol would be the attitude or action One doesn't want to employ.
The Part of Catastrophe for the birth chart of Obama [and I feel that the publically given birth info. via his birth certificate is in all likelyhood accurate], is the 1st degree of Pisces and the sabian Symbol is about "Commerce". This appears disasterous considering the questionable activites and rumors surrounding same about his financial dealings. It also gives me worry that if he is elected he will bring this country towards further financial ruin [Yes, I am a Yank].
Also of interest is his Part of Imprisonment and his Part of Mother/Family.
The Part of Imprisonment calculates to be 18* Pisces 18', the Sabian Symbol for which is "A Master Instructs His Disciple". Wow! I mean this IS pretty interesting, wouldn't you all say? Given the questions that remain un-answered about his spiritual leanings. Also of greatinterest is the fact that Uranus is about to conjunct this degree of the Zodiac in retro-grade and go direct from that degree!
Next is this Part of Mother/Family that calculates to be 17* Virgo 17'. Exactly where Saturn has just conjuncted. Could this be the indicator of his visit to his maternal Grandmother and her injury? It would seem so.
The big question on my mind is this Part of Imprisonment thing. Does this Part represent Spiritual Imprisonment, Physical Imprisonment, both or something altogether different?

I've written before that I find Sabian Symbols to be vague and conducive to allowing the imagination to run too freely. Most of all, due to the fact that they are so 'stretchable' they feed on the ideas already held in the mind.

The Part of Catastrophe for the birth chart of Obama [and I feel that the publically given birth info. via his birth certificate is in all likelyhood accurate], is the 1st degree of Pisces and the sabian Symbol is about "Commerce". This appears disasterous considering the questionable activites and rumors surrounding same about his financial dealings. It also gives me worry that if he is elected he will bring this country towards further financial ruin [Yes, I am a Yank].

So the Part of Catastrophe is in the first degree of Pisces. Why is that significant? It has to be somewhere. The parts aren't only used by degree and sign, but in their relationship to other chart factors. You've simply looked for the Part of Catastrophe ? which will always be somewhere in a chart ? have found that it' s associated with commerce through a Sabian Symbol, and have pronounced it ?disastrous? due to vague unproven questionable activites and rumors concerning Obama's financial dealings. This is the danger of Sabian Symbols: They are especially prone to take ideas already held in the mind and give them legitimacy.

The Part of Imprisonment calculates to be 18* Pisces 18', the Sabian Symbol for which is "A Master Instructs His Disciple". Wow! I mean this IS pretty interesting, wouldn't you all say? Given the questions that remain un-answered about his spiritual leanings. Also of greatinterest is the fact that Uranus is about to conjunct this degree of the Zodiac in retro-grade and go direct from that degree!

To start with, the questions about his spiritual leanings have been answered, it's a matter of people accepting those answers. Apparently you haven't accepted them. This is why you can get excited over the Part of Imprisonment having a dubiously significant Sabian Symbol of "A Master Instructs His Disciple": It sounds like it should mean something ominous, and that is welcome news to someone who doesn't like the political candidate. Once again, you are only considering the degree and sign of the part. The use of the parts is more complex than that. You should study the use of the parts before combining them with Sabian Symbols.

I get 22 Scorpio 00 for the the Part of Imprisonment using the 7:24 pm time.