For how I see the matter, the fact that a planet is in another angle when a lucida is rising or culminating is not so important.

When for example Regulus or Antares is rising in a birth chart it is important, and adds some quality - and sometimes a lot- according its nature whatever a planet is in another angle or not.

I thoughtfully agree.

In Brady there is a stress on the fact there should some planet somewhere to form the "paran", which I don't see anywhere in the texts I know.

New astrologers are able to discover important techniques that will become some day part of the tradition. But, as Mark pointed out, there are too much parans for everybody.

Cl?lia

Hello Mark:

Incidentally, have you a copy of Liber Hermetis? This is one of the most detailed discussions of fixed stars in traditional literature. Its dating is disputed but it is probably late Hellenistic/Byzantine in origin.

yes I have it in Italian. New Library says they will probably launch again the Zoller?s translation.

If you know where the discussion on fixed stars are in Liber Hermetis let me know because I was trying to find something there, but the Italian translation is very difficult to understand.

thank you again

Cl?lia

Hello again:

I think I missed the point when I wrote my fist post " on stars" and you helped me to realize it.

The problem is not parans, or Brady?s use of parans.

The real problem IMO is that the referential point changed from Ecliptic Poles to Celestial Equator?s poles and it brought 1 ? (more or less) of difference in the position given for fixed stars, and for fixed stars 1? is too much.

Abu Mashar, Masha?allah, Abu Ali, Bonatti wrote before this turning point. Would their results be good with the present difference?

Can we compensate this deviation giving a larger or smaller orb to stars to be considered in angles (or with well located planets) ?

I?m in a hurry, but I could not help writing this post!

Cl?lia

The rea problem IMO is that the referential point changed from Ecliptic Poles to Celestial Equator?s poles and it brought 1 ? (more or less) of difference in the position given for fixed stars, and for fixed stars 1? is too much.

Abu Mashar, Masha?allah, Abu Ali, Bonatti wrote before this turning point. Would their results be good with the present difference?

Can we compensate this deviation giving a larger or smaller orb to stars to be considered in angles (or with well located planets) ? I?m in a hurry, but I could not help writing this post! Cl?lia

Hello Cl?lia

I understand your concern which was why I opened a thread on this issue.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5172

Did you read my posts on Arabic astronomy?

I did form the same initial impression as yourself when I first read Bernadette Brady's Book of Fixed Stars. She provides a table giving stars position from Ptolemy's catalogue in the Almagest and positions calculated by modern astronomy. There is a clear divergence. Moreover, in some cases its significantly more than 1 degree. For example look at Regulus! However, I now believe the difference is not related to whether we use poles of the ecliptic or equator.

After all, if you accurately plot the position of a star it will not be an issue to convert its position back and forward between to two coordinate systems. Maybe I have missed the astronomical subtlety but while astronomy calculates stars using poles of the equator astrologers recalculate such positions using the ecliptical coordinate system do they not?

I think the real cause of this divergence is actually explained by errors in Ptolemy's star catalogue in the Almagest. Academics now agree the Star catalogue of Ptolemy was largely that of Hipparchus prepared in the late 2rd century BCE. Ptolemy essentially updated the star catalogue of Hipparchus accounting for precession. The problem was that he was working with the wrong rate of precession! Ptolemy used Hipparchus' data and precessed it to his own epoch 2? centuries later by adding 2?40' to the longitude, using an erroneously small precession constant of 1? per century. This basically explains the divergence problem you have raised.

Plus there are a few stars where it appears there were errors in the star catologue of Hipparchus (or the version that reached Ptolemy and/or the version passed to us). A glaring example is the star Regulus. Hence if we update Ptolemy's position for this star it is around 26'30 Leo today according to Ptolemy's catalogue in the Almagest whereas modern calculations place the star at 29'58 Leo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparchus

The Arabs later realised this error in the star catalogue ( along with a few other mistakes in the Almagest). Thus Al Sufi produced a new star catalogue in 964 when star positions were recalculated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Fixed_Stars

The real question, as I see it, is when the focus moved away from in mundo paranatellonta to zodiacal projection as the main technique of working with fixed stars. From what I can see the shift started very early. Almost as soon as Ptolemy's Handy Tables became widely accessible to astrologers. I am looking forward to receiving my copy of James Holden's new translation of Porphyry's commentary on the Tetrabiblos entitled Porphyry the Philosopher . As a 3rd century astrologer he was presumably a key influence on later classical astrologers such as Firmicus, Hephaistio, Paulus, Olypiodorus and Rhetorius.

Mark

Hello,

For those who are using Brady?s method of paran i.e. scanning for paran made by planets to stars for the whole day of birth (and not just at the time of birth), the data churned out by Solar Fire in the Paran Report for the moon is wrong because that report does not take into account the secondary motion of the moon as the day progresses. The secondary motions of the other planets can be ignored but not for moon.

Hence, the parans made to the angles i.e. ascendant rises as a star rises, midheaven culminating as a star culminating, descendant sets as a star sets and IC anti-culminates as a star anti-culminates are correct because those are calculated for the time of birth. The parans made by the planets to the stars for the whole day other than moon are also acceptable because the secondary motions of the planets other than moon do not change much within a period of 24 hours. The planet-stars parans (including Moon) can be used if the parans occur at the time of birth (give or take a few minutes).


Example:
Chart set for 0 hours (12:00 am) , 20 July 2010, London, UK.
To get the star parans report, double click the name of the chart on the calculated charts window (in the main window), click Reports then choose star parans. The orb is usually 30 minutes of angle (equivalent to 2 minutes of time) for the whole day planet-star parans and 1 degree of angle (equivalent to 4 minutes of time) for the parans made to angles (these orbs are the ones suggested by Brady).

According to Solar Fire, moon rises (3:53 pm) while Murzim sets (3:55 pm). The orb (2 minutes of time) is close enough to warrant the moon-Murzim in paran. This does not occur at the time of birth (12:00 am), hence, some astrologers will simply ignore it (which has merit). Brady however, would say that this paran is still efficacious in telling something about the native provided moon is his/her main luminary and/or powerfully located in the birth chart. Assuming that Moon is main luminary and located in the tenth house, the native would be have a career that involves public speaking, communication, deejay, etc. as Murzim is the star of Announcer using Brady?s interpretation of the star Murzim (I am simplifying of course!). However, for those who wish to test Brady?s method Solar Fire has given the wrong data. Moon is not going to rise at 3:53 pm (20 July 2010), instead she will rise at about 4:45 pm. You can check this by clicking Chart (in the main menu) and then clicking Rising/Setting... and then determine the correct time of rising/setting/culminating/anti-culminating Moon. You?ll find that the time of rising for moon is 4:45 or 4:46 pm depending on whether you choose true or visual rising. Murzim (which rises at 3:53 pm) is not making paran relationship to moon as the orb of time between moon and Murzim is almost an hour!

To check for the parans made by the moon in the course of the whole day can still be done in Solar Fire but it takes a little bit more work.

Hello Mark:

I understand your concern which was why I opened a thread on this issue.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5172

Did you read my posts on Arabic astronomy?

I was concerned because the real problem was not been properly focused, and I was going with the flow.
And I know why I opened the topic
As for your posts I read them after we talk in private (about Alchabitius book.) You told me about your interest on stars. I got surprised when I read them because they were about the same thing I was trying to dig those days!

I did form the same initial impression as yourself when I first read Bernadette Brady's Book of Fixed Stars

.

Exactly!

[She provides a table giving stars position from Ptolemy's catalogue in the Almagest and positions calculated by modern astronomy. There is a clear divergence. Moreover, in some cases its significantly more than 1 degree. For example look at Regulus! However, I now believe the difference is not related to whether we use poles of the ecliptic or equator.
After all, if you accurately plot the position of a star it will not be an issue to convert its position back and forward between to two coordinate systems. Maybe I have missed the astronomical subtlety but while astronomy calculates stars using poles of the equator astrologers recalculate such positions using the ecliptical coordinate system do they not?

I think the results we get through softwares are in Equatorial coordinates, aren?t they?

I

think the real cause of this divergence is actually explained by errors in Ptolemy's star catalogue in the Almagest. Academics now agree the Star catalogue of Ptolemy was largely that of Hipparchus prepared in the late 2rd century BCE. Ptolemy essentially updated the star catalogue of Hipparchus accounting for precession. The problem was that he was working with the wrong rate of precession! Ptolemy used Hipparchus' data and precessed it to his own epoch 2? centuries later by adding 2?40' to the longitude, using an erroneously small precession constant of 1? per century. This basically explains the divergence problem you have raised.

No, the divergence occurs when you transform the RA into ecliptic degrees.
More or less 1 degree.

Plus there are a few stars where it appears there were errors in the star catologue of Hipparchus (or the version that reached Ptolemy and/or the version passed to us). A glaring example is the star Regulus. Hence if we update Ptolemy's position for this star it is around 26'30 Leo today according to Ptolemy's catalogue in the Almagest whereas modern calculations place the star at 29'58 Leo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparchus

The Arabs later realised this error in the star catalogue ( along with a few other mistakes in the Almagest). Thus Al Sufi produced a new star catalogue in 964 when star positions were recalculated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Fixed_Stars

The real question, as I see it, is when the focus moved away from in mundo paranatellonta to zodiacal projection as the main technique of working with fixed stars. From what I can see the shift started very early

.

Let me see if I understood it well: zodiacal projection you are not agreeing is the same ecliptic projection I was claiming against in my first post?
Perhaps we were all the time saying the same thing?
Well, I wrote also something different: to cast the chart in sidereal module in order to pick the fixed stars in the right position, but I?m not sure if it will work better.
It is difficult for me to accept the use of stars in tropical zodiac, because they have nothing to do with the zodiac. At the same time I drop into a chart that threw me off.
It?s a chart of a president of my country, Juscelino Kubitcheck, who moved the capital from Rio to Brasilia: it was a giant work, he was kind of a god to have done it in 4 years (the time he occupied presidency). His chart has Royal Stars in the ASC and in MC using zodiacal positions, I mean using the position gave by the software.
So I don?t know what to think about all this: maybe I have to relax! Anyway look at the chart:
http://img51.imageshack.us/i/jusce.jpg/
Aspects to Stars:
http://img25.imageshack.us/i/jusce2.jpg/


best regards

Cl?lia
Clelia

I don?t know why the chart was not inserted! Sorry for the inconveniance!

Cl?lia

Hello Clelia and all

Clelia Romano wrote:
"In summary a star is said to be in paran with a planet when a the planet is on any of the four points of rising, culminating, setting, or on the Nadir, and at the same moment in time, for that location, the star is also on ANY of the same four angles or points. "

I think it is the same thing, Margherita: to rise together.

No, a paranatellonta rises together with a portion of the ecliptic (a decan) or a degree, NOT with a planet.

For example, according Teucer with Aries rises Andromeda and half of Cetus, and so on.
No mention of planets at all.

I believe Mark is right, Brady took from Fagan, even for what others wrote of him I understand he was very interested with in mundo work.

Anyway I don't use stars in a sidereal way, as Ed I put them in the chart according their semiarc (and this is could be like Brady in a way because she considers the angles) but I don't consider aspects between them and planets, just conjunction.

Moreover I don't consider stars which don't have a mention in Renaissance texts.

margherita

Hello Clelia,

No, the divergence occurs when you transform the RA into ecliptic degrees. More or less 1 degree.

When I raised precisely this question on the thread I gave the link to several members chipped in to suggest nothing was lost in the conversion process. I have given what I think is the correct explanation for the discrepencies in Ptolemy's catalogue from modern positions. However, I invite members like Ed F, Eddy etc who are clearly better on maths to give their view. Unlike issues of astrological technique this mathematical issue should have a black and white answer.

Let me see if I understood it well: zodiacal projection you are not agreeing is the same ecliptic projection I was claiming against in my first post?

I use the term 'zodiacal projection' for the astrological technique whereby a star's position is placed on to a degree of the tropical zodiac irrespective how far north or south its latititute or its declination is. I have not got into arguing for or against the technique at this stage so I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with you. This technique standardises a star's position anywhere on Earth and takes no account of the rising times, or visibility of a star etc in a specific location. Its the method you see commonly used in traditional astrology after the classical era. For example, William Lilly's Christian Astrology. Subsequent books such as Vivian Robson use this method too. The first astrological book in English I have seen criticising the shortcomings of this method was George Noonan in his book on fixed stars.

Mark

No, a paranatellonta rises together with a portion of the ecliptic (a decan) or a degree, NOT with a planet.

I need to double check but I seem to recall Anonymous of 379 and Liber Hermetis discuss stars co-arising with the Moon. However, this invollves individual stars rather than constellations so I suppose its slightly different from the original meaning of paranatellonta tied to the decans.

I believe the gradual shift from constellations to individual stars came with Ptolemy. His texts Phases of The Fixed Stars and his Handy Tables allowed a more accurate level of calculation than had previously been available. However, the interest in decans and constellations clearly never readily disappeared. It continues well into the medieval and renaissance era.

Perhaps the most difficult question to resolve is whether these paranatellonta were calculated in each chart or whether astrologers just relied on tables of where constellations were assumed to be within the decans. I think the latter was the more common practice. Even in the classical period some of the texts clearly show ignorance of what they are talking about. For example the Astronomica of Manilius has several quite basic errors concerning which constellations could be rising or settting at the same time or across the sky from each other. Manilius seems to have borrowed several ideas from the Phaenomena of Aratus of Soli written in the 3rd century BCE. It was a very popular work throughout the classical and early medieval era but had several astronomical errors in it. Aratus was a poet not an astronomer. The only remaining full text of Hipparchus is his commentary criticising the mistakes in the Phaenomena of Aratus. Still its a beautiful work worth a look at.

http://www.theoi.com/Text/AratusPhaenomena.html

It wasn't beyond the ability of astrologers to know when stars and constellations were rising in mundo in the classical period. Apart from basic observation described by Aratus most Greek and Roman communities retained a parapegma which allowed them to calculate the phases of important fixed stars. These probably date back to around 500BCE.

The most impressive instance of this known to us today is undoubtably the so called Antikythera mechanism.

http://www.antikythera-mechanism.gr/

More humble examples of parapegma have been located across the classical world.

The Greeks and Romans principally used such information for basic calendrical purposes and for planning agriculture and navigation. The fixed stars were also extensively used in in weather prediction.

In that sense there is a clear link between Hesiod (8th century BCE) discussing using the Pleiades for farming times and Ptolemy's Phases of the Fixed Stars in the 2nd century CE. The latter concerned weather prediction through the use of the fixed stars. Such astrometerology wasn't regarded as astrology as such but science. Its been suggested by Robert Schmidt that the Phases of The Fixed Stars was originally part of the Almagest but became separated when astrometeorology no longer held favour as scientifically respectable.

In the classical period though there were no such issues. Thus the stoic astronomer Gemino writing in the 1st century BCE mocks astrology but praises the accuracy of weather prediction through the fixed stars! Calendrical considerations with specific applications such as weather prediction and agriculture are the real origin of the paranatellonta. That and the Egyptian decans. However thats another discussion...

The interesting question is when did this well established tradition first get applied to natal astrology by the Greeks? The earliest source I know of is Teucer of Babylon who probably lived in the 1st century CE or BCE (probably Babylon in Egypt not Mesopotamia!). Fortunately we now have a useful translation of Teucer of Babylon on the paranatellonta in James Holden's book: Rhetorius the Egyptian, Astrological Compendium.

Mark

MarkC wrote:
I need to double check but I seem to recall Anonymous of 379 and Liber Hermetis also talk about stars co-arising with the Moon.

But why you are so fixed with Anonymous 379?
what will happen if a lucida rises and no planet at the MC? It's exactly the same if the Moon is at another angle or not....
The rest of the texts like Liber Hermetis or Mashallah and so on are the same text, copied from author to author....

Incidentally, Liber Hermetis has another chapter about paranatellonta, much more beautiful and famous, the one about the images of stars.

Surely the point is that in mundo a star is co-arising on the same zodiacal degree in local space as an angle or planet? Still its true a lot of sources such as Teucer of Babylon only discuss constellations rising in decans.

I don't understand well here. Anyway when one point is at the ascendant and the other at MC, whatever their longitude, they are distant exactly 6 hours, ie a Placidean square.
I believe this is the reason why Fagan - it's you quoted the text, I did not know- likes it so much. Reading Steve, you see which stress they give to in mundo positions?

On the other hand I don't think that ancients thought that way, it's just that sometimes they associated a rising degree with a culminating star. For example Angelus'Astrolabium Planum is full of these examples. And Manilius does the same.

The problem is we don't have any stellar catalogue from ancient authors, so we don't have the original sources where astrologers took their data.



margherita

But why you are so fixed with Anonymous 379?

I didn't think I was. It is relevant to the discussion as it is the only classical text suggesting an astrological link when a planet and star form an in mundo square rather than just a conjunction.

what will happen if a lucida rises and no planet at the MC?

You would delineate the star of course!

It's exactly the same if the Moon is another angle or not....

Maybe we are misunderstanding each other. I am not discussing angles! From both Anonymous and Liber Hermetis it seems that a star co-arising with the Moon is astrologically significant. By 'co-arising' I mean a star and planet on the same zodiacal degree by in mundo conjunction. They dont have to be literally rising at the ascendant or another angle.

The rest of the texts like Liber Hermetis or Rethorius or Mashallah and so on are the same text, copied from author to author....

Yes that backs up the point made by Clelia earlier. Traditional astrology is all about repetition of earlier sources! Sometimes the lists were produced with poor understanding or only a limited number of sources were translated. For example, Bonatti?s use of fixed stars is not that impressive as he only seems to have had access to a restricted number of sources.

Incidentally, Liber Hermetis has another chapter about paranatellonta, much more beautiful and famous, the one about the images of stars.

Yes I have the English translation.

MarkC Quote:
Surely the point is that in mundo a star is co-arising on the same zodiacal degree in local space as an angle or planet? Still its true a lot of sources such as Teucer of Babylon only discuss constellations rising in decans.

Margherita wrote:
I don't understand well here. Anyway when one point is at the ascendant and the other at MC, whatever their longitude, they are distant exactly 6 hours, ie a Placidean square. I believe this is the reason why Fagan - it's you quoted the text, I did not know- likes it so much. Reading Steve, you see which stress they give to in mundo positions?

Yes. That is one thing I quite like about sidereal astrology! I think in mundo aspects are interesting for planets. However, I am not convinced about bringing in stars into aspects other than the conjunction.

On the other hand I don't think that ancients thought that way, it's just that sometimes they associated a rising degree with a culminating star. For example Angelus'Astrolabium Planum is full of these examples.

Interesting. I may go back and look at that.

Mark