Hello,

A number of definitions in astronomy (for the benefit of all newbies):

Celestial sphere: an imaginary sphere of the heavens on the surface of which all celestial bodies appear to be located; once thought by the ancients to be an actual, crystalline physical sphere. The daily rising and setting of the stars and planets (diurnal motion) was thought to be the result of the diurnal motion of the celestial sphere.

Zenith: the point on the celestial sphere that is directly overhead (not the same as Midheaven).

Nadir: the point on the celestial sphere that is directly below - directly opposite Zenith (not the same as IC).

Local Meridian: the great vertical circle perpendicular to the horizon that also passes through the North and South points on the horizon as well as Zenith and Nadir.

Ecliptic: The apparent annual path of the Sun around the Earth (actually the plane of the Earth?s orbit around the Sun).

Midheaven, Medium Coeli (MC): the intersection of the local meridian with the ecliptic above the horizon at a particular location. When sun is located on the MC, it is exactly apparent noon (Local apparent time is exactly 12 noon). MC is also the greatest altitude a sun can reach during the day. MC is not the same as Zenith.

Immum Coeli (IC): the intersection of the local meridian with the ecliptic below the horizon at a particular location. When sun is located on the IC, it is exactly apparent midnight (Local apparent time is exactly 12 midnight). IC is also the lowest altitude a sun can reach during the night. IC is not the same as Nadir (though some astrologers seem to think so due to the translation of the words IC which is latin for ?lowest of the sky? and Nadir which the Arabic for similar term).

Culminating: when a body (planet or fixed star) intersects the Local Meridian above the horizon during its diurnal/daily motion. When the sun does this, it is noon - technically this is Local Apparent Noon. Culminating needs not be at the Zenith. When a body culminates, it has the greatest altitude of the day (not necessarily 90 degrees because culminating needs not be at the Zenith!).

Anti-Culminating: when a body (planet or fixed star) intersects the Local Meridian below the horizon during its diurnal/daily motion. When the sun does this, it is midnight - technically this is Local Apparent midnight. Anti-Culminating needs not be at the Nadir. When a body culminates, it has the lowest altitude of the day (not necessarily -90 degrees because anti-culminating needs not be at the Nadir!).

All stars and planets culminate and anti-culminate at some point during the day/night but they do not culminate at the zenith (or anti-culminate at the Nadir). Only stars (or planets) that have declinations equal to the geographical latitude of the place would culminate exactly on the zenith and anti-culminate exactly on the Nadir.

As Sun has the maximum declination of 23d 26m, places with geographical latitudes greater than 23d 26m (North and South) will never see the sun culminates at the zenith (or anti-culminates at the Nadir). Places with geographical latitudes between 23d 26m North and 23d 26m South can see the sun culminates at the Zenith twice a year.

The stars have declinations that do not change much (at least not in a lifetime!). They actually do change at the rate similar to the rate of the precession. So, stars that do not have declinations equal to the geographical latitude of the place will never culminate at the zenith. So, stars that have declinations equal to the geographical latitude of the place will always culminate at the zenith and these stars are called ?stars of the place?. For example, the latitude of London is approximately 51N30. The star Etamin (gamma-Draco) has the declination of about +51d29m. So, Etamin is the star of London (and places that have the same geographical latitude as London). Etamin would culminate at the Zenith in London sometime during the day or night. BTW there is another star that can be considered as the star of the place. It is the star that touches the horizon but does not cross it. This happens for stars whose declinations are the same as (90 ? geographical latitude of the place). For example, the latitude of London is approximately 51N30. 90 ? 51N30 = 48d30m. The star Talitha (iota-Ursa Major) has the declination of approximately 48d. Hence, Talitha can also be the star of London (and other places whose geographical latitudes are the same to London). These stars remain as the stars of the place until about 100 years or so (when the declinations of the stars change due to the precession of the equinox). Then, we will have new stars as stars of the place.

Now back to MarkC question.

How can you trace stars co-arising with the Midheaven using such software? Doesn't the culminating position of stars listed in this way reflect the local horizon Zenith rather than the Midheaven aligned to the ecliptic?

Solar Fire also gives the times of the rising, culminating, setting and anti-culminating of the stars and planets. As long as you are born when a star is culminating (at a certain place), then it culminates with whatever is the MC. Mathematically, this is when the Right Ascension of the star is the same as the Right Ascension of degree of ecliptic culminating (aka RAMC ? Right Ascension of MC).
Similarly, as long as you are born when a star is rising (at a certain place), then it rises with whatever degree of the ecliptic rising. Mathematically, this is when the Oblique Ascension of the star is the same as the Oblique Ascension of degree of the ecliptic rising.

As an example the time that Spica rises in London according to Solar Fire is 9:14 pm on March 9 2010. So, anybody born at 9:14pm, March 9 2010 in London would have Spica rising. The time, date and place are already fixed, hence, the ASC and MC are also fixed for this person (Asc = 25d10m Libra and MC = 3d28m Leo). You cannot have a different Asc and MC. We would say that when a person is born at 9:14pm, March 9 2010 in London, Spica rises with 25d10m Libra and Spica rises with 3d28m Leo culminating. In fact, Spica would always rise with 25d10m Libra in London (at least for one generation) ? only that it occurs at different times of the day throughout the year (due to its phase with the sun).

Hello Mark

How can you trace stars co-arising with the Midheaven using such software?he same thing?

True? I always make a mess with astronomy Why earth is not flat?

Anyway visually I take stars where the ecliptic crosses the local meridian (I hope I'm right here).
And in every case I generally - when I'm not lazy- check with calculation. This is CieloeTerra method (I say because unfortunately I already saw works from Cieloeterra copied under other names and I expect to see astrological tools of this kind without proper credit ); they measure stars far from the ecliptic according their hourly distance from the axes MC-IC so a star with a distance 0 is at MC, one with 6 is at ASC (or DESC). In the same way we can calculate if stars are really in conjunction with planets, if they have the same hourly distance and are in the same quadrant they are together.
This is an obvious way to measure them because we take into consideration their actual position in the sky.

Quite easy method, if one is familiar with semiarc method of directing it takes a couple of days to make a small spreadsheet.

In every case I'm not a lover of exactitude, I don't use a fixed orb so Starry Nights times for me are ok- even if not astronomically exact. I don't care anything about 5 minutes more or less.

About Brady I don't understand where she took this thing of considering daily paran- I would be curious to see which texts she quotes.

and Astrojin

The stars have declinations that do not change much (at least not in a lifetime!). They actually do change at the rate similar to the rate of the precession. So, stars that do not have declinations equal to the geographical latitude of the place will never culminate at the zenith. So, stars that have declinations equal to the geographical latitude of the place will always culminate at the zenith and these stars are called ?stars of the place?.

Jean Stade

Vertical stars should be judged like that: the temperament and the habits of the regions will be duplicated and will be conveyed in those natives these stars are culminating at the birth, so they are elevated to honours with the public favour and inclination. If they will be besieged by malefic rays, especially by Mars and Moon, those natives will be put down by the inconstancy and rebellion of the mob.


margherita

Among his other mystical-but-highly-intriguing concepts, Mathers (that's S.L. MacGregor Mathers, co-founder of the Golden Dawn in the late 1880's) stated (in his rarely available astrological "flying rolls") that "the initiates" considered the "Star Commando" to be that star either at the declination of the latitude of the geographical center of each continent, or, if no star were to be found within 1 degree (either side) of that place, the star which touches the horizon of that location (90-geographical latitude), just exactly as Astrojin has described in the above posting!! Mathers claimed this "Star Commando" set the astro-mundane "tone" for the entire continent involved, with "Conditional Star(s)"-each determined as above, but for the geographical center of each particular nation located on that continent-adding a secondary, specific localized influence for that country (Mathers repudiated mundane computations based upon (alleged) dates of discovering or founding of territories, nations, governments, states, cities, etc) Just as a curiosity (because I really can't say I "know" whether or not Mathers is accurate) I"ll soon post the current "Star Commando's" for each of the continents (other than Antartica!) Who knows, maybe there might be something to it??

All stars and planets culminate and anti-culminate at some point during the day/night but they do not culminate at the zenith (or anti-culminate at the Nadir). Only stars (or planets) that have declinations equal to the geographical latitude of the place would culminate exactly on the zenith and anti-culminate exactly on the Nadir.

Thanks Astrojin. I thought that was the case. I just wanted to double check. I have been using Solar Fire but I dont have Brady's Starlight programme.

Anyway visually I take stars where the ecliptic crosses the local meridian (I hope I'm right here).

This is the source of my confusion too. I particularly want to clarify this as I have just ordered Starry Night to assist me in calculating in mundo conjunctions with planets. Brady's list of stars excludes a lot of traditionally important stars. Plus I dont really agree with many of her star delineations.

Margherita wrote:

About Brady I don't understand where she took this thing of considering daily paran- I would be curious to see which texts she quotes.

I confess when I first came across Brady's approach to stars I misunderstood it and thought she was simply proposing Local Horizon co-ordinates such as local horizon (rising), zenith. However, it is more sophisticated than that and takes the co-arising degrees of the four angles into account ( ASC, MC, DESC, & IC). She cites Anonymous of 379 as her main source for this technique. Her primary focus is stars and planets simultaneously co-arising on one of the four angles.

However, it is not correct to equate Brady's approach as identical with that of Anonymous of 379. Firstly, Anonymous spends quite a bit of space delineating just stars alone on angles. Brady gives very little attention to this approach. Secondly, he only seems to be suggesting delineation for the exact time of birth. The idea of delineating parans that will form before or after birth is not suggested by Anonymous. This seems to be an innovation of Bernadette Brady. Thirdly, Anonymous projects stars on to the ecliptic. Some of these are well outside the ecliptic. Brady, completely rejects any zodiacal projection. Sounds a bit like you in that respect Margherita?

Mark

Among his other mystical-but-highly-intriguing concepts, Mathers (that's S.L. MacGregor Mathers, co-founder of the Golden Dawn in the late 1880's) stated (in his rarely available astrological "flying rolls") that "the initiates" considered the "Star Commando" to be that star either at the declination of the latitude of the geographical center of each continent, or, if no star were to be found within 1 degree (either side) of that place, the star which touches the horizon of that location (90-geographical latitude), just exactly as Astrojin has described in the above posting!!

Thanks Dr farr,

I love that term 'Star commando'. Its sounds like the title for a good science fiction movie. I like to describe planets in contact with powerful fixed stars as 'super-charged'.

As Margherita has pointed out Jean Stade preceded Maher by about 300 years. Jean Stade proposed the idea of cities latitude linked to stars directly above them by declination or by horizon. Its fun to check out your local vertical star and horizon. New York for example currently has Algol as its vertical star....

Here is an link to Margherita's excellent translation of Jean Stade from her blog: http://heavenastrolabe.net/stade-on-fixed-stars/

Hello,

From MarkC

Plus I dont really agree with many of her star delineations.

Yes! I too disagree with many of her delineations. Her technqiues are similar to Anonymous 379 (though not identical). Her techniques are really worth a looking but her delineations must be studied with other traditional astrologers' delineations. Just remember fixed stars may mean differently for different charts (natal and mundane).

MarkC wrote: However, it is not correct to equate Brady's approach as identical with that of Anonymous of 379. Firstly, Anonymous spends quite a bit of space delineating just stars alone on angles. Brady gives very little attention to this approach. Secondly, he only seems to be suggesting delineation for the exact time of birth. The idea of delineating parans that will form before or after birth is not suggested by Anonymous.

I agree: I never saw anywhere the idea of taking previous or forthcoming "parans". Why should previous or forthcoming configurations of celestial bodies be influential in a chart?

Anyway I have the idea that when someone mentions a work should quote, at least a reference so the others can check.
Quotes don't spoil the reading of a text, they help the poor reader to understand if the writer is inventing a new technique-

Thirdly, Anonymous projects stars on to the ecliptic. Some of these are well outside the ecliptic. Brady, completely rejects any zodiacal projection. Sounds a bit like you in that respect Margherita?

well, what ancients did with stars is not very clear to me. Rethorius, Mashallah and the others who updated the catalogue of the Anonymous 379 updated longitudes of stars, true, but were always generic about what they were doing.

For example Albumasar updated this catalogue (it is edited and translated by Prof.Burnett in Liber de stellis beibeniis, Textus Arabicus et translatio Latina, Cura et studio P. K. In: Hermetis Trismegisti astrologica et divinatoria (Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis CXLIV C = Hermes Latinus, tom. IV, pars IV). Turnhout: Brepols 2001) and then used this catalogue in order to update Teucer list in Liber VI about facies, which is a text about RISING stars.

Moreover some stars are not where they should be, for example Bears in Ptolemy are around longitude 60, but for some strange idea everybody -Albumasar, Manilius, Vettius Valens put them at the end of the zodiac. Why?
I have the idea that ancients mixed several different catalogues and then got a standard list without any link with reality.

What I do? I don't use Brady parans, I want to see a traditional quote before doing.

For the rest in modern charts I use CieloeTerra method. If ancients took rising and culminating values of stars, why taking the rest in longitude?

A star in fact does not rise with its longitude, as Astrojin said. so it's strange they used different methods for the same star, true?

I'm aware several authors use stars in longitude, but they always used a very large orb, I have the idea because they were unsure too about what they should do...

I use the same technique, which can be stupid, but solves many problems.

margherita

Well, I would like to make two comments.

First, although I have absolutely no problem with using parans and other ways to analyse fixed stars, I sometimes get worried when traditionalists move the pendulum too far, and go to the opposite direction, just to prove a point.

So, we have all used divisional houses, but today there is this whole sect who want to dismiss houses as a mistranslation. I have a feeling that the same can happen with fixed stars: "oh, the tradition used the stars only with in RA", when several sources also speak of stars by longitude. I am not saying that contributors of this thread are doing that, I am saying that there is this strong trend in the traditional community to dismiss what works just because something "old" appears.

Second point is that, at least to me, the most important problem would be how to interpret them. I feel that delineations are scarce and hard to work. We all can say something seeing Algol (be it in longitude or ascension) in the ASC. But what about Deneb Kaitos and Lesath?

Frawley uses the symbolism of the star based on the constellation. Some use only the dual nature given by Ptolemy (mars-saturn, mars-jupiter, etc). Brady seems to have simply invented their own meaning based on the interpretation of celebrities charts.

It is easy to say something like "oh, algol is doing such and such thing on Bush?s chart", but if it was a mystery chart, would you be willing, for instance, to change your judgement because of a star? Would regulus in the ascendant make a phlegmatic a "go getter"? Would a star of mars nature in the MC bring animosity even with venus as ruler? etc, etc, etc. It is easy to talk about the stars in abstract, but I feel it is a lot harder to talk about their meaning in the particular context of real charts.

best regards

I have found, in practice, the Ptolemaic planetary-quality allocations, coupled with Robson's material, and (personal) interpretations I have derived from Allen, Bullinger, and Alvidas (on overlooked astrological authority), to work best (for me) in determining the meaning/influence of many of the stars. Being an esotericist, I have also considered the indications of several stars as given in kabbalistic and hermetic practices, magic, also certain stellar indications found in Taoist practices.

The "constellationofwords" website gives many of the meanings/indications from Ptolemy, Allen and Robson. But I must agree with Yuzuru that we possess only a relatively small amount of stellar indications (when compared with what we have regarding the planets and signs)

Hello Yuzuru

yuzuru wrote: First, , I sometimes get worried when traditionalists move the pendulum too far, and go to the opposite direction, just to prove a point.
I am not saying that contributors of this thread are doing that, I am saying that there is this strong trend in the traditional community to dismiss what works just because something "old" appears.

I don't want dismiss modern work. Just I don't like when someone talks about a "traditional technique" and nobody can find an example of it in traditional texts.
Do Brady's parans work? It is not a problem for me, but just I would like to see a quote, some lines of text or a reference, work title, page, chapter.

I don't like this way to present things of "ancients" without whatever quotes.

Second point is that, at least to me, the most important problem would be how to interpret them. I feel that delineations are scarce and hard to work. We all can say something seeing Algol (be it in longitude or ascension) in the ASC. But what about Deneb Kaitos and Lesath?

Frawley uses the symbolism of the star based on the constellation. Some use only the dual nature given by Ptolemy (mars-saturn, mars-jupiter, etc). Brady seems to have simply invented their own meaning based on the interpretation of celebrities charts.

I don't like this thing of Frawley too. We have plenty of texts about the meaning of fixed stars, we don't need any further explication.
We don't have a special meaning for Lesath? It could be that just this star has no meaning, which need to have to invent it.

We have so many things in a chart, the ruler of temperament, the ruler of geniture, the almuten, the planet who determines the quality of the soul, the hyleg and the alchoden, and so on.....

Why we should add Lesath? It sound for me like Uranus, Neptune, Pluto. Everything happening to a native we tend - me included, I started with modern astrology- "it is Uranus transit to the Ascendant"....

As you say if Lesath rises with the Ascendant it adds some Mercury/Mars quality to the temperament. It's quite enough for us.

It is easy to talk about the stars in abstract, but I feel it is a lot harder to talk about their meaning in the particular context of real charts.

I agree. Let alone beibenie, which are standard in meaning and very influential, the other stars should be considered in the general context.

margherita

The following are the continental "Star Commando's" which I referred to in my posting about Mathers' concepts (above) These are presented only for general interest.

As stated above, Mathers considered the star at the geographical center of each continent to be the "central", "commanding" or "guiding" star for that entire continent (he also considered the starry constellation in which the Star Commando was found to be the "continental constellation", ie, the starry constellation of most influence upon that continent) In determining the geographical center of each of the following continents, I have referenced Wikipedia and several other sources on the internet: the geographical center of Europe (given below) and of Asia, are subject of some controversy among modern geographers (the computations I used for Europe are based upon the "extreme points" calculations; for Asia, upon the work of Chinese government geographers-the greatest controversy surrounds the Asia geographic center figure) For the stars I have used latitude (as referenced in the constellationofwords latitude star list)

+North America (100:10 West 48:10 North)
Star Commando = Princeps
Continental Constellation = Bootes

+South America (55:45 West 15:26 South)
Star Commando = Mira
Continental Constellation = Cetus (the Whale)

+Asia (87:20 East 43:40 North)
Star Commando = Alphecca
Continental Constellation = Corona borealis (the Northern Crown)

+Australia (134:21 East 25:36 South)
Star Commando = Alnitak/Alnilam (essentially Cingula Orionis)
Continental Constellation = Orion

+Africa (18:04 East 2:02 North)
Star Commando = Zaniah
Continental Constellation = Virgo

+Europe (7:30 East 60:00 North)
Star Commando = Deneb Adige
Continental Constellation = Cygnus (the Swan)

Bernadette Brady did something similar with her parans - if you've ever read her Visual Astrology Newsletter, she does talk about parans as concern particular cities sometimes, not particular people, for example, how the same stars are prominent at the swearing-in of every US president because of the location, etc.

From what little I've seen of the technique (not enough to really come down on its side, though), parans seem to have some bearing on people, but I tend to use conjunctions (sometimes other aspects if a planet is already conjunct a star) on the ecliptic.