Skyscript Astrology Forum

OK, I just checked its docs: it can handle parans of 1078 stars in its catalog.

Wow! Thats impressive. Thanks

Mark

Hello Mark:

Your post raises a number of astrological issues. Rather than rattling off a quick response I will get back to you in a few days after researching out a few texts.

Thank you!

I am intrigued what the purpose of what you are writing on this topic for. If you are going to critique the zodiacal projection of stars on to the ecliptic I have to state others have made that case already. In particular Bernadette Brady in her books and talks for over a decade. I believe Guiseppe Bezza teaches this in mundo approach to his students in Cieloe Terra too.

First of all, I did not understand that Bernadette Brady criticized the projection of the stars on to the ecliptic. It seemed to me that she was criticizing the projection of the stars in the celestial equator: she says that the experience of 1000 years was rejected suddenly by Regiomontanus in the XV century.

As for Bezza I don?t know what he is teaching since I?m not his student. I was a Robert Zoller?s student and I can say that he gave all his course based in planets, significators,elements, almutens: in all written course of more than a thousand pages he tells about stars half of a page! . I have to find the quotation but he says to use only the Persian Royal stars, kind of seven.

If you are working from a traditional perspective though you do have the dilemma that this technique seems to have been used since hellenistic times. To reject this approach would seem to be a denial of much of the tradition itself.

I?m not afraid to throw away the shower water if I have still the baby, so to speak
Anyway, I don?t think ancient authors had given the same importance to fixed stars as they gave to planets, to ascentional times, to profections or to Solar Revolutions.

I asked myself if this lack of interest, if we compare with the huge information on all the other subjects, was not because stars are less important than the wandering.
We have few words coming from Ptolemy, nothing from Valens, a sentence or 2 coming from Anthiocus, a paragraph from Albumasar, Mathernus don?t say a thing, Al Biruni tells almost nothing besides some stars are responsible for blindness, Abu Ali nothing?
The only ancient author talking about stars and giving them importance as hidden helpers is Bonatti, in his 9th Consideration, saying that they can be powerful in their effects if between 30? of distance of a planet or cusp.
You can bring all the books you want: they say few and controversial things about stars comparing with is said (and agreed) when the matter is planets.
Bonatti made some mistakes, also, for example in nocturnal firdars, so I can?t swear he was right about stars. BTW he used them in the ecliptic.

Besides that, it is not my intention to show any expertise when the subject is " fixed stars". They never bothered me, and I never bothered them;-)
Medieval astrology did not use stars frequently in their delineation, at least I don?t have any example of the use.
The constant use of fixed stars in the present days in Horary and Natal astrology always seems farfetched, if we take into account that the majority of the people we know are common people asking common questions.
My interest in fixed stars increased when I began to write a traditional book and realized that I had to say something about them.

I never imagined that the matter would go so far and bring such implications.

The ancient books that I have did not help me, since they say little about stars: so I read Robson, Brady, Noolan, Rigor?and I thought I was almost done.
But Brady?s point of view impressed me, and I began to think about principles and, as I always do, I began to do some research using real charts, of persons that represented important collective roles and persons who I know the lives ?accidents pretty well.

That was my purpose: to discuss with you all and see if I?m right or wrong: I was not claiming I was the inventor of the wheel.

Parans (that is the same thing as paranatelonta, meaning ?rise together?), is a visual fact.

You seem to be assuming the modern understanding of 'parans' and traditional 'paranatellonta' are synonmous. I dont necessarily agree. Its a more controversial point than you might think. I will explain what I mean later.

At this point my idea came from a quotation of Helena Avelar and Luis Ribeiro: Treatise of the Spheres. They say at page 331:
?The term paran is an abbreviation of the term Greek parantelonta which means to rise together. Two astrological celestial bodies are in parantelonta when the angles coincide for example if one stands to the east (Ascending) while the other ends (MC) or descends to the west (DSC). This concept applies both to the planets and the stars and constellations, "etc. etc. END OF QUOTE

Best

Cl?lia

[

What software do you have right now? Solar Fire does this.

Hi Mark:

I know it does: but today I wasn?t able to handle the right module, and it showed only the parans with planets. I don?t use SF frequently. I usually use Janus.
I have SF just in case.

If you do have SF go to your chart and go to reports -then star parans. Its following Brady's approach of all planet and star parans that form that day rather than just the moment of the chart. However, you can just check the ASC and MC angles to see what stars were on these angles at the time of the chart. SF also lets you add the IC and DESC as points. Another handy feature of SF is the fixed star editor. This allows you to add on stars beyond the restricted list used by Brady. She actually leaves out a lot of traditionally significant stars.

It is weird: today I could not find the way to do it. I did many calculation last week, but I was in doubt if I used SF or Janus. Certainly it was SF. I must have been tired to think today;-)

I also have Brady's Starlight which of course does this too but thats going to cost you additional money

.

I had an experience with Starlight: I asked in the website my own parans Just to check the program out, and they sent me after a week. Brady states that you can do predictions accordingly with the stars that will rise or set, be in the MC or IC. Correct me if I?m wrong.
The stars that the program gave as ruling my life periods did not match with my life accidents, sadly.

I haven't heard of any free software. Sounds like Ed F is the person for that question.

Thanks, anyway, tomorrow I?ll try again SF! :-)

Clelia

Hello Clelia,
thanks for your kind words

Clelia Romano wrote: I asked myself if this lack of interest, if we compare with the huge information on all the other subjects, was not because stars are less important than the wandering.
We have few words coming from Ptolemy, nothing from Valens, a sentence or 2 coming from Anthiocus, a paragraph from Albumasar, Mathernus don?t say a thing, Al Biruni tells almost nothing besides some stars are responsible for blindness, Abu Ali nothing?

I don't think that stars are so neglected.
Manilius dedicates all Astronomica 5th book to paranatellonta, and Firmicus closes Mathesis in the same way.
Albumasar wrote his catalogue of the 30 bright stars (I have Burnett translation) plus the famous chapter about paranatellonta in the Great Introduction, which was greatly influential. In this site you can find Dr. Dykes version of the 30 bright stars by Mashallah (Liber Aristotilis). And there are many other famous examples.

This is the English version of the Anonymous 379, from CieloeTerra site, I believe there is an English version from Project Hindsight:

http://www.cieloeterra.it/eng/eng.testi ... g.379.html

I would say the difference is not all the stars were used as at the present, just the more important.

And I agree with Mark, parans are not like paranatellonta for me.

margherita

Hello Margherita!

I

don't think that stars are so neglected.
Manilius dedicates all Astronomica 5th book to paranatellonta, and Firmicus closes Mathesis in the same way.
Albumasar wrote his catalogue of the 30 bright stars (I have Burnett translation) plus the famous chapter about paranatellonta in the Great Introduction, which was greatly influential. In this site you can find Dr. Dykes version of the 30 bright stars by Mashallah (Liber Aristotilis). And there are many other famous examples

.

Yes, you?re right about Firmicus, he quoted the same stars Ptolemy did, according to Ryam, the translator.
But in my opinion there is not a real discussion on the use of stars in any of these authors. I do not have Albumasar?s Great Introduction, but the books I have in most of them the stars are quoted in a catalogue way. Perhaps the purpose was more astronomical than astrological, in some of the authors.

This is the English version of the Anonymous 379, from CieloeTerra site, I believe there is an English version from Project Hindsight:

http://www.cieloeterra.it/eng/eng.testi ... g.379.html

Thank you, but I already have the book translated by Project Hindsigh.

I would say the difference is not all the stars were used as at the present, just the more important.

And I agree with Mark, parans are not like paranatellonta for me.

And what would be the difference, if you don?t mind to explain?

Best regards

Cl?lia

Hi Ed:

Don't know of anything offhand (I use Janus the way you use SF). Juan Revilla's Riyal is full of surprised, though - it could very well have this kind of feature. Worth downloading to check out. http://www.expreso.co.cr/centaurs/riyal.html.

I downloaded the Ryal some time ago, but I formatted my computer and I never installed it again. I found the paran?s module in Janus.
Thank you!

Cl?lia

Hi Margherita:

it?s me again!

I was looking in Persian Nativities and Masha?allah says something useful on the practical use of stars. He says to use then mostly in the ASC or MC, or in conjunction with Sun or Moon, provided that they are well placed.
And Abu Ali in Persian nativities as well says that one of the things to look at in kings? nativities is if there are fixed stars in the ASC and MC or with Sun obove the earth in fiery signs or Moon in her own signs at night.

This is not about my initial question.

It is only an updating (and a correction) of my former position saying that Abu Ali says nothing about stars.
Anyway they seemed to be used in a configuration, together with other testimonies.

best

Cl?lia

Hello Clelia,

Clelia Romano wrote:
Thank you, but I already have the book translated by Project Hindsigh.

I know you are Zoller student, I gave the link for other readers.

And what would be the difference, if you don?t mind to explain?

From Pauly-Wissowa- lemma compiled by Hubner (I guess from Boll) a paranatellonta is a part of a constellation or a bright star rising in the same moment than a portion of the ecliptic.

This is from Bernadette Brady:

http://www.zyntara.com/starlight_tutori ... arans.html

"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. "

Let's say that I would call this an aspect in mundo- it's a Placidean aspect.

Now let's imagine a nativity for 15th July 2010, h:6:04 pm Rome
What are these? The baby is born at 6:06 pm, why I should consider these data? In this list there is no information for our nativity.
Why Brady mentions them? Anonymous 379 starts "When in a geniture.... "

It's a pity our guest Deborah is not here, because in Perugia she presented a wonderful lecture about the stars of Greater Bear.


margherita

Hello Cl?lia,

I still dont have much time for a considered reply this week. Still I cant resist picking up the good points made by Margherita for now.

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. " Bernadette Brady

As Margherita has suggested the use of fixed stars in texts like Teucer of Babylon, Manilius, Firmicus, Valens, Rhetorius does not support this interpretation. The term paranatellonta was used to describe constellations or stars co-arising with a point in the ecliptic. This could be an angle or planet.

Studying Anonymous of 379 its evident he did use a method involving stars and planets simultaeously co-arising on angles. However, Brady is rather selective in what she utilizes from this text. Like Liber Hermetis, Anonymous of 379 also mentions stars co-arising with the Moon. Anonymous of 379 also delineates individual stars on angles with no planets involved. Finally, he also seems to use zodiacal projection. To assume Brady's technique is synonymous with Anonymous of 379 would be a travesty.

I think Bernadette Brady's approach owes as much to Cyril Fagan than to traditional astrology. Take a look at this defintion of paranatellonta from the Irish siderealist astrologer Cyril Fagan:

" If two or more planets or fixed stars bodily rise or set simultaneously,
or come to the Midheaven or Nadir together, or if one crosses any of the
angular cusps while another is also crossing an angle, then each is said to
be the paranatellonta of the other. These paranatellontas constitute the
most powerful configurations in prognostic astronomy, and even a beginner
should be able to see why this should be so. Paranatellonta is a Greek
word signifying " acting simultaneously, " but it is such a long and
difficult-to-pronounce word, let us hereafter abbreviate it to PARAN, say
" per-ran " for convenience. " 9/58 " Solunars, " Cyril Fagan

Sound familiar?

As Margherita pointed out Anonymous of 379 is only interested in delineating a nativity at the time of birth. Brady, however, suggests that parans forming throughout a person's day of birth are astrologically significant. So anyone one born on July 15th as given above will be delineated by Brady with the same parans. Why adopt such a generalised approach that applies to so many?

The cynic in me thinks it might be because Brady's personalised paran reports would be empty for a lot of people! An awful of people are born without her definition of a paran at the time of birth. However, her very generalised approach allows everyone a paran or indeed several!

As the Dodo said in Alice in Wonderland:

'everybody has won, and all must have prizes.'

Thats why I find Brady's 'paran' technique quite unconvincing. Strangely, she ignores the opportunity to delineate charts with stars co-arising with planets in their horoscope at the time of birth. I was quite frustrated to find her Starlight software was no help whatsoever in that respect.

In fairness Brady has been a champion in reintroducing better understanding of the visual phases of the fixed stars which is important. One traditional text she clearly has studied very carefully is Ptolemy's Phases of the Fixed Stars.

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.

Mark

MarkC wrote:
Studying Anonymous of 379 its evident he did use a method involving stars and planets simultaeously co-arising on angles. However, Brady is rather selective in what she utilizes from this text. Like Liber Hermetis, Anonymous of 379 also mentions stars co-arising with the Moon. Anonymous of 379 also delineates individual stars on angles with no planets involved.

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.

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.

margherita

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.

I agree. Anonymous of 379 is the only source I am aware of that even mentions this idea. Even he combines it with several other approaches. Far more interesting for me is a chart with a star co-arising on an angle or with a planet in mundo in the birthchart.

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.

For example, Pablo Picasso with Sirius in mundo rising at his time of birth!

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.

Well the technique is mentioned by Anonymous of 379. However, this is not representative of mainstream hellenistic understanding of 'paranatellonta'. Incidentally, the Schmidt translation of Anonymous of 379 is longer than the version we have translated from Bezza into English. A useful introduction by Robert Hand and comments by Robert Schmidt with detailed footnotes.

Mark

Hi Margherita:

From Pauly-Wissowa- lemma compiled by Hubner (I guess from Boll) a paranatellonta is a part of a constellation or a bright star rising in the same moment than a portion of the ecliptic.

This is from Bernadette Brady:

http://www.zyntara.com/starlight_tutori ... arans.html

"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.

Let's say that I would call this an aspect in mundo- it's a Placidean aspect.

I think it is. Parans was used in astrological/astronomical observations to compensate the lack of visibility. If we know that the star A rise when the star B is in the west, every time you see star B even with clouds in the sky you can know that the star A is in the opposite place.
It certainly is taking into account the primary motion of the skies. But if you use planets that move much more faster than fixed stars you have to know the season and month of the year, since a planet will not rise in the same place day after day: it changes position accordingly to its synodic period and its translation around the ecliptic ( secondary motion).


best

Clelia