25 by Mark Hello Mark, please can you give me a traditional source for this? I'm looking for it since a long time... Hi Gjiada The only 'traditional' source I am aware of that emphatically proposes the locational approach to fixed stars is ''Anonymous of 379 on The Fixed Stars.'' There is a translation of this currently available from Project Hindsight, translated by Robert Schmidt and edited by Robert Hand. http://www.projecthindsight.com/archive ... istic.html Another free online version has been translated into Italian translated by Giuseppe Bezza and rendered into English by Daria Dudziak. However, the Schmidt translation is fuller and much better annotated. http://www.cieloeterra.it/eng/eng.testi ... g.379.html I do not believe there is any traditional source that supports what Brady advocates ie looking at parans throughout the day of a person's birth. Certainly not Anonymous of 379 which she cites as her main source. Of course Brady's approach has the advantage that lots of star parans happen with planets in a day. Its certainly means everyone has some paran happening each day. It may be useful when there is no time of birth. Personally, though I think this approach dilutes the power of star connections tied to time of birth. For example, the artist Picasso had the bright star Sirius rising at the exact moment of his birth. Incidentally, Picasso's chart is yet another chart showing the failure of zodiacal projection for stars outside the ecliptic. Sirius is the brightest star in the sky but its celestial latitude of -39.36 south of the ecliptic means it doesn't respond well to zodiacal projection. Picasso was born on October 25, 1881 at 23:15 PM in Malaga, Spain. His ascendant was 5.38 Leo with Sirius co-rising at that specific location. However, according to zodiacal projection the star was around 12 Cancer! In his book 'The Hellenistic Legacy' Joseph Crane claims the idea of linking certain stars outside the ecliptic and planets by their celestial declination comes from Hephaistio of Thebes in his text the Apotelesmatics. (See Apotelesmatics. , Hephaistio of Thebes, Book I, [tr. Robert H.Schmidt], Project Hindsight, Greek Track Vol. XV., The Golden Hind Press (Cumberland, MD), 1994) http://www.projecthindsight.com/archive ... istic.html However, it really depends what you mean by the word 'traditional' here. There is lots of evidence that Babylonian, Egyptian and Maya/Aztec astrology or star religion noted the passage of stars and planets rising , culminating and setting. The original source of the decans for example dates back to Ancient Egypt. Decans first appeared in the 10th Dynasty (2100 BCE) on coffin lids. The sequence of these star patterns began with Sothis/Sirius, and each decan contained a set of stars and corresponding divinities. As measures of time, the rising and setting of decans marked 'hours' and groups of 10 days which comprised an Egyptian year. The 36 decans or 'star clocks' were used to mark the ancient Egyptian year (36 X 10 = 360 days), + plus 5 added days to make up to 365 days. The idea of assigning planets to the decans comes much later and can probably be traced back to Egyptian astrology from the Roman era (Demotic texts). As you are an authority on medieval and renaissance sources I would be most interested in your views here. In particular regarding the 'Paranatellonta' ( paran for short) as stars or star groups that fall upon angles at the same time that a significant constellation or planet is also upon the angles. Traditionally these are viewed as as 'attendants'. I understand that in ancient astrology the term was also applied to the constellations that ascended with the zodiacal decans? However, I get the impression that by the medieval and renaissance era this practice was based purely on the theoretical position of stars using zodiacal projection of stars? Is that correct based on the sources you have studied? Quote Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:14 am
26 by margherita Code: Select allI do not believe there is any traditional source that supports what Brady advocates ie looking at parans throughout the day of a person's birth. Certainly not Anonymous of 379 which she cites as her main source. Hello Mark, I think exactly the same. Of course Brady's approach has the advantage that lots of star parans happen with planets in a day. Its certainly means everyone has some paran happening each day The motion of a star is the daily motion, so I'm sure I can find a lot of stars rising or culminating or setting during a whole day ':P' Code: Select allIncidentally, Picasso's chart is yet another chart showing the failure of zodiacal projection for stars outside the ecliptic. Sirius is the brightest star in the sky but its celestial latitude of -39.36 south of the ecliptic means it doesn't respond well to zodiacal projection. Picasso was born on October 25, 1881 at 23:15 PM in Malaga, Spain. His ascendant was 5.38 Leo with Sirius co-rising at that specific location. However, according to zodiacal projection the star was around 12 Cancer! Again I agree with you. Still you tried to play a little with Astrolabium Planum? Did you have receive it? Did you like it? I can't check now but sometimes it works perfectly without updating degrees...For example in my birthchart I found it the description very proper for me. Anyway I can't show any statistics and I'm not interested in it. In his book 'The Hellenistic Legacy' Joseph Crane claims the idea of linking certain stars outside the ecliptic and planets by their celestial declination comes from Hephaistio of Thebes in his text the Apotelesmatics. I have that book, I will read again pages about fixed stars. Is it something like parallels? As you are an authority on medieval and renaissance sources I would be most interested in your views here. No It's just I can read, so I collected several sources about paranatellonta. In particular regarding the 'Paranatellonta' ( paran for short) as stars or star groups that fall upon angles at the same time that a significant constellation or planet is also upon the angles. Traditionally these are viewed as as 'attendants'. I understand that in ancient astrology the term was also applied to the constellations that ascended with the zodiacal decans? I can't understand English here. Which word I should read for "these"? Anyway this is the definition given by one of the (real) authorities together with Feraboli, Professor Wolfgang Hubner in Pauly Wissowa Encyclopedia. stars 'rising alongside' (or ??????????????/synanat?llonta, 'rising simultaneously') are constellations, parts thereof (also of the signs of the zodiac) or especially bright individual stars, which become visible or invisible at the same time as certain degrees or decanal sections (segments of 10 degrees) of the ecliptic. They were first described by Aratus [4] who was criticized by Hipparchus [6]. In antiquity, they were used for determining the seasons and for distinguishing zodiacal prognoses by astrologers. In addition to the four basic types (acronycal and heliacal (= cosmic) rise or descent: i.e. evening's first, evening's last, morning's first, and morning's last visibility), there are the constant ecliptic lengths, which are dependent on latitude, and, especially for the circumpolar constellations, also the two culminations. Teucer of Babylon created speculative links between the signs of the zodiac and the paranatellonta, with specific annual dates of particular importance [1; 2]. He was followed by Manilius [III 1], Firmicus Maternus, Rhetorius and others who also personified the paranatellonta (e.g. as stellar deities). A rich iconography (illuminations in manuscripts as well as descriptive texts) developed from this, which continued into the 16th cent. However, I get the impression that by the medieval and renaissance era this practice was based purely on the theoretical position of stars using zodiacal projection of stars? Is that correct based on the sources you have studied? I saw updated catalogues in Renaissance astrologers, like Francescco Giuntini, true, still I have the idea they did not always use updated positions. And either I'm not sure they used really rising stars. What do you think? Quote Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:23 pm
27 by Mark I can't understand English here. Which word I should read for "these"? Sorry my english is quite cumbersome. Just replace with word 'Paranatellonta'' The motion of a star is the daily motion, so I'm sure I can find a lot of stars rising or culminating or setting during a whole day The cynic in me thinks there wouldn't be much mileage in marketing parans to everyone if they were restricted to those timed just to moment of birth. A lot of people will have nothing much going on. Again I agree with you. Still you tried to play a little with Astrolabium Planum? Did you have receive it? Did you like it? Sorry reallly busy right now. I am rushing to finish off some things before I head off to London. Looking forward to a one day workshop with Ben Dykes though. I have that book, I will read again pages about fixed stars. Is it something like parallels? Yes exactly. Parallels of declination between a star and planet. No contra-parallels though. No It's just I can read, so I collected several sources about paranatellonta. Your far too modest! I saw updated catalogues in Renaissance astrologers, like Francescco Giuntini, true, still I have the idea they did not always use updated positions. And either I'm not sure they used really rising stars. What do you think? From the limited sources I have seen translated I have formed the impression that by the renaissance period use of stars by astrologers was reduced to consulting tables with zodiacal projection positions or using fixed stars in cabbalistic magic ( Cornelius Agrippa). So far Cardano has impressed me the most. He seems to have taken fixed stars more seriously than most. I have only read his aphorisms though. It would be great if a complete version of his Seven Segments was translated into english. I know you have made a study of medieval use of decans/face so I was wondering what you thought! Ben Dykes translation of Bonatti's 'Book of Astronomy' suggests many of the star positions listed by Bonatti are not recognised astronomically. Either he was relying on corrupted Arabic sources, faulty star tables or these were more like cabbalistic magical points. Certainly, by the time of Lilly and Morin there seems to be little or no actual observation of stars in the sky. Although there are a lot of things I admire about european medieval and renaissance astrology I do not think fixed star work is something we need to be too reverential about. I therefore take statements from Lilly and other contemporaries about Algol, Sirius, Scheat etc with a pinch of salt. Not least because Lilly and his contemporaries did not calculate the actual position of such stars but relied on zodiacal projection for all stars. I think the hellenistic astrologers like Aratus, Geminus, Manilius, Ptolemy, Hephaistio, Firmicus, Anonymous, Rhetorius, etc have more insights to offer in regards fixed stars. Still, I do believe in testing out the fixed star lore in real charts rather than accepting it on faith. I am also open to other star lore ie Vedic, Chinese, Babylonian, Mayan etc rather than just relying on sources through the Hellenistic-Arabic-European transmission of fixed star associations. Quote Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:48 pm
28 by kerenhappuch MarkC, thanks ever so much for your detailed post in reply to my "back to basics" questions. It is making more sense - a lot of info to take in so I will go and let it sink in then come back to it... I think you are very right to suggest that it is important to really look at the intricacies of where the stars physically are relative to one's position on Earth. I think that it makes a lot more sense to look at the precise position of each star and to correlate this with the precise position of the planets. In this way it is possible to sort out what is a major influence and what is merely sharing a degree which in physical reality it is very far from. That was poorly expressed but you know what I mean! For example I recall a time in the last couple of years where the Moon was right next to - I think it was Antares? - I could be wrong - but I went outside to see, thankfully the sky was clear and I live in a rural area, and I was very taken with how it looked in the sky - to see the Moon right next to a star that I had read about. Lots to think about, thank you. Keren Quote Wed Sep 17, 2008 7:33 pm
29 by margherita So far Cardano has impressed me the most. Hello Mark, still Cardano is the astrologer who desires delete all the Arab nonsense and writes more than once that Firmicus or Albumasar or Ali can't understand anything about astrology. Anyway if you are thinking about the text about fixed stars in De iudiciis geniturarum it's not so awful, I should admit He seems to have taken fixed stars more seriously than most. I have only read his aphorisms though. It would be great if a complete version of his Seven Segments was translated into english. As already I wrote to you, Aphorisms are just a juvenile work and if this book is so famous in Anglosaxon world it's just because of Lilly translation. I'm very doubtful Cardano would write again his Aphorisms after reading Camerararius version of Tetrabiblos, which changed his astrological vision and pushed him to write his own Comment to Tetrabiblos. I know you have made a study of medieval use of decans/face so I was wondering what you thought! At the moment I'm finishing to revise another text on paranatellonta, I will put on line very soon, in a couple of days. Ben Dykes translation of Bonatti's 'Book of Astronomy' suggests many of the star positions listed by Bonatti are not recognised astronomically. Either he was relying on corrupted Arabic sources, faulty star tables or these were more like cabbalistic magical points. It depends on Bonatti source, I have not that book. Maybe Bonatti is referring to some stars of Barbarian sphere. And even about Greek sphere, stars sometimes had a different position. For example Hercules has a club in Medieval representations, not in Greek ones, but he has one in Teucer description. I think the hellenistic astrologers like Aratus, Geminus, Manilius, Ptolemy, Hephaistio, Firmicus, Anonymous, Rhetorius, etc have more insights to offer in regards fixed stars. Still, I do believe in testing out the fixed star lore in real charts rather than accepting it on faith. I think the same. Still Albumasar version is very important, Liber VI had an enourmous impact till the Renaissance. Quote Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:08 pm
30 by Mark Hello Gjiada, still Cardano is the astrologer who desires delete all the Arab nonsense and writes more than once that Firmicus or Albumasar or Ali can't understand anything about astrology. Ah he sounds like Morin! Still Morin seems to have been a very good astrologer despite his prejudices and arrogance. Anyway if you are thinking about the text about fixed stars in De iudiciis geniturarum it's not so awful, I should admit At the moment I'm finishing to revise another text on paranatellonta, I will put on line very soon, in a couple of days. Indeed I recommend your blog for that and other goodies!! It depends on Bonatti source, I have not that book. Maybe Bonatti is referring to some stars of Barbarian sphere. And even about Greek sphere, stars sometimes had a different position. For example Hercules has a club in Medieval representations, not in Greek ones, but he has one in Teucer description. As Bonatti was relying closely on Arabic sources I think its far more likely their star lore may have influenced him. However, I hope to talk to Ben Dykes about this specific issue soon and will get his view. Still Albumasar version is very important, Liber VI had an enourmous impact till the Renaissance. I agree. My reservations were in regards european astrologers specifically. The Arab language astrologers are very much the 'missing link' between hellenistic and european astrology. Their influence was immense in regards the transmission of fixed star meanings and lore. However, a lot of important texts have still be be translated. For example, the work of Haly Abenragel. Quote Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:47 pm
31 by margherita Ah he sounds like Morin! Still Morin seems to have been a very good astrologer despite his prejudices and arrogance. Hello Mark, I don't think Cardano or Morin hated Arabs because they were Arab. Anyway about Morin surely Tom could say more. Cardano was thinking - especially after he could read Camerarius translation of Tetrabiblos from the Greek in 1548 - that Medieval Arab translations were not true to the originals texts. And moreover he was writing after Pico della Mirandola and when Great conjunction theory had showed serious flaws because of the wrong prediction of 1524 deluge. Cardano wrote about his new vision of astrology in his comment to Tetrabiblos, but I have in my library since years the complete Italian translation of Aphorisms by Giuseppe Bezza, so I can tell you he wrote against Albumasar and Firmicus at least since that work. It was not a new trend in astrology in fact; before him, since the second half of 1400, Giovanni Pontano wrote the same about Centiloquium. As Bonatti was relying closely on Arabic sources I think its far more likely their star lore may have influenced him. However, I hope to talk to Ben Dykes about this specific issue soon and will get his view. Yes, it would be interesting to know more about Bonatti sources, ask if you have the possibility. Quote Thu Sep 18, 2008 1:27 pm
32 by RC RC wrote:chrysalis wrote:For the natal Sun to progress to Scheat would be a worry yes, but typically something really major in the life is announced with more than one progression perfecting near the same time. Still it might be wise for your friend to avoid boating for the time being. One of the better examples I can recall of the influence of Scheat manifesting in mundane astrology is in the new Moon chart prior to hurricane Katrina, when set for New Orleans, Louisiana (August 4th, 2005 10:03 pm, CDT.) Scheat is dead on the ascendant. My friend had overwhelming thoughts of suicide one night recently and asked me to stay with them until they passed. They truly did not trust themselves not to do it and were really scared of their own thoughts! This was so out of the ordinary for them. Until I directed their chart today, I didn't know what was causing this. Sun is right on 29:28 Pisces in their directed 12th house. One of the readings for Scheat is suicidal thoughts. RC My friend had only one other time where he felt suicidal/homicidal. One of the worst times of his life he stated. He gave the date of that event. I directed his natal chart to it. That was March 1978: At that time, his directed Asc., Venus was in detriment, in the directed first house at 00 Aries, conjunct Scheat! RC Quote Thu Sep 18, 2008 3:07 pm
33 by RC kerenhappuch wrote: RC - you seem pretty fired up about the effects of this star. Any more information on the specific events you have seen linked to it? An example would be useful for illustration. Keren Keren: It was too painful & personal to talk about. Let me just say it was the single worst event in my life which actually put my life at risk. Although I eventually came out of it okay as promised in my natal chart, there were ramifications from it which have followed me in some way ever since. That was back in 1974. My advice for anyone who's directed ASC is conjoining Scheat would be to be extremely careful in every decision, every step you took until it had passed and not to take any risks whatsoever. RC Quote Thu Sep 18, 2008 3:13 pm
34 by Mark Hello RC, I am still unclear what you mean by a 'direction' here. You have stated earlier you were not using secondary progressions. Can I ask again is this a direction of the Ascendant by solar arc or by primary direction? The latter approach would be consistent with approach used by Lilly and the 17th century astrologers. The former use of solar arcs and fixed stars projected on to the zodiac would co-incide with the style of Ebertin and the Uranian astrologers. Clearly what you describe sounds a very powerful event. I am sure as astrologers we would all seek a satisfactory explanation through our chart of something that significant. What I find so unusual about your position is your view that this was only reflected by this particular direction to this fixed star in your chart. Most predictive astrologers look for the 'rule of three' ie they seek to find other supporting testimony to support a particular event prediction/description. For example, the astrologer Morin looked to primary directions, solar returns, lunar returns and transits. Many traditional astrologers also used profections. Were there no other significant indicators in the charts? In regards the technique you are using I think I have set out my position clearly enough and at considerable length! It seems this is just another area where astrologers of equal sincerity find themselves in total disagreement. We can therefore add fixed star technique in with zodiacs, houses, aspects, sign rulerships, etc. Quote Thu Sep 18, 2008 3:57 pm
35 by Mark I recall a time in the last couple of years where the Moon was right next to - I think it was Antares? - I could be wrong - but I went outside to see, thankfully the sky was clear and I live in a rural area, and I was very taken with how it looked in the sky - to see the Moon right next to a star that I had read about. Hi Keren, Glad you found the post useful. I perhaps need to develop a potted version to get over key points! What you describe sounds quite plausible in regards Antares. Antares has a latitude of -4.34 and the Moon dips up and down 5 degrees either side of the ecliptic. This is of course the source of the lunar Nodes. The great thing about working with the actual positions of stars on the angles or with planets though is that we can break away from focusing exclusively on just the ecliptic. Our astrology can embrace the whole night sky as it 'touches the earth'. Incidentally, you asked how astrologers arrived at the projected zodiac positions for stars? Actually, most astrologers using this technique have no idea! There are actually two totally different ways to do this mathematically. The original method of zodiacal projection was proposed by Ptolemy in his book of astronomy and star catalogue known as the Almagest. Ptolemy projected ecliptical degrees based on the poles of the ecliptic. He listed 1022 stars in the Almagest and their projected ecliptical degrees , were then precessed through the ages, with each generation of astrologers adding the current rate of precession to find the current ecliptical degree of a star in their time. Ptolemy's star catalogue was used in this manner for well over a thousand years until the time of the Mongolian-Turkish astronomer Ulugh Beg (1394-1449) and again in the time of the German astrologer and mathematician Regiomontanus (1436-1476). Both these astronomers re-plotted all of Ptolemy's star catalog, and laid the foundations for later work. In particular, Albrecht Durer ( 1471-1528) produced star maps based on the poles of the equator rather than the poles of the ecliptic used by Ptolemy. Using this new method all of Ptolemy's stars were projected on to a different zodiacal degree. Astrologers at this time seem to have accepted this change in technique in how stars were projected. Since then, astrologers and astronomers have all worked with stars positions projected from the poles of the equator rather than the ecliptic. However, it needs to be appreciated these are just mathematical conventions to give us a generalised hook for the celestial position of stars in relation to the earth. In either case, if an astrologer is using this technique, they need to understand it seldom bears much relationship to the actual position of stars in the sky. The two methods project a star on to quite different degrees of the zodiac. For example, using Ptolemy's method based on poles of the ecliptic the star Regulus was at 29.42 Leo in 2000CE. However, using the modern method based on poles of the celestial equator the star was at 26.20 Leo in 2000CE. A difference of over 3 degrees! So who is right? In astrological terms maybe the whole approach is misguided and we need to be considering the local sky as Bernadette Brady suggests. To do that though astrologers need to break free of a limited mind set which seeks to fit everything into the ecliptic. I do think we should all try to learn more about the actual night sky. I know lots of astrologers who complain astronomers never take us seriously. Frankly though why should they? If astrology means wisdom or study of the stars we owe it to our art to do the basics. The problem is that books about this are usually very dry. Also the light pollution in our cities means actual observation is harder than ever before. I recommend going to a planetarium or even an astromomy observers group. There is also some good software around specifically aimed at astrologers. Martin Lewicki's is one of the best. In regards fixed stars Bernadette Brady's software 'Starlight' takes fixed star work to a whole new level. Of course if you live in the countryside or are visiting remote locations you have a great opportunity to recapture a little bit of the pure awe our ancestors must have had looking up at the clear night sky. The bright stars to look out for on the ecliptic are Aldebaran (Taurus) Regulus (Leo), Spica ( Virgo), Antares (Scorpius) and Pollux (Gemini). If you project them on to the zodiac they have all moved through precession to the next sign in the tropical zodiac apart from Regulus which is imminently about to leave Leo and Ingress into the sign of Virgo(Or is it ? See note above on different methods opf zodiacal projection). Historically, Regulus in Leo has been linked to the Roman empire and the Roman Catholic Church. It will be interesting what happens with this star moving into the tropical sign of the Goddess. One can only hope the Virgo associations with prudence and fertility will symbolise much greater care and stewardship for our planet in to millenia to come. Of course, as we saw above, it rather depends how you plot the position of stars! Quote Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:20 pm
36 by RC MarkC wrote:Hello RC, I am still unclear what you mean by a 'direction' here. You have stated earlier you were not using secondary progressions. Can I ask again is this a direction of the Ascendant by solar arc or by primary direction? The latter approach would be consistent with approach used by Lilly and the 17th century astrologers. The former use of solar arcs and fixed stars projected on to the zodiac would co-incide with the style of Ebertin and the Uranian astrologers. Hi Mark: I am using a direction of the ASC by solar arc. Sorry, I didn't see your question if you asked that before. I confess there was a bit more info in your posts than I've had the time to read and I am mainly interested in hearing about others' experiences with Scheat. As for other confirmations, I'm sure they are there. I always look for them and agree you need at least three confirmations. As a quick check, I just looked at some single worst event in my life and that of my friend to see if Scheat was in play and it was. I am sure the overall chart confirmed that. It could not be otherwise with such tragic events unfolding. I have had bad years, disappointments, major challenges - where Scheat was not in play. Those events were not disasterous or tragic however. RC Quote Thu Sep 18, 2008 6:05 pm