I assumed it wasn't traditional but I have grown wary of saying anything is not traditional here as I have been proven wrong so many times!

I agree modern astrology is obsessed by 'the shock of the new' at the expense of fundamental concepts.

I'm not aware that any of the older astrologers used declination for much, if anything.

There does seem to be much more focus on latitude than declination in terms of planets. However for the Sun its central path along the ecliptic dictates it can have no latitude.

Thus ancient astrologers closely examined the Sun's declination in relation to the celestial equator. This gave birth to the important traditional notion of antiscional and contra-antiscional points which originate from zodiac degrees where the Sun has identical or opposing declination. Clearly the declination of the Sun was very significant to hellenistic astrologers.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/antiscia.html

Thus the intriguing idea of a 'Solar declination return' is that it can occur in an antiscional sign to the location of your natal Sun. However, I have not had time to try this idea out yet in any charts.

MarkC wrote:I recently heard a talk on Solar Returns by the English astrologer Bernard Eccles.

One suggestion he made which I found quite thought provoking was why just do a return chart in terms of the ecliptical longitude? What about a chart when the Sun reaches the same declination as in the natal chart? I dont know if this idea has any traditional pedigree or not but it seems quite intriguing.

From a climatological point of view this would even make more sense than the ecliptic return. Since the duration of light and the intesity of sunbeams depend on declination, the declination return is even more realistic.

On the other side it makes me think that the relation of the Sun (in the ecliptic) in astrology and therefore the effect of astrology is of another nature than the climatological/'declinational' one. (Note that my personal standpoint is that I prefer to view astrology from a more 'natural' standpoint rather than only 'symbolical' one.)

The lunar declination return would even be more interesting because of the movement of the nodes. In 2006 the Moon reached extreme high and low declinations in Gemini/Cancer and Sagittarius/Capricorn, only to be repeated after ca. 18 years, giving a lunar return period of 18 years! The Moon's declination though would be of another nature than the Sun's declination since the temperature etc. depends mainly on the declination of the Sun.

Hi Eddy,

On the other side it makes me think that the relation of the Sun (in the ecliptic) in astrology and therefore the effect of astrology is of another nature than the climatological/'declinational' one. (Note that my personal standpoint is that I prefer to view astrology from a more 'natural' standpoint rather than only 'symbolical' one.)

I accept we are discussing different things with Solar declination and the ecliptical position of the planets. However, the notion this makes declination any less central to horoscopic astrology is incorrect in my view. Yes delination of the Sun is a very naturalistic or climatological factor as you present. However, its integral to much of our symbolic astrology too.

For example, look at Ptolemy. The Tetrabiblos is littered with examples that link solar declination/season to astrological concepts. The point is not restricted to the notion of Antiscia/Contra-Antiscia I have already raised.

In book I , chapter 10 of Tetrabiblos Ptolemy links the seasons to the four angles, quadrants and the zodiac.

10. Of the Effect of the Seasons and of the Four Angles.
Of the four seasons of the year, spring, summer, autumn, and winter, spring exceeds in moisture on account of its diffusion after the cold has passed and warmth is setting in; the summer, in heat, because of the nearness of the sun to the zenith; autumn more in dryness, because of the sucking up of the moisture during the hot season just past; and winter exceeds in cold, because the sun is farthest away from the zenith. For this reason, although there is no natural beginning of the zodiac, since it is a circle, they assume that the sign which begins with the vernal equinox, that of Aries, is the starting-point of them all, making the excessive moisture of the spring the first part of the zodiac as though it were a living creature, and taking next in order the remaining seasons, because in all creatures the earliest ages, like the spring, have a larger share of moisture and are tender and still delicate. The second age, up to the prime of life, exceeds in heat, like summer; the third, which is now past the prime and on the verge of decline, has an excess of dryness, like autumn; and the last, which approaches dissolution, exceeds in its coldness, like winter.

Even more fundamentally Ptolemy suggests in Book I, chapter 11 the nature of the zodiac signs corresponds to their position relative to the equinoxes and solstices. For all tropical astrologers this connection is pivotal.

11. Of Solstitial, Equinoctial, Solid, and Bicorporeal Signs. After the explanation of these matters the next subject to be added would be the natural characters of the zodiacal signs themselves, as they have been handed down by tradition. For although their more general temperaments are each analogous to the seasons that take place in them,certain peculiar qualities of theirs arise from their kinship to the sun, moon, and planets, as we shall relate in what follows, putting first the unmingled powers of the signs themselves alone, regarded both absolutely and relatively to one another.

The first distinctions, then, are of the so?called solstitial, equinoctial, solid, and bicorporeal signs. For there are two solstitial signs, the first interval of 30? from the summer solstice, the sign of Cancer, and the first from the winter solstice, Capricorn; and they have received their name from what takes place in them. For the sun turns when he is at the beginning of these signs and reverses his latitudinal progress, causing summer in Cancer and winter in Capricorn. Two signs are called equinoctial, the one which is first from the spring equinox, Aries, and the one which begins with the autumnal equinox, Libra; and they too again are named from what happens there, because when the sun is at the beginning of these signs he makes the nights exactly equal to the days.

Of the remaining eight signs four are called solid and four bicorporeal. The solid signs, Taurus, Leo, Scorpio, and Aquarius, are those which follow the solstitial and equinoctial signs; and they are so called because when the sun is in them the moisture, heat, dryness, and cold of the seasons that begin in the preceding signs touch us more firmly, not that the weather is naturally any more intemperate at that time, but that we are by then inured to them and for that reason are more sensible of their power.

The bicorporeal signs, Gemini, Virgo, Sagittarius, and Pisces, are those which follow the solid signs, and are so called because they are between the solid and the solstitial and equinoctial signs and share, as it were, at end and beginning, the natural properties of the two states of weather.

I would therefore suggest it is incorrect to regard the use of declination as a modern development in astrology. In regards the Sun at least its fundamental to tropical astrology. Going back further to the neolithic the oldest evidence we have of astrological activity seems to relate to buildings or monuments aligned to the the solstices/equinoxes or the location of specific fixed stars.

Hi Mark,

The relation with climate is attractive but one of the problems is how to define conjunctions then. An extreme example may be Pluto. Somewhere in the 1940's 1950's Pluto was in highest declination. Would this then be interpreted as a conjunction with the Sun when in highest declination. Furthermore the plane of the equator rather than of the ecliptic would seem the more logic plane to use.

Hello Eddy,

Furthermore the plane of the equator rather than of the ecliptic would seem the more logic plane to use.

Thats not the general position of astrologers who traditionally have relied more on latitude in relation to the ecliptic. However, many modern astrologers have stated to work with declination of the planets too.

I was not trying to argue that declination should be used on its own astrologically. IMHO the use of ecliptical longitude and latitude are still crucial to any meaningful horoscopic astrology. I was simply pointing out that there is a traditional basis for considering declination in regards some important astrological concepts. In particular Antiscia and the qualities of the signs as suggested by Ptolemy. However, this is restricted to the Sun which has obviously no latitude.

There are modern astrologers who use declination much more extensively with all the planets as a technique in itself. This is where modern 'out of bonds' theory originates. A good introduction to the modern use of declination is Paul Newman's book on the subject. I dont know if you have looked at this? As its outside the scope of the traditional forum I will not get into further discussion on modern declination theory here.

My objective was far more modest. I was simply taking issue with Tom's earlier statement.

I'm not aware that any of the older astrologers used declination for much, if anything.

Incidentally, in a recent book 'The Hellenistic Legacy' the writer Joseph Crane quotes a section of text in the Apotelesmatics of the classical astrologer Hephaistio of Thebes which he believes is referring to using declination in regards fixed stars. In particular, delineating prominent fixed stars which coincide with a point of the the ecliptic due to declination but are well outside the ecliptic in terms of latitude.

MarkC wrote:

Furthermore the plane of the equator rather than of the ecliptic would seem the more logic plane to use.

Thats not the general position of astrologers who traditionally have relied more on latitude in relation to the ecliptic. However, many modern astrologers have stated to work with declination of the planets too.

Perhaps I expressed myself in an unclear matter. Sorry Mark.
What I rather meant to say is that, since declination being part of the equatorial coordinate system the other part of the coordinates, the equator , would be the main one to use. They belong to each other like fish 'n chips .

Same is the case with the ecliptic coordinate system, which coordinating parts are longitude and latitude.

Usually I see in (modern) astrology books that the important positions are the ecliptic coordinates (the usual) and the declination. Latitude or right ascension are rarely mentioned.

What I rather meant to say is that, since declination being part of the equatorial coordinate system the other part of the coordinates, the equator , would be the main one to use. They belong to each other like fish 'n chips .

Same is the case with the ecliptic coordinate system, which coordinating parts are longitude and latitude.

Usually I see in (modern) astrology books that the important positions are the ecliptic coordinates (the usual) and the declination. Latitude or right ascension are rarely mentioned.

Ah I see. Yes I completely agree. I do find it most odd the way modern astrologers emphasize that declination as 'the second dimension' of a chart when in reality this should be latitude. As I stated earlier the traditional focus was always on latitude which like zodiacal longitude bears a direct relationship to the ecliptic. The only exception to this is I believe solar declination as the Sun obviously never has anything but 0 latitude.

However, if you want to work with the in mundo positions of planets and stars right ascension and declination is very useful. Not least as this is the co-ordinate system used by astronomers today. Celestial declination provides an easy way of telling whether a star can observed from a particular terrestrial latitude.

MarkC wrote:However, if you want to work with the in mundo positions of planets and stars right ascension and declination is very useful. Not least as this is the co-ordinate system used by astronomers today. Celestial declination provides an easy way of telling whether a star can observed from a particular terrestrial latitude.

It is indeed very useful. Here are some conversion formulae with which one can calculate things with a pocket calculator like rising and setting and Ascendant etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecliptic_c ... te_systems
I believe it was William Herschell (the discoverer of Uranus) who initiated the use of the equatorial coordinate system. The ancient Chinese astronomers/astrologers als used equatorial coordinates.
Since many years I have an astronomy year guide in which the planet positions are given in equatorial coordinates. I sometimes look at them for transits to compare them with ecliptical transits.

Eddy wrote:

The ancient Chinese astronomers/astrologers also used equatorial coordinates

.

Yes. Although the Chinese were also fully aware of the plane of the ecliptic too and called it the 'Yellow path'.

In the west the equatorial coordinates probably dates back at least as far as Hipparchus who many scholars now believe measured stars in equatorial and ecliptical coordinates in the 2nd century BCE. However, this question has been something of an academic see-saw.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m0c87012jh7yuywx/


Eddy wrote:

I believe it was William Herschell (the discoverer of Uranus) who initiated the use of the equatorial coordinate system.

The shift towards the equatorial coordinate system came much earlier in the 18th century than that. Before William Herschell was even born in fact. The first star catalogue and Atlas to use right ascension and declination were both prepared by John Flamsteed (1646-1719). John Flamsteed, Fellow of the Royal Society, was an Engllish astronomer and the first Astronomer Royal. The first star catalogue to feature the new co-ordinate system was Flamsteed's Historiae Coelestis Britannicae published in 1725. This was followed by the first star Atlas to feature the coordinate system, known as Atlas Coelestis, which was published postumously after Flamsteed's death in 1729.

The equatorial coordinate system arguably emerged even earlier in the 18th century. In 1712 Newton and Edmond Halley published a preliminary version of Flamsteed's Historia Coelestis Britannica without crediting the author. Some years later, Flamsteed managed to buy many copies of the book, and publicly burnt them in front of the Royal Observatory!

However, the numerical star designations in this book are still used and are known as Flamsteed designations. They are normally used when there there is no Bayer designation (alphabetical) for a star.

Regarding Uranus Flamsteed came close to discovering the planet himself in 1690. Flamsteed observed Uranus in 1690 but did not recognize it as a planet and entered it into his catalog as "34 Tauri".

Ironically, the main driver behind Flamsteed's exhaustive work on a new star catalogue, utlising a new co-ordinate system, had nothing to do with astronomy in itself. The initiative had actually come from the British government and in particular the Royal Navy which had been losing many craft in shipwrecks due to the lack of ability to calculate terrestrial longitude in long voyages accurately. Just as declination relates to terrestrial latitude so right ascension relates to terrestrial longitude.

Mark

Hello

MarkC wrote: However, if you want to work with the in mundo positions of planets and stars right ascension and declination is very useful. Not least as this is the co-ordinate system used by astronomers today. Celestial declination provides an easy way of telling whether a star can observed from a particular terrestrial latitude.

Some Renaissance authors added an astrological meaning too.

Stade - in the text I translated in my blog- and Cardano and Placidus talk about vertical stars, which are the stars who have a declination corresponding to a certain latitude.
For example Vega, declination 38.47' is the vertical star for Lisbon for example, which has latitude 38.42' (I'm taking the example from the Italian version of the same text cura Lucia Bellizia, who revised the text I worked http://www.apotelesma.it/upload/Stade_- ... colari.pdf).

According Stade if they rise at the Ascendant these stars give dignities and preferment.

Stade talks about horizon stars too, which he calls stars of place. They are the stars which have a declination which changed of sign and added to declination is 90.

Margherita

Hi Margherita,

Some Renaissance authors added an astrological meaning too.

Very interesting. So clearly an equatorial approach to fixed stars was around in the renaissance. As I mentioned earlier Joseph Crane suggests even hellenistic writers such as Hephaistio of Thebes may have utlised declination astrologically for certain fixed stars well outside the ecliptic by latitude.

Stade - in the text I translated in my blog- and Cardano and Placidus talk about vertical stars, which are the stars who have a declination corresponding to a certain latitude.

Yes thanks for mentioning that. You have just encouraged me to read your translation of Stade's work on fixed stars:

http://heavenastrolabe.net/stade-on-fixed-stars/

An extremely interesting and and useful translation which I had totally missed up to now. Well done.


Vertical Stars

The idea is quite intriguing. Hence cities can have their 'guardian stars' which are especially associated with that terrestrial latitude through their celestial declination. It only becomes a problem when two major cities have the same latitude! Hence my home city of Edinburgh and Moscow have the debateble pleasure of coming under the fixed star Alioth in the constellation of Ursa Major. Equally, New York and Naples, Italy currently come under Algol with a declination of 40'57 North. Thoughts of 9/11 inevitably come up here in the case of New York. Bear in mind over long periods stars influencing a location will change due to precession. However, the changes of declination are more erratic than in the case of changes to longitude which remains constant at appproximately 1 degree per 72 years.

Here is the latitude of some major world cities (excludes US and Canada):

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001769.html

Also a list of major US and Canadian cities by latitude:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001796.html

Once you know the latitude of your location try checking out the closest star linked to it by declination:

http://www.constellationsofwords.com/st ... ations.htm

Scroll down the list on the left to find the closest declination to your location. Note: terrestrial latitude=Celestial declination.

There is clearly some interesting research to be done here. For example, I have just noticed that at the time that the Boer was broke out in 1899 , Johannesburg the largest city of the Boer, Afrikaaner independent states, was precisely under the declination of the fixed star Antares, known as 'the heart of the Scorpion' and 'The rival of Mars'. In natal astrology those with this star prominently are renowned as natural fighters. Its therefore significant that the tiny Boer states defeated the British forces on numerous occasions during the war. They only finally succumbed due to overwhelming British forces and a ruthless miltary strategy involving probably the first use of 'concentration camps' filled with Boer women and children. The death of many women and children in these camps planted the seeds of Afrikaaner hatred against the British which would eventually lead to their political victory following WWII and the creation of the racially segregated Apartheid state.

I assume the technique of linking declination to terrestrial latitude is where William Lilly derived his method for discerning the part of the world a comet would most influence by tracking its declination path.

Horizon stars

Stade talks about horizon stars too, which he calls stars of place. They are the stars which have a declination which changed of sign and added to declination is 90.

For the sake of other forum readers I think this requires a more detailed explanation here.

In this second approach you take the latitude of your location and substract from 90. The number you are left with relates to the declination of the star associated with your location. Thus the latitude of London is 51 32 North. 90 degrees minus 51 32 = 38 28 N. The star with the declination closest to this is Vega, in the constellation of Lyra.

The idea of the a horizon star or 'star of place' is that during its daily motion (i.e. with daily rotation of the celestial sphere), it touches the horizon, but doesn?t set below it.

For British observers Vega (+38? 47') is technically circumpolar north of latitude 51? 13' north (just south of London). (90 minus 38 47 = 51 13) Therefore using Stade's formula this star is on the exact boundary between stars that rise and set and those that are circumpolar. As Vega touches the horizon but does not appear to set from London it meets Stade's critera. This is a practical method to work out if a star will be circumpolar from your location or whether it will rise and set.

One could also use this approach with a star south of the celestial equator up to 38 47 south. Any further south and it would never be visible from London. The basic rule is that you can view a star with a declination up to 90 degrees north or south from your location in latitude.

Mark