Skyscript Astrology Forum

It's fightening to think that in a 6bi world population, sometimes a person might have an almost exact look alike chart and still not be a murderer while another someone can be.

I hear this all the time, and I suppose the law of averages indicates it could be true, but I've never seen an example of it. The closest we get are identical twins and even they can be born hours apart.

Has anyone ever located an exact or near exact astro-twin? That doesn't mean they don't exist, I just suspect it is not as common as we might think.

Tom

Yes, if you count a 1-1/2 degree difference in ascendant as an astro-twin, and he's a bloke. Also an astrologer, and we've both done a lot of work in the same not-common field outside astrology (well, it's a common field, it's just not too common to make a living at it, but we both have done), which is how we met. Not a big shock. He has many of the same really off-beat other interests that I have, too.

We're from different countries and different cultures, but the life similarities are truly eerie. So is the stuff we think about, and the way we think, though the language and cultural difference comes into play there - but when I translate my thoughts into English, at least as far as they translate, we're not all that far apart even on that one.

Happily, we're friends, so I guess that means (in modern astrology terms) we like ourselves okay

Believe me, delineating a chart THAT close to your own but belonging to Another Real Person is a Very Trippy Feeling indeed.

Here's something strange, and I hope not for the X-Files. When I first askied him his birth data, I wondered why I was even asking. I already knew his chart and mine were identical, or very close to. Don't ask how, but I just KNEW.

I think I'm still one-of-a-kind in some respects, Tom And there is a difference as to how some things play out in women's charts to men's.

I wasn't looking for an astro-twin. I just stumbled across one. But it's still pretty interesting.

I think the expression 'cold-blooded killer' describes the astrology of the unique type that we are searching out in this exercise. The malefic conditions of extreme cold (Saturn's nature) combined with extreme heat (Mars' nature, blood) equals ?cold-blooded killer?. Very different people from other types such as law enforcement or military.

Sasha referenced the cold-hot/Saturn-Mars conditions on the initial New Challenge thread just in different words, astrological words,

I think the murder chart is the 3rd one: Mercury retrograde in Scorpio with a square from Saturn retrograde, contrary to the sect, occidental, in the 8 house; Mars opposing Asc, square Sun, in the 8 house, occidental, being the ruller of Mc and the dispositor of Sun, Venus, Jupiter and Mercury)

Break it down, the cold-hot extremes are built-in to Sasha?s terms: Saturn retrograde (RX planets are slower, slower is colder); Scorpio (hot water Mars ruled!); square (is said to be the nature of Mars which is hot); contrary to the sect (Saturn un-warmed by the Sun is colder); occidental (Saturn occidental is colder due to extreme distance since last warmed by conjunction with Sun); Mars opposing Asc (Mars adds heat, opposition is said to be the nature of Saturn cold = combined malevolence); Mars dispositor MC and four Scorpio planets (adds heat).

Margherita, you said as much earlier when describing Saturn?s cold condition and the chart?s cold temperament.
Sari, you added another layer to Saturn?s cold when you posted Sahl?s and Ben Dykes comments for Jupiter trine Saturn v. in aversion (for Sharon Tate?s chart)

In a footnote Dykes explains that if a benefic (or Jupiter to be exact, because only Jupiter has power over Saturn the Greater Malefic) has a straight contact to a malefic, it can change its nature into good. But if ? like in this case (Sharon Tate?s chart, cassie?s note) ? Jupiter is in aversion with the malefics, its unable to deal with the evil directly.

One way to think of this is that in aversion Jupiter?s moderately warm/moist nature has no opportunity to warm Saturn?s extreme coldness nor moisten its extreme dryness. A trine aspect is said to be the nature of Jupiter (life giving qualities).

There are parallels in the physical. Have you ever poured boiling water (Mars) into an ice cold (Saturn) glass? The glass shatters (do not try this ). But if you put a spoon in the glass it will not break because the spoon absorbs the heat. Call it a silver spoon for a Moon comparison. In a chart the Moon can cool Mars' heat, which relates to its being of the Moon's sect light, not the Sun's.

Of course, it is more complex, but I think the malefic extremes of hot and cold are a foundation for spotting a (likely) cold-blooded killer. Gandhi's chart would make a good comparison for finding warm-blooded, life giving, peace-making comparisons. He referred to himself as a soldier willing to die for a cause, but never to kill for it.

Cassie

The reality is that Scheat is not on the MC at all.

I'm not sure if I'm missing something because I don't understand what you mean by this comment. Can you explain it a little more fully?

Also, from the way ancient authors like Manilius and Firmicus describe the use of the term paranatellonta, I thought it referred to extra-zodiacal stars which rose and accompanied the zodiac degrees - so isn't this the same use as Robson's?

Hello Deb,

As I perceive it there are two quite separate issues at stake here. Firstly, identifying whether this approach has a basis in the tradition. Secondly determining the astronomical validity of this approach to fixed stars, well outside the ecliptic, as suggested by Vivian Robson, Ebertein etc. Put more controversially, do all the traditional authorities follow techniques which have astronomical validity?

Fixed Stars in early Astrology

I agree this is an area that still requires a lot of further research. Especially in the English speaking world as much of the best scholarship in this area remains untranslated from German or Italian. I regret not being able to read the work of Franz Boll or Wilhelm Gundel for example who are still amongst the leading scholars to have looked at this subject.

Looking at the Matheosis Libri by Firmicus Maternus I would concur that his approach appears at least superficially only to refer to stars in specific zodiac degrees. Having said this his reference to constellations rising at birth seems difficult to contemplate working without taking into account their precise rising and setting times dependant on location.
I will return to this topic in a discussion of Ptolemy?s Phases. For now I would only comment that the sole English translation of Firmicus by Jean Rhys Bram has been heavily criticised by Robert Hand and Robert Schmidt for many misunderstandings regarding aspects of Hellenistic astrology. I prefer to await the publication of the new English translation by James Holden to reach a definitive conclusion.

As an example of how complex this can be lets initially just look at one astrologer: Hephaistio of Thebes and his text the Apotelesmatics dated to around 380 AD which seems to exemplify a dual track approach to fixed stars.

Book I, Chapter 3 of Hephaistio of Thebes?s Apotelesmatics is entitled ?Concerning the Power of the Fixed Stars?. The chapter essentially repeats Ptolemy?s list of fixed stars and their planetary nature but makes the following point at its close:

The individual powers of the fixed stars , then , under the observations of the ancients happen to be such as these. Let it be conceived then, then, that each of these stars is affiliated to the same number of lands, and the parts of the zodiacal circle, to which stars are inclined when a circle is drawn through them and the poles , seem to cause the sympathy.

Robert Schmidt makes the following comment on this section:

It would appear from this passage that fixed star positions were projected on to the ecliptic by means of great circles passing from the north celestial pole through the star, through the equator, through the ecliptic to the south celestial pole. In modern terms this would be equivalent to computing the longitude equivalent of a star?s right ascension without regarding declination. This would also be the longitude with which the star crosses the meridian circle.

However, in Book II, Chapter 18 of the Apotelesmatics Hephaistio states the following|:

??

every time the moon or some of the wandering stars chance to be upon some pivot, increasing in longitude and latitude , along with one of the no-wandering stars-for example, with the so called royal star (Regulus) upon the heart of Leo at about the 5th degree ?they make the fortunes greater and most highly esteemed;and they also cause the same thing to happen upon the 5th degree of Aquarius (Fomalhaut?). Also when the Moon is parallel in latitude with (the one) upon the 15th degree of Taurus (Aldebaran), it makes the natives wealthy, thrify, , and great men. Chancing upon the 27th degree, (Bellatrix) it likewise makes brilliant leaders , active a religious men every one . Being parallel to the bright star upon the 30th degree (Alnilam?), it makes leaders or brilliant admirals; and the same thing also comes about upon the 7th degree of Scorpio ( Antares?), as it makes friends or kings or cruel deputies and makes the natives venturesome and those who spend time away from home, warlike. In this manner , he says, one must also conjecture in the case of the non-wandering stars.

Joesph Crane has suggested that since some of these stars are too far south to come into parallel with planets on the ecliptic Hephaistio was actually describing parallels of declination not latitude here. This all depends though on whether Schmidt has correctly identified the stars listed in italics.

A similar dual track approach appears to be indicated in Liber Hermetis where stars are listed buy zodiac degree but there is also a reference to stars co-arising with the Moon.

The major early source clearly advocating an approach based on the local rising, culminating and setting of stars is Anonymous of 379. Anonymous was an Egyptian writing in Rome.

Robert Hand in his introduction to the text makes the following comments:

One of the most important issues raised by this text is one of methodology. Modern astrologers have long debated how to use fixed stars that are far off the ecliptic. Some advocate ignoring the issue completely and using the ecliptic longitudes regardless of latitude. Others advocate using the great circle aspects in which the star and aspecting planet make an aspect in the great circles which they jointly define. Others advocate using such stars only when they are bodily on the great circles of the meridian and horizon. My personal practice has been to limit my usage of fixed stars to ones that are fairly close to the ecliptic.

The Anonymous provides an answer to this problem, one which seems to be echoed in other ancient works. Implicit in the text is the division of the stars into two groups
,zodiacal and extra-zodiacal. The zodiacal fixed stars are ones that have sufficiently little latitude so that they can be treated like planets. Whatever, the latitude , the degree of the ecliptic longitude contains the quality of the star. ?.However, with fixed stars off the ecliptic , outside of the zodiac, fixed stars were measured according to the ecliptic degree with which they rose, set, culminated or anti-culminated. In Anonymous in fact, only the degree which which the body co-rises is considered. A planet can not aspect a star except when it aspects the degree of an angle (pivot point) when there is a star upon the great circle of that angle, or when a planet is to be found on one angle , while a star is bodily on another. For the Anonymous the angles of the local sphere are the sole vehicle by which a fixed star outside of the zodiac can be connected to the planets in a chart.

In his translators preface to Anonynous of 379 Robert Schmidt states that he believes the author was deriving his information on the times of co-rising and co-culminating stars by location from a table in a missing portion of the Ptolemaic work now called The Phases of the Fixed Stars.

In a footnote Robert Schmidt states:

??At the beginning of the text of Phases (i.e. in the surving form of this text) Ptolemy says, ?that is, with what degree of the circle through the middle of the zodiac each of the stars in question co-culminates and in all respects co-rises and co-sets for each of the inhabitated regions?as for all these matters , we covered them at greater length in a special section of this treatment, by setting out ahead of time , according to each zone , all the aforementioned quantities for the different fixed stars of the first and second magnitude that make risings and settings in the 5 zones we established right around the middle of our inhabited world, zones which differ from one another by one-half hour.??

While this tabulation provided by Ptolemy seems to have been lost by the end of the Hellenistic era it was clearly still being utilised by Anonymous of 379. It seems not unlikely that many other astrologers utilised these tables to allow them to work out the timings of the fixed stars rising, culminating and setting. As I see it this provides the 'missing link' to understanding Ptolemy?s approach to fixed stars set out in the Tetrabiblos.

It seems that Firmicus may not have access to and/or was not aware of the method of working with fixed starts based their actual rising and setting times by location described Ptolemy and Anonymous. Anonymous of 379 was perhaps better placed living in Rome rather than Sicily.

The Astronomy of Stars outside the Ecliptic

I?m confused by Mark?s comment that the use of fixed stars outside (presumably ?far from?) the ecliptic has no astronomical basis, so ?that Scheat is not on the MC at all?.

It is this comment that I don't understand. Ancient authors obviously did consider stars that were far from the ecliptic, and they did use longitude as a way to measure their position (even if it was a variable measurement that shifted according to latitude). I would understand if he were talking about Scheat not really being conjunct ascendant, but why would it not be conjunct the midheaven, which is only where the meridian intersects with the ecliptic? Am I missing something relevant or has Mark confused the MC with the zenith (or something similar)? If I am mistaken as you are suggesting I would appreciate clarification on this point.

I am assuming the culmination point of a star or planet is equivalent to the Midheaven based on the definition given by Bernadette Brady:

Another very obvious feature of the sky is the culmination point. If you face either south or north and imagine a line passing directly overhead cutting the sky either in two , you will be imagining what is called the prime meridian. Where this line cuts the ecliptic is the current MC, or Midheaven. Stars anywhere along this are culminating, reaching the top of their rising arc, and are about to start traveling down towards the western horizon. (Brady?s Book of Fixed Stars, page 16)

Looking at the wikipedia here is a defnition of the Midheaven:

According to astrologers, the Midheaven or Medium Coeli is the zenith of a path in the sky traced by the point of intersection between the ecliptic and the Meridian (a line of longitude) of a certain terrestrial location. Although the actual point of intersection moves back towards the horizon (to the south in the northern hemisphere) with the Earth's rotation, the Midheaven is fixed as the highest point in the horizon any planet can reach at that location.

Has my crude understanding of astronomy let me down here? I had assumed that due to the obliquity of the ecliptic the culmination point of a star outside the ecliptic is going to happen on different zodiacal degrees at different times across earth depending on location? Reading the introduction to Anonymous of 379 by Robert Hand and the Translators preface by Robert Schmidt the technique advocated was working with stars and planets on the angles. In that respect culminating planets were equivalent to being on the MC? Using this approach Brady gives charts explaining how the co-culminating zodiac degree of stars varies depending on location. In short is Brady referring to the zenith rather than the MC as I had thought?

My understanding from studying the work of Bernadette Brady, George Noonan, Robert Hand and Joseph Crane is that the co-rising, culminating and setting of stars outside the ecliptic occurs on different zodiacal degrees depending on the actual location of the observer. Here are some examples of what I mean from Joseph Crane:

?Since the horizon varies with location , a star?s co-rising degrees will vary in the same way. ?

For example Joseph Crane mentions that the star Arcturus can be projected on to the ecliptic at 25 ?14 Libra. However its actual co-arising degrees vary according to location. In particular in Boston it rises at 11 Libra , in Hanoi it rises at 25 Libra while in Buenos Aires it rises at 4 Sagittarius. (Astrological Roots: The Hellenistic Legacy: Chapter 11 ?The Non-Wandering Stars?

Bernadette Brady points out the same problem can occur even for zodiacal stars fairly close to the ecliptic. For example the fixed star Castor in Gemini co-rises at 6 Cancer from Edinburgh but in Tasmania, Australia it co-rises at 20 Leo in mundo!

It is my understanding that stars will also culminate on different zodiacal degrees depending on location. Is this wrong? Is this a confusion with the zenith? What is certain is that because of their differing declination some stars will never rise at all at some locations on earth while some stars remain circumpolar (i.e. never rise or set but stay in the sky). Unfortunately, you will not be aware of these issues if you simply project stars on to the ecliptic based on longitude. This can lead to ludicrous results with people using zodiacal projection of stars to the ascendant which are circumpolar in that location or using stars that have a declination too far north or south to ever rise in a particular location! I remember listening to one astrologer discussing the impact of the southern cross on a chart from Scotland??

Let me give two natal examples highlighting the inadequacy of just projecting a stars position on to the ecliptic as Vivian Robson (and some traditional sources??) advocate.

The star Vega is +61 degrees north of the ecliptic so projecting this star produces even worse distortions than with Scheat. Rather than being a half sign out in some cases we are nearly two signs out on the stars actual location in the real sky.

Clint Eastwood ( Actor). His chart has a rising degree of 18.35 Scorpio. At the time he was born the star Vega was exactly rising on the horizon in San Francisco. However, if you simply project the stars position on to the ecliptic it will always be around 14 Capricorn anywhere on earth that day.

Picasso's chart is 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!

I seriously question the astronomical validity of the approach to fixed stars seen in Vivian Robson's book. In particular when this approach is applied to fixed stars with a latitude well outside the ecliptic. Its reasonable enough for zodiacal stars close to the ecliptic like Regulus, Aldebaran, Antares, Spica etc. However, stars like Scheat, Vega or Algol are way outside the ecliptic. Looking at the traditional planets these can be up to 8 degrees north or south of the ecliptic by latitude. However, when we project stars like Scheat on to the plane of the ecliptic we totally distort where they really are. Try using the planetarium feature on Solar Fire to see what I mean. Because of this these stars are sometimes rising a couple zodiacal signs away from where we think they are using zodiacal projection.

Using the actual co-arising positions of stars is I believe the only real way of working with the actual positions of stars well outside the ecliptic. This isn't just my idiosyncratic view. Its the view of excellent traditional astrologers like Robert Hand, Bernadette Brady, George Noonan and Joseph Crane. If I have made an error on the MC the fact remains that the general method of simply projecting any stars position on to the ecliptic is nearly always invalid in terms of the actual degrees of the zodiac co-arising with a planet or the Asc/Desc. I therefore suggest that in terms of fixed star technique Robson and any traditional authorities that propogate such mistaken ideas should be cast into the dustbin of astrological history. The real question is what do we value more? Is the important thing following all and every aspect of the tradition, regardless of the validity of the technique proposed, or do we give precedence to what is actually happening in the heavens? To me the idea of a 'purely symbolic' approach to fixed stars is just as irrational as a completely symbolic approach to plotting where the planets are. I can accept there is some room for a more rough in ready technique hence I will work with stars very close to the zodiac as Robert Hand suggests. However, to use that method indiscriminately is leaving fixed stars as magical points with little or no relationship to their location in the sky.

Hi Johannes

Thank you for your comment. I do understand the situation regarding the ascendant, and how this varies with latitude. What I find hard to relate to, is the idea that Scheat is not conjunct the MC, which ? as you say, is a different issue. But thank you anyway.

Hi Mark,

Again ? thanks for the response and the trouble you went to. There are quite a few comments in your post that I think could begin a long discussion. But unfortunately it would disrupt this thread too much, and I don?t have the time anyway. It is also possible that I am misunderstanding some of your points even more than before, but it does seem that you have confused the issues relating to the ascendant with those of the MC. That quote from Joseph Crane, for example, relates only to the ascendant-desc axis and not the MC ? IC. This is because the whole sky culminates at the southern meridian. It is possible for a star to rise far way from the eastern horizon, or to set far from the western horizon, but it will always culminate on the southern meridian which is our MC. I know of no reason why, in this chart, Scheat is not really on the MC, and that was the only reason why I felt I needed a clarification of what you were saying.

Using the actual co-arising positions of stars is the only real way of working with the actual positions of stars well outside the ecliptic. This isn't just my idiosyncratic view. Its the view of most astrologers that have actually examined the subject in some depth. If I have made an error on the MC the fact remains that the general method of simply projecting any stars position on to the ecliptic is nearly always invalid in terms of the actual degrees of the zodiac co-arising with a planet or the Asc/Desc. I therefore suggest that in terms of fixed star technique Robson and any traditional authorities that propagate such mistaken ideas should be cast into the dustbin of astrological history.

It?s a strong view, an interesting one, and it may be the one I ultimately agree with the most, but I don?t think you can say it is the view of most astrologers who have studied the subject in-depth. There are literally hundreds of famous astrologers who have applied the method described by Robson and who claim good results from it. Reinhold Ebertin, for example, made a major investigation of his own into star influences and published his results with the conclusion that being close to the ecliptic or high latitude proved completely irrelevant. (Theoretically, you can argue that whether the star is on the horizon or not, both ?rise? simultaneously, and so they are connected in their theme). I also believe that the notion of co-rising and co-culmination as applied in ancient astrology is not properly understood, and neither is it very practical to try to apply the ancient methods in a way that works with our 2D approach to astrology. (It?s a similar issue to why the houses don?t do justice to the attempt to divide the whole celestial environment into 12). My mind remains open and exploring, so I am careful about rejecting any ideas out of hand. Robson?s work is hardly awe-inspiring, but it?s a good starting point for many astrologer (I bet you have a copy )

(Sorry that this turned into such a big interruption Tom, but it seemed relevant to question whether we should consider Scheat in this chart).

Sorry that this turned into such a big interruption Tom, but it seemed relevant to question whether we should consider Scheat in this chart.

No big deal. The information and discussion are valuable. We go off on a tangent now and again, and it doesn't prevent others from discussing the initial matter, so I'm not against it. Thank you to everyone for contributing so much. It's probably more good than Harry ever accomplished in his short life.

Tom

I don?t think you can say it is the view of most astrologers who have studied the subject in-depth. There are literally hundreds of famous astrologers who have applied the method described by Robson and who claim good results from it. Reinhold Ebertin, for example, made a major investigation of his own into star influences and published his results with the conclusion that being close to the ecliptic or high latitude proved completely irrelevant.

Hello Deb,

I accept its intellectually lame to cite other people sharing your viewpoint to add to its validity. If an idea is correct it should be able to stand on its own two feet.

I have Ebertin's book. I dont share your admiration for the book. Its makes no real mention of astronomy and adopts the same naive approach as Robson. Thus the stars of Ursa Major are projected on to zodiac degrees irrespective of the observers location on earth. This could lead to a bizarre position where a circumpolar star like Polaris is judged as being on the ascendant even though it never rises or sets in that location! Then there are the southern hemisphere readers of his book who never even see these stars. Not impressive. We can all do a lot better.

The book is very short and was a combined effort of three people not just Ebertin. I believe most of the material for the book was derived from the research of Ebertin's Mother. Ebertin didn't even finish the book himself.

However, I accept there are astrologers worthy of respect who do still adopt this approach. The main person that comes to mind is the Uranian astrologer Diana Rosenberg. Diana's position is that as the ecliptic is planetary any stars exert an influence whether they can be seen in that location or not. In contrast to Ebertin, Diana Rosenberg has put in an immense amount of work on natal and mundane research and I do respect her for that even though I disagree fundamentally with her approach. She is bringing out a book on fixed stars soon via Robert Hand's Arhat publications and I will certainly be buying her book for her valuable insights on star-lore.

Apart from Brady's book I would refer people to George C. Noonan's book, Fixed Stars and Judicial Astrology which combines a good understanding of classical sources like Ptolemy in regards fixed stars together with an excellent awareness of astronomical problems with zodiacal projection of stars outside the ecliptic.

Just to point out, I don't have a great admiration for either Ebertin-Hoffman's book or Robson's, but Ebertin did do quite a bit of research so he is entitled to an opinion (IMO ), and the best thing to say about Robson is that he was never very adventurous but stuck to the main themes as recorded by older sources.

I think my confusion has stemmed from Brady's use of the term 'culmination' which I had assumed referred to stars culminating at the MC but Deb is suggesting refers to the zenith.

Brady herself defines the culminating point in short as ''the upper part of the Prime Meridian' . She makes no reference in her book to the zenith explicitly.

Brady only defines the Midheaven once in her book.

Another very obvious feature of the sky is the culmination point. If you face either south or north and imagine a line passing directly overhead cutting the sky either in two , you will be imagining what is called the prime meridian. Where this line cuts the ecliptic is the current MC, or Midheaven. Stars anywhere along this are culminating, reaching the top of their rising arc, and are about to start traveling down towards the western horizon. (Brady?s Book of Fixed Stars, page 16)

Maybe I am being totally obtuse but this still sounds like the MC to me.

I have just taken a look at Bernadette Brady's article here on skyscript and I am no clearer:

It is the rotation of the earth itself on its axis that provides us with the answer. As the earth rotates it divides the celestial sphere into four quarters, indeed it actually squares the circle. These four quarters are made up of the contact that the earth has with the boundary of the sky (the horizon) which gives us the Ascendant and the Descendant, and the turning point in the sky where an object, rising above the earth, then turns to come tumbling back down which provides the MC and the nadir or IC. These four points are how the earth "touches" the sky. If a planet rises with a star, then that star walks with that planet as they both touch the horizon line together. If a planet culminates, sets or is on the nadir at the same time that a star occupies one of the sacred earth-generated angles, then that star walks with that planet. Both star and planet are interacting with the earth in the same instance. This relationship is called a paran

If Brady explicitly just said Zenith/Nadir I would be content. However, she keeps bringing in references to the MC/IC. Moreover, Brady constantly refers to the term 'angles' for the co-arising, culminating, co-setting or anti-culminating stars in paran. Can I assume this is a different meaning for the term from normal astrological use with the zenith presumably the culminating point and the Nadir ( not the I.C.) the anti-culminating point?

I had assumed being a mundane aspect parans did not need to refer to the zodiac at all. I am therefore still confused why Brady provides table after table for stars co-culminating on different zodiacal degrees depending on location. Is this just to track the ever changing location of the Zenith in zodiacal degrees?

My confusion has been further added to as Anonymous of 379 refers to stars and planets on the four 'pivots' which I had assumed included the MC/IC.

You kept updating your post as I was trying to answer, so I hope this still makes sense

Brady herself defines the culminating point in short as ''the upper part of the Prime Meridian' . She makes no reference in her book to the zenith explicitly.

This is the zenith (the upper part of the prime meridian). The Prime Meridian is the line that runs from north to south with the zenith overhead.

Brady only defines the Midheaven once in her book.
Quote:
Another very obvious feature of the sky is the culmination point. If you face either south or north and imagine a line passing directly overhead cutting the sky either in two , you will be imagining what is called the prime meridian. Where this line cuts the ecliptic is the current MC, or Midheaven. Stars anywhere along this are culminating, reaching the top of their rising arc, and are about to start traveling down towards the western horizon. (Brady?s Book of Fixed Stars, page 16)


Maybe I am being obtuse but this still sounds like the MC to me.

Yes this is describing stars that are on the MC, because the MC is where the Prime meridian meets with the ecliptic in the south. So a star (or planet) which is nowhere near your personal zenith can still be on the MC.

Also, yes, in order to work out the co-rising and co-culminations, you need to know the longitude positions. This is the reason why Ptolemy listed the position of the stars in his Almagest in longitude ? not because he wasn?t using co-risings but because, in order to know which planet was co-rising/setting or culminating with the Sun, the ecliptic position needed to be known.

It is probably a good idea for you to start a new thread in the 'general and nativities' section, if you have other questions, because other people might share an interest in those questions too.