MarkC wrote: 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.

I forgot it, but it could be true
"Vertical stars" were known in Renaissance astrology. My friend Lucia is going to translate from Latin Cardano text about them, I believe.

About "horizontal stars" Lucia and me talked and we believe Stade invented them, at least we could not find any source, but helps are always appreciated....
Maybe he just used the formula you are thinking of about recognizing when a star is circumpolar or not and gave it an astrological meaning. This is my guess, at least
margherita

Hi Margherita, Mark,

Thanks for the interesting info and links.

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

Reminds of "Follow the yellow brick road" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INpR7GRzFNc

I remember having read about Hipparchus using the equatorial coordinates (I believe in Christopher Walker's 'Astronomy before the telescope'). I once saw an ephemeris with not only longitude latituda but also positions of right ascension and declination.

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.

This problem was finally solved by Harrison's clock that was the first seaworthy clock. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harrison

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.

Vega is an interesting example. It was the 22nd nakshatra in Indian astrology (and not always used because a number of 27 nakshatras often was more appropriate than 28 ). In the 1st millennium AD Vega was close to the winter solstice point and a star in the zenith for latitudes of northern Iran, Afghanistan, northern Pakistan and Kashmir. As these were the areas of the sunworshipping peoples of Iranian descent, and Vega would be in the zenith during midsummer nights, I think this nakshatra may be of Iranian origin.

Perhaps it's interesting to look at the stars that are right under our feet, in the nadir. Canopus is -52?42', Amsterdam is 52?22'. Canopus is the second brightest star of the sky, so it probably makes Amsterdam one of the brightest places of the world . Sirius is the first, and is in the zenith near Tahiti etc.

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.

In the line of a modern semi-arc method of houses at polar latitudes I searched for stars at the horizon and stars (above the horizon) on the line from north celestial pole to the north point on the horizon, at the same time. In that method this line is used as a basis for trisection of semiarcs of circumpolar objects. For latitude of ca. 52?North and ca. 15:00 Sidereal Time these are: Kochab in Ursa Minor, Nekkar and Seginus in Bootes, Regulus. From this point of view these stars are all in mundane conjunction.

Here's a nice link to an online star map. The positions of the planets are also drawn and given in right ascension/declination coordinates and azimuth/height as well. In the maps themselves the ecliptic is drawn so the global ecliptic position of a planet can be determined. This star map can be used for every place on earth and has many possibilities.
http://ftp.fourmilab.ch/yoursky/ I think I will put this also in the "News Notices Books" forum page.

There are some problems I have with the astrological meaning given to the fixed stars. First some meanings are clearly related to the figure of the constellation and the myth related to that figure. For example, Algol in Perseus is clearly related to the myth of Perseus beheading Medusa. Aculeus near the tail of the Scorpion is malefic and related to poison.

Since we know stars are just like the Sun perhaps they should be given some solar meaning and a bit altered by their colour. Perhaps relating the colours to the colours of the chakras of humans.

Hi Eddy,

Perhaps it's interesting to look at the stars that are right under our feet, in the nadir. Canopus is -52?42', Amsterdam is 52?22'. Canopus is the second brightest star of the sky, so it probably makes Amsterdam one of the brightest places of the world . Sirius is the first, and is in the zenith near Tahiti etc.

Well using the approach of Anonymous of 379 he did consider planets or stars linked that were on angles including the nadir. He also considered stars themselves on one angle. However, this was using diurnal motion. Forgive me I am not a maths wizard like you so could you explain how you calculate these stars are on the nadir from these locations? Surely, angles require calculation of planetary motion which contradicts the idea of a static connection to an angle?

There are some problems I have with the astrological meaning given to the fixed stars. First some meanings are clearly related to the figure of the constellation and the myth related to that figure. For example, Algol in Perseus is clearly related to the myth of Perseus beheading Medusa. Aculeus near the tail of the Scorpion is malefic and related to poison.

Why is this a problem? Its a distinct part of the attraction as far as I am concerned! I love star myths. Your objection could equally be used about the astrological myths associated with the planets.

I tend to feel pure empiricism without space for myth and symbols is incompatible with the essence of astrology. Is your problem really with fixed stars or it astrology generally?

If you find the mythological approach hard to swallow and are looking for a more 'scientific' approach I strongly recommend you read George Noonan's book 'The Fixed Stars in Judicial Astrology'. The book is an interesting combination of a traditional approach to star-lore combined with an attempt to understand them in the light of our modern knowledge of the differing elemental composition of stars today. Noonan suggests a tentative link between the meaning of fixed stars and their spectra. The Spectra are linked to elements which Noonan links to the traditional planets. Interestingly the approach generally coincides with Ptolemy's classification of stars influence but there are a few constellations where the modern scientific classification doesn't fit his system. I can post up more details if you like. Its the only attempt I have seen to rationalize the associations of fixed stars outside of mythology. Perhaps we can start a new thread as this one has drifted miles from Solar returns!

could you explain how you calculate these stars are on the nadir from these locations

This isn't really difficult. For the zenith you have to look for stars with the same declination as the latitude of the birth place and for the nadir for the same declination but then negative numbers. For London you look for stars at -51?30' for For Adelaide Australia at 34?55' South latitude you look for stars at +34?55'.

The right ascension positions of the stars usually are expressed in sidereal hours and minutes. The passage of the stars through the zenit occur at the corresponding Sidereal Time. For passage through the nadir one has to subtract 12 sidereal hours. For Edinburgh Alioth will be in the zenith at 12h53m. At that time we see the stars of the constellation Virgo in the South and the tropical sign Libra would be MC. The star Alioth will in the nadir in the southern tip of South America. The moment this will occur is 12h53m - 12h00m = 0h53m ST.

Why is this a problem? Its a distinct part of the attraction as far as I am concerned! I love star myths. Your objection could equally be used about the astrological myths associated with the planets.

I tend to feel pure empiricism without space for myth and symbols is incompatible with the essence of astrology. Is your problem really with fixed stars or it astrology generally?

Although I am fond of star myths and myths in general, I feel less attracted to their use in astrology. It also extends a bit to the planets indeed. This can especially be found in the application of myths to the new names of asteroids.

My problem is not with astrology but rather with this specific approach to astrology. The astrology of Ptolemy for example is very attractive to me. He explains the effects of planets in terms of the qualities moist warm dry cold etc. I think he approaches the stars in a similar way through the qualities of the planets. Whether this is subject to change by modern knowledge or not, I prefer such an approach the most.

I believe most astrologers reject any physical relationship of planets/stars and astrology where this was almost the only acceptable one to people like Thomas Aquinas (see Jim Tester 'History of Western Astrology' p. 181
google books http://books.google.nl/books?id=L0HSvH9 ... jim+tester ). I think this rejection can be traced to Jung's theory of synchronicity which strongly influenced (? a typical classic astrological word by the way) modern astrology. The new approach can be seen in Dane Rudhyar's writing which I don't really like.

However interesting I think synchonicity is simply usefull as an explanation method for a phenomenon (like astrology) that can't (yet) be explained by any physical means. Same is with symbolic explanation and/or mythology. I don't dismiss these entirely, I too depend on them, they help us understanding the unexplainable. Science sometimes seems to do the same. Perhaps in this view modern science is modern mythology, like ancient mythology was ancient science.

That approach of George Noonan sounds interesting. Indeed through the spectra of stars one can see if they contain iron or magnesium etc. In the spectra of stars this becomes visible through the Fraunhofer lines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_lines In general I hardly use fixed stars though and if I do, I look only at the bright ones close to the ecliptic. It's not that I don't believe in the stars' effects but I'm rather cautious to use too many elements in astrology which could result in a loss of overview.

This isn't really difficult. For the zenith you have to look for stars with the same declination as the latitude of the birth place and for the nadir for the same declination but then negative numbers. For London you look for stars at -51?30' for For Adelaide Australia at 34?55' South latitude you look for stars at +34?55'.

Yes even I can cope with this! I guess I was just confused because I associate terms like zenith and nadir with the horizon coordinate system:

http://freenet-homepage.de/stwessels/un ... astro1.pdf

The right ascension positions of the stars usually are expressed in sidereal hours and minutes. The passage of the stars through the zenit occur at the corresponding Sidereal Time. For passage through the nadir one has to subtract 12 sidereal hours. For Edinburgh Alioth will be in the zenith at 12h53m. At that time we see the stars of the constellation Virgo in the South and the tropical sign Libra would be MC. The star Alioth will in the nadir in the southern tip of South America. The moment this will occur is 12h53m - 12h00m = 0h53m ST.

I wasn't aware you could derive zenith and nadir from just basic equatorial co-ordinates. However, this article has helped clear up my confusion somewhat:

http://seds.org/~spider/spider/ScholarX/coords.html


In particular this part of it:

To go over from equatorial coordinates fixed to the stars to the horizon system, the concept of the hour angle (HA) is useful. In principle, this means introducing a new, second equatorial coordinate system which co-rotates with Earth. This system has again the celestial equator and poles as reference quantities, and declination as latitudinal coordinate, but a co-rotating longitudinal coordinate called hour angle. In this system, a star or other celestial object moves contrary to Earth's rotation along a circle of constant declination during the course of the day; various effects of this diurnal motion are discussed below. This rotation leaves the celestial poles in the same invariant position for all time: They always stay on the local meridian of the observer (which goes through south and north point also), and the altitude of the north celestial pole is equal to the geographic latitude of the observer (thus negative for southerners, who cannot see it for this reason, but the south celestial pole instead). This meridian always coincides with in hour circle for this reason. Thus, as may be suggestive, the local meridian is taken as the hour circle for HA=0.

Celestial objects are at constant RA, but change their hour angle as time proceeds. If measured in units of hours, minutes and seconds, HA will change for the same amount as the elapsed time interval is, as measured in star time (ST), which is defined so that a siderial rotation of Earth takes 24 hours star time, which corresponds to 23 h 56 m 4.091 s standard (mean solar) time; see our article on Astronomical Time Keeping for more details. This is actually the reason why RA and HA are measured in time units. The standard convention is that HA is measured from east to west so that it increases with time, and this is opposite to the convention for RA

However, would you mind working me through how you worked out Alioth would reach the zenith in Edinburgh at 12:53? Remember this is astronomy for dummies here!

While we are discussing co-ordinate systems do you know of any software that converts equatorial to ecliptical coordinates? The maths looks quite labourious doing it manually.

Hi Eddy,

Although I am fond of star myths and myths in general, I feel less attracted to their use in astrology. It also extends a bit to the planets indeed. This can especially be found in the application of myths to the new names of asteroids.

My problem is not with astrology but rather with this specific approach to astrology. The astrology of Ptolemy for example is very attractive to me. He explains the effects of planets in terms of the qualities moist warm dry cold etc. I think he approaches the stars in a similar way through the qualities of the planets. Whether this is subject to change by modern knowledge or not, I prefer such an approach the most.

I believe most astrologers reject any physical relationship of planets/stars and astrology where this was almost the only acceptable one to people like Thomas Aquinas (I think this rejection can be traced to Jung's theory of synchronicity which strongly influenced (? a typical classic astrological word by the way) modern astrology. The new approach can be seen in Dane Rudhyar's writing which I don't really like.

However interesting I think synchonicity is simply usefull as an explanation method for a phenomenon (like astrology) that can't (yet) be explained by any physical means. Same is with symbolic explanation and/or mythology. I don't dismiss these entirely, I too depend on them, they help us understanding the unexplainable. Science sometimes seems to do the same. Perhaps in this view modern science is modern mythology, like ancient mythology was ancient science.

I do know what you mean. In my 20's I was quite close to the position you have adopted today. I wanted a pure astrology based on verifiable evidence that could be explained through natural laws. I therefore read all of Gaughelin books, and studied the work of Percy Seymour and yes Kepler seemed closest to a 'scientific' scaled down astrology. I shared your concern about the arbitrary nature of asteroids of being named having astrological significance ( I still do). In fact I remember my first involvement with astrology ended after sitting through a particularly unconvincing lecture at the Faculty of Astrological Studies in London in 1995 on Chiron. One more mantra of 'Chiron, the wounded healer' and I think I would have screamed. I remember thinking how could such a small piece of astro-debris be astrologically significant and why did the arbitrary decision of a scientist to name it Chiron determine its meaning? Actually, I still share some of these concerns but for diifferent reasons today.

Nowadays, I have now come to accept the importance of symbolism and the centrality of apparent 'coincidences' to astrology. I think an important step for me away from a literalist, naturalistic approach was yes I confess studying Jung's theories. However, I now see this as just a restatement of ancient astrological theories affirming the integral connection between microcosm and macrocosm. I therefore do not agree with you that the notion of a non-causal explanation for astrology is something quite recent. Actually, it has always been with us.

When I did try out the astrology of Gaughelin minus houses, signs, aspects etc I found that the most valuable aspects of astrology had been eliminated in the quest to make the horosscope conform to empirical evidence. It was rather like pulling the wings off a beautiful butterfly. I knew horoscopic astrology seemed to work but naturistic explanations were just not tenable.

Personally, I believe crude attemps to find causal explanation of astrology are doomed to failure. For example, horary is one of the most effective forms of astrology in existence. However, a horary chart begins in the mind of the questioner but is often only cast for the moment the astrologer understands the question. This divinatory approach seems pivotal to astrology. Geoffrey Cornelius summed this up very well in his book 'The Moment of Astrology'. From this perspective , the consciousness of the astrologer is part of the creative art of astrology. Horary astrology is the most transparent kind of astrology by acknowledging the astrologer is part of a horoscope.

The ancient astrologer like any diviner was there to detect any significant signs and portents and present them in a meaningful way. This involved working with symbols they perceived as connected to particular people or events. The consciousness of the astrologer or diviner provided such a link. Its true in astrology there are more recognizeable rules as opposed to interpretating a flock of birds, or a change in the weather.

However, everyones consciousness is different and we all perceive the same reality differently. Thus you find even in traditional astrology people have their particular nuances. I know one astrologer for example who is obsessed by antiscia in every chart she looks at. These are a minor part of my way of astrologically working whereas fixed stars are highly significant to me. Others may espouse the parts/lots or a particular house sytem or technique they relate to. While there are undeniably universals all astrologers have elements of their technique that is 'customised' to them. Then there there is the importance of 'the feel' of a chart. Its clearly the right hand brain dimension of astrology.

However, you are right that throughout the astrological tradition there have always been those seeking a more naturalistic explanation of astrology and those preferring a 'magical' or divinatory explanation. Perhaps these are the competing right and left brain approaches.

Ptolemy and Kepler are two immensely important figures in the history of astrology who both attempted to rationalize the astrology of their time and eliminate elements they saw as outdated. We can contrast Ptolemy with his second century contemporary Vettius Valens who attributed his ability to work astrologically was mediated through the assistance of his personal daemon.

I think the purely naturalistic tendency became more emphasized after the classical era for two reasons. Firstly, the rise of Christianity meant it was dangerous to claim astrology had a divinatory or magical basis. Thomas Aquinas was content to accept the worth of astrology for medicine and weather forecasting as these were seen as natural , 'scientific', phenomena to the medieval world view. However, natal or predictive or worse still horary astrology were seen as an afront to man's free will.

With the enlightenment the intellectual paradigm shifted again. Astrology now had to increasingly convince the court of scientific rather than religious opinion. Naturally, to try to appease this rationalist paradigm astrologers have sought ever more naturalistic explanations as the basis of astrology. This process continues to this day. As John Frawley put it many astrologers have volunteered to be rats in a scientific laboratory.

The real problem is the dominant ideology of the age which is not science but 'scientism' which seeks to encapsulute not just a series of natural laws but all of existence in a reductionist world view where the observer is detached from the observed.

I dont expect science to embrace astrology and make us respectable any time soon. However, I also dont think science is anywhere near understanding the biggest mystery in the cosmos ...consciousness.

In this respect some of the findings of quantum physics physics seem useful here. For example the 'Copenhagen interpretation' which has essentially established that researchers can detect a sub-atomic particle or wave but not both simultaneously. This is not an equipment problem. The reality is that what they find is determined by what they are looking for in the first place. One option excludes the other. This rather reminds me of the difference in attitude between sceptics and astrological practitioners. As someone once said 'you will see it when you believe it'.

This highlights the fact that the observer can never be hermetically removed from a situation. Indeed the term 'participant' is perhaps more accurate. The undeniable success reductionist science has had in solving many practical problems and providing explanations for the natural world has blinded us to its philosophical limitations. I think a large part of the problem is western language which is heavily focused on subject/object rather than seeing reality in terms of a process. The move from a causal Newtonian physics to quantum physics hopefully heralds a change in the western scientific paradigm.

Mark wrote:

Attemps to find a causal explanation of astrology are doomed to failure . . . a horary chart begins in the mind of the questioner but is often only cast for the moment the astrologer understands the question. This divinatory approach seems central to astrology. Geoffrey Cornelius summed up this approach very well in his book 'The Moment of Astrology'. So , the consciousness of the astrologer is part of the creative art of astrology. Horary astrology is the most transparent kind of astrology by acknowledging the astrologer is part of a horoscope.

I've been ever-so-slowly picking through a lifetime of accumulated stuff and came across a book that has been lying around this place for a good 25 years: Dion Fortune's 1935 work, Practical Occultism in Daily Life (who could possibly pass up such a title?). In her chapter on Divination she writes:

A horoscope can be a very great help; it can also be a most pernicious influence, full of poisonous suggestions. Everything depends upon the wisdom and spiritual quality of the astrologer. The right kind of astrologer can be as helpful as the right kind of priest.

Her ?Everything depends . . .? is very interesting. Was she in effect saying in 1935 that the emphasis in 2009 on astrological technique is a misguided use of time? She is also connecting astrology with 9th house religion and philosophy (the house of the expanded mind). It looks like we're back to 'The Purpose of Astrology' [ http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 57&start=0 ].


Her next sentence is sure to offend the Internet priests:

Let it be remembered, however, that the professional, advertising astrologer is obliged to do an enormous amount of hack-work and it is almost impossible for him to keep his spiritual virginity.

I would imagine there's little purity to be found in the well-practiced folks at the astrological conferences.


Further in the same paragraph she has some encouraging words for the astrologically common man or woman:

You are more likely to receive good value from a friend who is studying astrology for its own sake than from the professional who is grinding out horoscopes all day long for a living, and who may be at the third or fourth remove from the celebrity to whom you sent your guinea.

The use of computers now has done away with the ranks of astrologers calculating charts in a back office in service to the celebrity astrologer. Or maybe those back-office astrologers are now the computers themselves, servants to the astrologer. In any case, the engaged sincere student who helps you delineate your chart may be of more help than the technologically sophisticated for-profit product from an astrological factory run by a name with fame. It looks like another case for the argument that good astrology is in the process, involvement and intentions.

Hi Kirk,

Interesting post. Nothing I could disagree with. I always say my preference for traditional astrology is a matter of taste not ultimate reality. In natal work I am quite content to accept that a benign , intuitive astrologer can probably do a lot more good for a person than a rigid traditionalist bristling with all the authentic techniques dating back to the year dot. The obsession with technique can blur the importance of the process of relating in an open way.

As a non-professional astrological enthusiast I have at least kept my astrological 'virginity' in tact.

It looks like we're back to 'The Purpose of Astrology'

Indeed my post probably belongs over on that bit of the forum.

Going wildly off topic here, but Kirk, have you ever spent a year or two amongst the intuitive crowd? You know - the ones who are angry they learnt how to read and write because it interferes with their direct perception of reality?

Believe me, those folks exist in DROVES in the esoteric community. And they can do a great deal of harm to their clients, too - even the ones who don't charge money to do it.

Temporarily staying wildly off topic:

Olivia,

An intuitive dingbat who doesn't want to bother focusing with a consciously applied technique is usually a dingbat with delusions and remains at the dingbat starting gate.

The matter here is not one of criticizing technique as completely irrelevant and useless, but of the priority of the astrologer's intentions and mental, philosophical and spiritual qualities.

The matter here is not one of criticizing technique as completely irrelevant and useless, but of the priority of the astrologer's intentions and mental, philosophical and spiritual qualities

.

Indeed.

Believe me, those folks exist in DROVES in the esoteric community. And they can do a great deal of harm to their clients, too - even the ones who don't charge money to do it.

These are what an astrological friend of mine calls 'Neptune heads'. Such people and groups do indeed exist in astrology and beyond it. The word Neptune here is not a description of wholesome spirituality but rather those than can get lost in a fog of self-delusion and escapism in the name of a non-rational, psychic development path.

However, noone here is suggesting that is a healthy approach to astrology. As in all things there is a need for balance. I simply believe a good astrologer should try to develop both their rational and intuitive qualities. A traditionalist with little compassion or empathy for people is also something of a loaded weapon too.

Hi Mark,

In fact I remember my first involvement with astrology ended after sitting through a particularly unconvincing lecture at the Faculty of Astrological Studies in London in 1995 on Chiron. One more mantra of 'Chiron, the wounded healer' and I think I would have screamed.

That's how I feel about Chiron to, I think the excessive asteroid stuff all started with Chiron or rather with the Kentaurs. Apart from perhaps the first 4 discovered asteroids the asteroids from the main belt (between Mars and Jupiter) never had got so much attention.

It was rather like pulling the wings off a beautiful butterfly.

I still see a lot of beauty using the aspects alone but perhaps I will change my mind in the future. If I had more time I would go read classical authors like Lilly or Morin but I have intentions to read those in the future.

However, you are right that throughout the astrological tradition there have always been those seeking a more naturalistic explanation of astrology and those preferring a 'magical' or divinatory explanation. Perhaps these are the competing right and left brain approaches.

They indeed could be part of the same brain. I also tend somewhat to the magical sometimes.

Now the calculation for Edinburgh

Coordinates. 55? 57' N, 3? 13' W

Right ascension: 12h53m
Declination +55.58'
Longitude 08VIR56
Latitude: +54.18'

Every star and planet that is in the zenith has the same declination as the latitude of the birthplace (a bit confusing terminology). On the equator we see the equator above our heads and theSun is in the zenith twice a year at beginning of spring and autumn. On the poles the celestial pole is in the zenith.

In Edinburgh everything in the zenith therefore has declination +55?57'. As this is the highest position the object can reach in the daily movement, we have to look at the moment of culmination. Siderial Time is defined as the time that passed after 0? Aries passed the south meridian. 12h53m later Alioth reaches the meridian and is therefore highest in the sky. Perhaps interesting to look in a house table with wich zodiacal position this coincides.

I don't know if there is an online conversion calculation from ecliptical to equatorial on the internet. I learnt it also by trial and error some 9 years ago with only my highschool maths. It's not really difficult I believe, it's just another part of the brain that needs to be (re)activated. Furthermore
the formulae of John Napier (a Scottish mathematician http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Napier ) have proved to be very valuable. http://www.tutorvista.com/content/math/ ... ormula.php With these and with the conversion formulae one can calculate Ascendant, risings/settings and almost every desired house system. It gives a tremendous satisfaction being able to do that. If you have more questions on these calculations or on that of Alioth just ask.