Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hello Deb,

This is the zenith (the upper part of the prime meridian).

Ok! Thats that then. Interesting. Lots of ancient cultures such as the Mayans, Aztecs, Ancient Egyptians and Babylonians used this zenith point as far as I can tell. I had never considered the astrological significance of the Zenith/Nadir before so this is an interesting issue.

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.

I can take a hint, so I will stop here. Thanks. However, I would prefer to post on the traditional forum to discuss Brady's approach. I still have some points to make about how close her approach is to Anonymous of 379 which she claims as her main source.

MarkC wrote:I still have some points to make about how close her approach is to Anonymous of 379 which she claims as her main source.

So please write your post
Fixed stars are one of my favourite subjects.

Margherita

Hi Mark


I have just noticed a comment in your above post that was added after I started answering it, so I didn't see it earlier:

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.

I should just add that I don't know what Bernadette Brady is saying, and wasn't trying to define that, because I don't know what she has written or the context of it. I only pointed out that a reference to ''the upper part of the Prime Meridian" would be meaning the zenith. It is feasible that Brady used the word culminating in different senses in different places of her work, and so you probably need to understand the term in context to know exactly what she means.

Hello Deb,

Sorry if it seemed like I was roping you into a position you dont have. I think the best way to clarify this is to contact Bernadette Brady herself. She has Visual astrology Forum so its probably best to clarify things there with either her or her students. Not least as I see the terms 'mundane paran' using the zenith seems to be being distinguished by some of her students from a 'personal paran' which can involve the MC as far as I can determine!

Mark

MarkC wrote: 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 [prime merdian and not the MC or Midhaven!] 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)

Where the prime meridian cuts the ecliptic is the current MC. Only those stars, which are on the free leg of the right angle (in the cutting point of the prime meridian with the ecliptic) to the the ecliptic are 'on the MC'. But the prime meridian does not cut the eclipitc always rectangular but nearly ever in obliques angles.That is: If the prime meridian is not rectangular to the ecliptic, a star or planet on the prime meridian, which is north or south of the cutting point cannot be on the rectangular wings of the MC-measurement. It is beside them and in consequence not in the MC-degree but before or after it in longitude.

Johannes

Perhaps it is important to add and to state, that the MC is only a POINT. It is the point on the ecliptic, where the prime meridian CUTS the ecliptic. The MC is NOT the meridian, it is only a point of meridian and ecliptic, it is their intersection-point. On or in the MC, which means in its degree, every star or planet, that is in this very point or rectangular to this MC-point, is in a certain latitude to the ecliptic.

As the angle made by meridian and ecliptic is only occasionally rectangular, a star or planet, which is not in the intersection-point "MC", but anywhere on the meridian, is not in the degree of the MC. It cannnot, because it is distant of it both in latitude and in longitude. The higher its northern or southern declination, the more its distance from the MC-degree in latitude and in longitude before it or after it, according its perpendicluar dropped on the ecliptic

Johannes

I like Ebertin's book, and yes, it was largely based on his mother's research.

It was definitely too short, though. But the research seems to bear out in everything I've seen. And that's where I'm torn. I've no intention of 'going modern' - one of the big reasons I dropped that form of astrology is that it simply did not work. Full stop.

Traditional astrology does work, and does get rid of so much of the vagueness, as well as the totally off-the-wall ideas in modern astrology. But but but....Gauqelin's research is solid, even moreso if you take sect into consideration, and in my experience, Ebertin's seems to be solid, too, if more limited. So I use it.

It's not traditional, it's almost purely empirical, but nonetheless, the evidence is there. It could be because I get sucked into so much forensic work (I'm really NOT the reincarnation of John Worsdale - pity he was born in the 1700s, he could have had a really smashing career these days and he would've enjoyed it a whole lot more than I do ). But I see the validity of Robson's (not using 8 degree orbs, but his general approach and the collection of older source definitions) and Ebertin's approach both.

So, I don't know. Ultimately, I'm a simple and pragmatic Taurus - I'll blame it on my sun and moon. But when you see this stuff play out again and again and again, it's pretty hard to ignore.

Deb wrote:What I find hard to relate to, is the idea that Scheat is not conjunct the MC, [. . . ]

Hi Deb,

in addition to my two posts above (last night), I would like to try to explain, what I for myself could not understand for a long time.

Wherever you are, all stars or planets, which are in a certain moment on the horizon visible from your present place, are in paranatellonta with the degree ascending there at the same time.

All stars and planets touched at the same time by the circle cutting the south point of 'your' horizon, your zenith, the north point, the nadir and the south point again, are on or in your prime meridian. And on the section of this meridian, which is above the earth, they are said to be culminating. And this culmination is, because of the synchronism with the 'state' on the horizon, WITH the ascending degree and all the horizon.

Whether this is not only the teaching of Brady, but of Mainilius and Firmicus too, I'm not sure of. I believe to remember that some of the constellations named 'ascending' by Manilius, are on the horizon, but just before vanishing 'in' or 'under' the descendent.

The technique of the paranatellonta enables the astrologer to assing stars and planets to the just born native without casting a chart - just from the sky and simply by a glance at the stars.

And now the MC. The MC is that point where the obove named meridian cuts the ecliptic. Once you have found the MC, alls stars and planets rectangular to the degree of it, are said to be 'on the MC'. Now, in the majority of cases meridian and ecliptic don't meet in a rectangular angle. And the consequence of this scissors-like divergence of the meridian and the rectangular (to the eclipitic) measurement of the planets and the stars in the degree of the MC(-point, not line, as stated above, last night!) is the reason why Mark is right, when he says:

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

because in this chart the scissors diverge by 23? about from being rectangular and the ecliptical latitude of Scheat is more than 30?!

Johannes

I barely look at fixed stars but if they should be used with latitude taken into account this should also be done with the Moon and planets. This would be more consistent. These too often have a certain latitude. And what to do with stars/planets between the meridian and horizon. Here the choice for a house system comes up.

It should then be a 'mundane' type house system which combines meridian and horizon, Campanus, Regiomontanus, Placidus. I once read that Campanus is popular amongst astrologers who use many fixed stars. Note that in the mundane house systems the positions of the planets alter so mucht that a square can become a trine and vice versa. The natal chart will look qute different.

As a quite confusing statement I can say that when a celestial body culminates it usually won't be exactly on the meridian .

Hi Johannes

I would be interested in hearing other views on this, because I have a hard time with your definition of the midheaven. From what I have read in ancient works (and the clearest seems to be Ptolemy?s Almagest where he talks about the arcs in detail and includes diagrams), there only ever seems to be reference to the meridian itself acting as the MC (Medium Coeli: ?middle of the sky?). So I think it is misleading to talk about the MC as being ?only one point?, when actually what we mean is that it is at this one point where the meridian crosses the ecliptic that we can take the ecliptic measurement of longitude ? which has become our frame of reference.

Of course, we don?t expect that the stars and planets that we measure in longitude are exactly on this one point of intersection, and we know that longitude does not attempt to account for latitude, but the question here is whether a star or planet (because this can effect the planets too, especially the outer-planets) that is on the Prime Meridian, or even on the observer?s zenith, has the same longitude as the MC. I say it does, because I haven?t seen a traditional source that states that the MC is ?rectangular to the ecliptic? as you are saying here. Rather, it seems to be talked about as a line of projection along the meridian, or there might be instruction to ?run the eye down the meridian to the ecliptic?.

If I understand your definition correctly, then you seem to be defining the midheaven as being (technically) the pole of the ecliptic (correct?), and so restricted to that one small point; whereas I am saying that the midheaven is the whole of the meridian, whose longitude value is obtainable only at the point of intersection with the ecliptic. This is surely clear from the fact that what we are dividing is the horizon of the observer, not the ecliptic itself.

I hope I have understood your point correctly, and that you can understand why I have a problem with it. But I do agree that there are difficulties in defining a star?s position purely by longitude, and this is what I was suggesting earlier when I said that our 2D chart forms can?t properly accommodate the 3 dimensional celestial sphere.

Deb

PS - It?s a pity this discussion didn?t go into its own thread, but I hope it continues because it seems very useful to have these kinds of issues explored. But for now it is best if people don?t address posts to me as I have to prepare some papers and will be away from home until mid-March. As I said, it will be good to get other views besides mine anyway!

Considering that there are almost two pages talking exclusively about the stars, maybe Tom could split the thread in two.

Deb wrote:So I think it is misleading to talk about the MC as being ?only one point?, when actually what we mean is that it is at this one point where the meridian crosses the ecliptic that we can take the ecliptic measurement of longitude ? which has become our frame of reference.

I would have to second that. The 'point' of intersection with the ecliptic is forever moving up and down one's local meridian, as every degree of the ecliptic culminates at its own altitude. (This is why the sun is found higher in the sky at local noon in summer than in winter.) Usage depends on context, of course, but normally any culminating planet or point would be said to be 'on the midheaven (MC)'.