Skyscript Astrology Forum

I am curious about the history of declination in astrology. Does anyone know which astrologer first proposed the parallel aspect?

From what I can see in ancient and medieval astrology right up to the renaissance the focus was ecliptical latitude not declination. The major exception being the ancient technique of Antiscia which essentially focuses on zodiacal degrees with identical solar declination measured from the solstices. However, any ideas who pioneered the parallel as an aspect?

A couple of references I have found seem to refer to the English astrologers Zadkiel and earlier still John Partridge.

Zadkiel: "The student should pay very particular attention of the declination of the planets ... the zodiacal parallel is of more importance than any other aspect. The effect of this position is exactly the same as that of a close conjunction" in: Grammar of Astrology, London, 1852, p. 372 Google Books

John Partridge: "Mundane Paralleles are equal distance from the angles of a figure, and are, in their effects, equivalent to a conjunction." in: The Spirit of Partridge, or, the Astrologers Pocket Companion and General Magazine. Printed and published for the London Astrological Society, by Davis & Dickson, 1825 (date of first edition?)

Note: The Englisher astrologer John Partridge lived 1644 – c. 1714 so the book is certainly 18th century in origin.

Thanks

Mark

There are two kinds of parallel: zodiacal parallels = parallels of declination, and mundane parallels. I believe the latter were invented by Placidus; they were certainly popularized (if that is the right word) by him. Partridge, of course, was a Placideanist.

Declination parallels are really the same thing as antiscia, only using the actual bodies of the planets rather than their ecliptical projections. (Differently put, antiscia are degrees of the ecliptic that form declination parallels with each other.) I am 90% sure that Morin writes somewhere that antiscia should be based on the actual places of the planets, but he still calls them antiscia. This is entirely from memory, though. He may have been slightly earlier than Placidus with this idea, but again, Placidus is the author who really emphasized them (in fact, they seem to have been one of the first things he looked for when judging his 'secondary directions'). Perhaps there were others who wrote about them even earlier, but those are the two sources I know of.

I'm glad to say my memory was correct: the Morin reference is Astrologia Gallica XVI 1,15.

In 'Astrology's Special Measurements', edited by Noel Tyl, Tom Bridges wrote an article 'Nodes and Antiscia: The beginning of measurements in Astrology". where he says:

[quote]Antiscion is a Greek word 'ante' + 'skion' meaning 'opposite shadow'. It appears in Ptolemy's Almagest in its original reference as a description of people who live along the same meridian of longitude but on opposite sides of the equator. What's true for people who happen to live in this orientation with each other is that objects, at the same time of day, cast the same shadow but in opposite directions, hence the name 'opposite shadow' Such people are 'equal under the Sun' but opposite in their orientation. (p. 191)[/quote]

Bridges goes on to say that there is a potential interpretive potential of antiscia in The Arch de Triumph in Paris. Given clear sky conditions, you can see the sun rising through the arch on or around November 6. If you stand facing east, there it is golden Phoebus chariot conquering the night. You can see the identical phenomenon exactly on the sther side of the winter solstice on or around February 6 every year. What do these dates have in common? The Zodiac positions of the Sun on these days are Antiscia degrees, in this case equidistant from the winter solstice point.
Great and sacred objects throughout the world often have such a celestial orientation.

Other indications of this 'aspect' in Ancient astrologers are
- Aspects, with reference to Signs
- The Commanding and Obeying Signs equally disposed from the equinoctial signs.
- The Beholding Signs equally disposed from the solstitial signs
- The Disjunct "Asyndeta" Signs - A sign complying to none of the above three adjacent to or five signs removed from another sign. (p.181)

Other quotes p.191
"Antiscii - those who live on the same meridian, but on the opposite side of the equator, so that their shadows at noon fall in opposite directions."
1658 Edward Phillips - The New World of English Words or a General Dictionary

"[At Jerusalem],... a spere (spear) that is pight (put) in to the erthe (earth), vpon the hour of mydday whan it is Equenoxium... sheweth no shadwe (shadow).
1400, Sir John Maundeville - The Buke of John Maundeuill, Being the Travels of Sir J. Mandeville Knight.

Hi Mark

That's an interesting topic!

Mark wrote:I am curious about the history of declination in astrology. Does anyone know which astrologer first proposed the parallel aspect?

From what I can see in ancient and medieval astrology right up to the renaissance the focus was ecliptical latitude not declination. The major exception being the ancient technique of Antiscia which essentially focuses on zodiacal degrees with identical solar declination measured from the solstices. However, any ideas who pioneered the parallel as an aspect?

Indeed, it seems to me that Hellenistic astrology focusses entirely on the positions of the planets relative to the zodiac, i.e. the annual course of the Sun. Their actual declinations are therefore quite irrelevant; it's as though every planet plays the Sun's role in its own right.

Taking the exact actual positions of the planets into consideration seems to be more of a later idea then, in an attempt to base astrology on observational "scientific" facts. However, I suspect that the ancients' conceptual basis was no longer fully understood at the time. Strictly speaking, in such a modified scheme, each planet would have to have some kind of zodiac assigned to it individually, for each has its own orbital plane and nodes.

That said, Ptolemy admits that in the case of conjunctions, individual latitudes and declinations may indeed be taken into account; see the chapter on applications and separations in the first book of the Tetrabiblos.

A couple of references I have found seem to refer to the English astrologers Zadkiel and earlier still John Patridge.

Zadkiel: "The student should pay very particular attention of the declination of the planets ... the zodiacal parallel is of more importance than any other aspect. The effect of this position is exactly the same as that of a close conjunction" in: Grammar of Astrology, London, 1852, p. 372 Google Books

Note that Zadkiel mentions zodiacal parallels here! I wonder if there is really any difference between those and the ancient Antiscia.

John Partridge: "Mundane Paralleles are equal distance from the angles of a figure, and are, in their effects, equivalent to a conjunction." in: The Spirit of Partridge, or, the Astrologers Pocket Companion and General Magazine. Printed and published for the London Astrological Society, by Davis & Dickson, 1825 (date of first edition?)

Again, the reference seems to be simply to zodiacal positions, i.e. to Antiscia (and Contra Antiscia respectively) in the classical sense.

Note: The Englisher astrologer John Partridge lived 1644 – c. 1714 so the book is certainly 18th century in origin.

Thanks

Mark

Cheers!

Michael

Michael Sternbach wrote:Note that Zadkiel mentions zodiacal parallels here! I wonder if there is really any difference between those and the ancient Antiscia.
[...]
Again, the reference [from Partridge] seems to be simply to zodiacal positions, i.e. to Antiscia (and Contra Antiscia respectively) in the classical sense.

What we have to keep in mind here is the Placidean framework taken for granted by both authors. In that context, there are two kinds of aspect relationships: 'zodiacal', which denotes anything that is somehow referred to the ecliptic, with or without latitude, and 'mundane', which denotes positions strictly in relation to the horizon and meridian, without any reference to the ecliptic.

So when Partridge, Zadkiel and others speak of zodiacal parallels, they mean parallels of declination that run through the body of a planet and intersect the ecliptic in two places (those places would be antiscia in the classical sense); and when they speak of mundane parallels, they mean fractions (percentages, if you will) of individual semi-arcs that are equidistant from the horizon or meridian. Thus, for instance, if Mars has completed 12% of its journey from the upper meridian to the western horizon, and the sun has 12% left to complete of its journey from the eastern horizon to the upper meridian, then the two would form a mundane parallel around the meridian.

there are two kinds of aspect relationships: 'zodiacal', which denotes anything that is somehow referred to the ecliptic, with or without latitude, and 'mundane', which denotes positions strictly in relation to the horizon and meridian, without any reference to the ecliptic.

Thank you Martin for making the distinction.
Question: I have read from Kenneth Bowser that astrologers favor longitude while astronomers (and Indian astrologers) favor Right Ascension (mundane)
https://keplercollege.org/index.php/art ... s-in-mundo
In your own experience, do you find this to be true especially in reference to Primary Directions?

Thank you,
Ouranos

I don't think Indian astrologers use calculations in right ascension to any great degree. To calculate primary directions you need to understand right and oblique ascensions (and, if using the Ptolemaic model, mixed ascensions), but directions do not necessarily involve mundane aspects -- those were only invented in the 17th century by Placidus (although aspects in oblique ascension or rising times go back to Hellenistic times). But we mustn't hijack Mark's thread.