If my memory and astrological knowledge do not fail me, there's the old maxim that: The MC point in the chart is directed towards the south, while the IC point in the chart is directed towards the north.

This little info-bit is a mind boggling to my astrology students, who assume that the MC is towards the north as it's faced upwards (and the reverse).

I tried to understand it myself, but it seems to be of no avail.
One conclusion I tentatively reached is that it's only the case in the northern hemisphere, while in the southern hemisphere it may be reversed.
Isn't this because the point of the Sun's highest elevation would be towards the south whenever we're above the equator and towards the north whenever we're below the equator?

If someone could explain, in either a short or a long format (or an external link) I would be eternally grateful

Horizon, equator, ecliptic and the rest - in the following link:
https://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/ ... Sphere.png

Yes, it depends what hemisphere you're in. If you are exactly on the equator, and the sun is too (that is, on either of the equinoxes), the sun will culminate exactly above your head and you will cast no shadow. But if you are north of the latitude of the culminating body/point (whether that is the sun or something else), it will obviously be to your south, and vice versa.

Just tell your students to use ancient Egyptian maps (where south is up) and you'll all be fine.

Martin Gansten wrote:But if you are north of the latitude of the culminating body/point (whether that is the sun or something else), it will obviously be to your south, and vice versa.

I wrote that in a hurry, so just to clarify: distance north or south of the terrestrial equator is called latitude. The corresponding distance from the celestial equator is called declination.

Remember that the horoscope is not showing a terrestrial map but a celestial map - it is illustrating the space surrounding the observer. It assumes the observer is standing in the centre, facing towards the south, and it shows how someone would view the planets in that position.
So planets would rise from the left side (in the east), then culminate ahead of them (due south - which is where the planets reach the highest point above the horizon); then they would decline back towards the horizon and set to the other/right side of them (in the west). After they are set, they are invisible to the eye, but still travelling through the sphere behind them, in the area below the horizon "under the Earth". To view this direction of, the observer would have to turn around and face towards the north.
So just lose the temptation to treat the chart like a world map and enter into the mindset of how it is showing the planets surrounding the local space.

Hello Dima,

I think this matter is best visualized and most easily understood by projecting the celestial sphere (including ecliptic line) onto a 3D globe of Earth, equating celestial declination with geographical latitude. The software "Placidus" by Rumen Kolev, for example, offers such a feature (open link #1 for screenshot, link #2 for video the screenshot was taken from):

#1 https://imgur.com/a/qaAxIG2

#2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw59Vy9Iw2M&t=2015s

In the screenshot you can see the celestial sphere projected onto 3D globe at the time when John F Kennedy was born. JFK was born in Brookline (Massachussetts) at a geographical latitude of about 42° N.

JFK's birth place is marked purple ("Zenith") in the screenshot. Through this location runs the local Meridian (blue line), from North Pole to South Pole.

You can see that at the time of JFK's birth, the local Meridian intersected the Ecliptic (red line) at about 24° Cancer - this is the MC, or culminating degree of the Zodiac.
All the locations along the Meridian had an MC of 24° Cancer, so this part of the Zodiac was culminating simultaneously all the way from North Pole to South Pole.

The MC was in zenith (directly overhead, i.e. neither to the North nor to the South) right at the point of the intersection of Meridian and Ecliptic - somewhere east of Cuba, north of Hispaniola. MC can only be in zenith within tropical locations.

In general - outside of tropical region - in Northern Hemisphere the MC will always be located to the south of the observer, in Southern Hemisphere the reverse (to the north). Only within the tropics is it more complicated than that.

Best wishes,
AP

A big thanks to everyone who answered.
Martin, Deb, unknown newcomer who may be a known astrologer too

Martin: Straight and to the point, I like it.
You've said that distance north or south of the terrestrial equator is called latitude. From my knowledge though, the celestial equator is an extension of the terrestrial equator. Also, that distance from ecliptic is 'latitude'.

Deborah: Thanks for the emphasis on "facing south". Good point, never thought about it.

Astrophilus:
Great illustration with the Placidus program, the picture definitely helps.

-

P.S.: asked a horary timing question in the horary forum and a decans/faces question in the traditional forum, if you have the time

Dima Gur wrote:Martin: Straight and to the point, I like it.
You've said that distance north or south of the terrestrial equator is called latitude. From my knowledge though, the celestial equator is an extension of the terrestrial equator. Also, that distance from ecliptic is 'latitude'.

Yes, I realized on re-reading that I had been unclear the first time, which is why I tried to clarify what I meant.

When we speak of geographical latitude, that is distance from the terrestrial equator; but, as you say, in astronomy the word 'latitude' is reserved for distance from the ecliptic, and distance from the equator is called declination.

So if you are at a geographical latitude of 17 N at a time when the Sun's declination is 17 N, the Sun at midday will be exactly overhead.

Dima, you're welcome.

I can assure you I'm NOT Rumen Kolev, nor one of his disciples trying to promote the software. Nor am I one of the known astrologers like Deb and Martin. Just someone who's been dabbling in astrology, on and off, for many years - and who just recently discovered that you can project the celestial sphere onto a 3D globe of Earth, together with Placidus house cusps, which got me immediately fascinated. I'm dreaming of "3D Google Earth astrological charts" right now, in addition to the common wheel charts.

As to the topic, I might add that astrologers have a natural tendency to assume the MC is to the south. This is clearly reflected in the wheel chart format that is popularly used today, as well as in the traditional square chart format.

We're facing south, focussing on the half of the zodiac that currently happens to be above the horizon: MC (due south) in front of us, ASC (roughly east) left, DSC (roughly west) right, IC (due north) behind us, out of our field of vision. The Sun and other planets appear to be rising to our left side, culminating in front of us, setting to our right side. They're apparently moving in a clockwise fashion. It makes sense to display the chart in this way, as long as we view it from the perspective of the Northern Hemisphere.

Unfortunately, Astrology is "Northern Hemisphere biased". Wheel charts cast for Southern Hemisphere look just like the ones cast for the Northern Hemisphere, which can lead to a lot of confusion and disorientation.

For charts cast for Southern Hemisphere it would actually make more sense to draw the ASC on the right side and the DSC on the left side, since the ecliptic happens to be above the northern half of the horizon, with the MC being due north. Seen from places like Buenos Aires or Melbourne, the planets appear to move in an anti-clockwise fashion, rising to our right, culminating in front of us, setting to our left.

Of course, reversing the direction of primary motion at the same time also means reversing the direction of secondary motion, so the Zodiac degrees must be rearranged in clockwise direction - the Sun moving clockwise through the Zodiac.

Just wanted to add (since I'm no longer allowed to edit my previous post):

What we're facing directly in the common wheel chart is the Zodiac degree that's currently highest above the horizon - which is NOT the MC, but the upper nonagesimal degree. The upper nonagesimal happens to be the 10th cusp using equal house system. It's in square (90°) to the ASC, hence the name "nonagesimal".

The MC is just the degree that has currently reached its own culmination (come closest to the zenith in 24h), but it will usually still be at a lower altitude compared to the upper nonagesimal.

Conversely, the IC is just the degree that has currently reached its own anti-culmination (come closest to the nadir in 24h), but it will usually still be at a higher altitude compared to the lower nonagesimal, which is the degree lowest beneath the horizon (at the bottom of wheel chart).

So, us Northern folks will usually NOT be facing due south (MC) in the wheel chart, but rather to the south-east or to the south-west in direction of the upper nonagesimal.

Astrophilus wrote:What we're facing directly in the common wheel chart is the Zodiac degree that's currently highest above the horizon - which is NOT the MC, but the upper nonagesimal degree.

Depends what chart style you're using, though. Deb posted quite a bit on that topic not so long ago. The older standard was indeed to put the astronomical midheaven at the top of the chart -- understandably so, as the chart is meant to represent what we actually observe.

Martin Gansten wrote: Depends what chart style you're using, though. Deb posted quite a bit on that topic not so long ago.

You're right, thanks for the hint. I'm used to the kind of wheel chart where all 360 degrees of the Zodiac are marked separately.

There are interesting astronomical details we aren't able to read from wheel charts (like for example ecliptical latitude, or whether the MC is to the South or North) unless we're using additional tables. I'm happy we have modern innovations like the "3D globe chart" which help us visualize the 3D sky.

The older standard was indeed to put the astronomical midheaven at the top of the chart -- understandably so, as the chart is meant to represent what we actually observe.

And yet, I'm sure you're aware that the Midheaven (or if we prefer being very precise, planets conjunct the MC) can NOT always be observed.

In Arctic locations, the MC or culminating degree can actually be found BELOW the horizon - which, of course, at the same time means that the IC or anti-culminating degree is ABOVE the horizon. Like, for example, just today we have Midnight Sun all over the Arctic. Midnight Sun can be observed due north from places like Tromso or Longyearbyen.

You might argue that the Arctic or Polar Horoscopes are a very peculiar case that we can feel free to ignore because we mostly cast charts for the Temperate or Tropical Zone, but from my point of view, it goes to show that you can't necessarily equate the MC with top of wheel chart (above the horizon), nor the IC with bottom of chart (below the horizon).

Only the upper nonagesimal - defined as the degree actually highest above horizon - can be regarded top of wheel chart at any times, anywhere on the globe. Even on the North Pole and South Pole, where MC and IC can no longer be defined, you happen to have an upper nonagesimal degree (0° Cancer and 0° Capricorn respectively) - though of course, nobody would try to cast a wheel chart for these places. Imagine being a horary astrologer working at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station.

Happy Northern Midsummer,
AP