Skyscript Astrology Forum

We hear about declination these days ? some people even use it ? but in the older works latitude seems to be what they used. I don?t remember coming across discussions of declination until the 19th century. Maybe I?ve just missed earlier references. I got thinking about this in coming across this electional rule by Partridge (but I?m sure I?ve also seen it in other works):

23. The Moon in Scorpio or Pisces, having Latitude South and descending, begin no Building, for if you do, it will quickly fall.

(From Lee Lehman?s web site: http://www.leelehman.com/electional/ele ... risms.html)

Is latitude the way to go in 17th century astrology and earlier? Are there early rules involving declination like the one above that uses latitude? It?s possible for the two measurements to have opposite positions ? like north declination and south latitude for a planet ? so rules like the one quoted above don?t work for both.

But even in the 17th century latitude appears to be a relatively minor consideration. Or do we now tend to overlook it? In horary, for instance. From what I've seen I get the impression that latitude was used especially in material and mundane matters, like the weather and the building in the rule above.

Hi Kirk! and others,

Interesing topic. It was only yesterday that I talked about celestial latitude and declination to my students...

I've been reading (& interpreting) the three major aphorisms i.e. Ptolemy's, Hermes Trismegistus' and Ibnu Ezra's to my students and yesterday we came to the following:

While the Moon shall be South descending in Scorpio or Pisces, begin not then to build; for a fabrick then erected quickly comes to ruin.

Aphorism No. 13 of The Centiloquium of Hermes Trismegistus, from this site itself! http://www.skyscript.co.uk/centiloquium2.html

It is my belief that the ancients consider declination for sun and celestial latitude for other wandering stars i.e. planets.

The most powerful planet is, of course, the sun. The ancients would have plotted the apparent annual path of the sun, which of course gives us the great circle of the ecliptic, with reference to the other great circle in the celestial sphere i.e. the celestial equator. The intersections of the ecliptic and the celestial equator give us the equinoxes points (which are actually the nodes of the sun!). When sun is on the vernal equinox (sun intersects one of the equinoxes and about to increase in declinational latitude) it is zero Aries by definition which gives us the beginning of spring and the starting point of Tropical zodiac. From zero Aries, the sun then increases in declinational latitude (ascending) until it reaches its highest declinational latitude (0 Cancer) from which it will decrease in declinational latitude (descending) until it reaches the autumnal equinox (0 Libra). It then descends further until it reachest its lowest declinational latitude (0 Capricorn) and then turn to ascend (increasing in declinational latitude).

In conclusion:
When sun is in
0 Aries - 0 Cancer : it is northern (by declination) and ascending
0 Cancer- 0 Libra: it is northern (by declination) and descending
0 Libra- 0 Capricorn: it is southern (by declination) and descending
0 Capricorn- 0 Aries: it is southern (by declination) and ascending

Observe that when sun is in northern declinational latitudes, it is passing through the "northern signs" i.e. Aries to end of Virgo. Similarly, when sun is in southern declinational latitudes, it is passing through the "southern signs" i.e. Libra to end of Pisces.

Observe also that when sun is descending, it is passing through the signs of long ascension i.e. Cancer to end of Sagittarius. Similarly, when sun is ascending, it is passing through the signs of short ascension i.e. Capricorn to end of Gemini.

With all of the explanations above (amongst others), we can conclude that the path of the sun is very much referenced to the celestial equator.

Now, when it comes to the planets, the reference circle to be used is the ecliptic and not the celestial equator. Why? For the obvious reason that all of the six wandering stars (Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) are hovering in the proximity of the ecliptic (a number of degrees above or below it). For this reason, I think it is probably more profitable to use parallels of latitudes than parallels of declination for the planets.

An example:
The moon is of course, the next strongest planet. The apparent path of the moon on the celestial sphere gives us the lunar great circle. The intersections of the lunar great circle and the ecliptic (not celestial equator!) give us the lunar nodes!!! North node is the intersection of the lunar great circle and the ecliptic when the moon is about to increase in ecliptic latitude. On an astrological chart, this is indicated when moon conjoins the north node. From this point, the moon then increases in ecliptic latitude (ascending) until it reaches its highest ecliptic latitude (squaring and ahead of north node) from which it will decrease in ecliptic latitude (descending) until it reaches the south node (the intersection of the lunar great circle and the ecliptic when the moon is about to decrease in ecliptic latitude). It then descends further until it reachest its lowest ecliptic latitude (squaring and ahead of south node) and then turn to ascend (increasing in ecliptic latitude).

In conclusion:
When moon is between north node and the point squaring north node ahead of it: it is northern (by latitude) and ascending.

When moon is between the point squaring north node ahead of it and south node: it is northern (by latitude) and descending.

When the moon is between south node and the point squaring south node ahead of it: it is southern (by latitude) and descending.

When moon is between the point squaring south node ahead of it and north node: it is southern (by latitude) and ascending.

Ptolemy uses the term "at the bendings" for the two points squaring the nodes.

The same should be done for all other planets (using ecliptic latitudes and not declination). Indeed, the planetary nodes are mostly defined using the apparent planetary circles and the ecliptic. With this, I am assuming that parallels of latitudes be used (if we really wish to use it at all!).

The above discussion gives us the general considerations for moon in electional astrology. In order to make something "increases" and not "falling":
1). Moon should be "above" the ecliptic i.e. northen latitude i.e. between north node and south node following the zodiac

2). Moon should be increasing in latitude or ascending - see above.

3). Moon should be increasing in light i.e. expanding.

4) Moon should have good applying aspects (which automatically means that she should not be VOC).

5) Moon should be in good signs

6) Moon should be in good houses

7) Moon should not be eclipsed or combust.



AND NOW, we return to the aphorism. It says that moon should not be South descending i.e. it should not be between south node and the point squaring south node ahead of it. We don't want moon to be below the ecliptic (South) and descending - which may represent buildings faling down. We also don't want moon to be in Scorpio (in her fall or depression). We don't want moon to be in Pisces (WHY?????????????)

astrojin wrote:We also don't want moon to be in Scorpio (in her fall or depression).
We don't want moon to be in Pisces (WHY?????????????)

You may mean Capricorn (her detriment), instead of Pisces.
I think Moon feels well in jovian signs, especially Pisces.

Hello,

You may mean Capricorn (her detriment), instead of Pisces.
I think Moon feels well in jovian signs, especially Pisces.

Yeah, one should think so!!!

But the aphorism written by Partridge and of Hermes Centiloquim specificaly stated Pisces not Capricorn... making me think that perhaps both of them are wrong (one could have copied from the other) UNLESS there is other thing that I don't know about?

Astrojin,

Thank you! You are always so generous and helpful. It?s appreciated.

Does anyone know what orb they used for parallels of latitude? Planetary position by latitude covers many fewer degrees than by declination, so the 1 degree orb commonly used for declination seems proportionally too wide.


Pisces is double-bodied, Mutable Water:
? Mutable Water sounds very loose and shifting.
? Double-bodied: A couple of fish swimming in opposite directions doesn?t sound good for the structural integrity needed for a building.

Lilly called Pisces ?an idle, effeminate, sickly Sign?. That doesn?t sound very good for a building that?s going to stand out in the elements for years.

Hi Kirk,

I am really glad you raised this subject as its been on my mind for a while too. In fact I opened a thread on it a while back:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... t=latitude

However, I never felt the issue was fully clarified.

There is no doubt modern astrology is only concerned with declination and things like 'out of bounds theory'. Take for example Paul Newman's book on declination which pays only the briefest acknowledgment to the astrological use of latitude and its history.

In general, it seems clear traditional sources were more concerned with the use of parallels of latitude in regards the planets.

The Sun has already been mentioned which is naturaly always straight on the ecliptic and therefore zero in terms of latitude at all times while its declination changes are what define the seasons and equinoxes/solstices here on earth.

Here is a summary of the planets maximum tilt or variance from the ecliptical plane or path of the Sun:

Mercury 7.0?
Venus 3.4?
Moon 5.15?
Mars 1.9?
Jupiter 1.3?
Saturn 2.5?
Uranus 0.8?
Neptune 1.8?
Pluto 17.1?

I agree that a parallel of latitude isn't all that staggering between say Mars and the Sun. Mars is never more than 1.9 degrees north or south of this celestial line. Of the traditional planets Mercury has the largest periodic variance in the tilt of its orbit around the Sun at up to 7 degrees outside the ecliptic. Ironically, Uranus follows the ecliptic most closely of all planets and is therefore most obedient to the path of the Sun (or to be astronomically correct the Earth's orbit around the Sun). Pluto can be up to 17 degrees outside the ecliptic. Simply projecting its position on to the zodiac will therefore give quite a misleading idea of where it is in mundo. Another argument for dismissing it!


Your question is very interesting:

Does anyone know what orb they used for parallels of latitude? Planetary position by latitude covers many fewer degrees than by declination, so the 1 degree orb commonly used for declination seems proportionally too wide.

No I don't know either but its a great question!

Logic would seem to suggest a bigger orb for declination than latitude on that basis. On the other hand Maurice McCann has argued for identical planetary orbs for parallels as for any other aspect based on moeity orbs. I don't think this is a traditional practice though. Practically, it would surely mean planets were forming parallels of latitude constantly?

I believe the fixed stars or non-wandering stars is another area where traditional sources seem to have been willing to consider a parallel of declination. If you use the traditional planets only the zodiac extends up to only about 7 degrees of latitude either side. However, there are stars well outside 7 degrees of the ecliptic which have been used in the past. Its true medieval and renaissance sources such as Cardano or Lilly mention that the influence of a star is more powerful the closer it is to the ecliptic. Nevertheless, stars seem to have been regarded as having an influence through a parallel of declination in hellenistic astrology. From memory I seem to recall James Crane making this point in his recent book on hellenistic astrology and citing the Greek philosopher-astrologer Proclus (?) as a source for this approach. I will check this out when I have access to the book again.

Does anyone know what orb they used for parallels of latitude?

I was taught 16 minutes.

Mark,

I?m a little slow in thanking you for bringing this topic up again and offering more information. I had forgotten about your thread from over a year ago.

I have much more trouble working with astronomy and the celestial sphere than with astrology itself. Picturing it in my mind and placing it in the sky is a slow affair. You?ve given me more to work with. Thank you.


Christina,

Hurray! Thanks so much. I was hoping for an answer ? now I have something to work with. I would be interested in hearing what?s in your notes when you have the chance.

I was playing with the graphic ephemeris and watching the latitude cycles over 10-year periods. Mars was all over the place and makes sudden extreme dives and returns. ?Expansive? Jupiter strolls along, a little this way and a little that way, and ?eccentric? Uranus follows the straight and narrow. Venus, of peace and harmony fame, is a wild one. It?s sure a different way of seeing the planets.

Kirk wrote:?Expansive? Jupiter strolls along, a little this way and a little that way, and ?eccentric? Uranus follows the straight and narrow.

Hi Kirk,

isn't it interesting that in many old texts Jupiter is described as the planet of moderation?! Ibn Ezra says that Jupiter is the planet of the modest and pious; Bonatti says that Jupiter signifies generosity, modesty and justice; and Lilly says that a well-dignified Jupiter is bashful, just and prudent, but an ill-posited Jupiter is "abating himself in all companies, crouching and stooping where no necessity is".

Hi Papretis,

Traditionally, Jupiter was indeed quite moderate ? and that moderation was the good that he brought. I think my calling him ?expansive? was very modern. In modern astrology you look to Jupiter for new horizons, new opportunities, life somehow becoming larger in a desirable way. Maybe latitude takes us back to where we should be with Jupiter?

Hi again,

Sorry for the delay in updating my post. Been a bit busy with pre-Christmas stuff.

I share Kirk's difficulty (along with many astrologers I suspect) in grasping the more astronomical dimension at times. I suppose the traditional flat horoscope projecting planets position on to the ecliptic doesn't help three dimesional thinking. A good starting point I have found is using the planetarium feature on Solar Fire. I would love to find a current programme that visualises astronomy for astrologers. Black and white flat diagrams in books just don't bring it to life the way computer graphics can. Martin Lewicki was offering a CD programme ( Astronomy for Astrologers (Astrolabe Companion) a few years ago but when I last contacted him he was no longer producing it. A shame as Deb gave it an excellent review when it came out.

Anyway, I have just consulted my copy of Joseph Crane's new book 'Astrological Roots: The Hellenistic Legacy'

I was wrong. The hellenistic astrologer he quotes in regards declination is Hephaistio of Thebes not Proclus. The italic notes inserted in the quote below are mine.

In chapter 11 Crane discusses the use of fixed stars and declination:

Parallels of Declination'

''Hephaistio ,in his discussion of fame and rank , mentions that the stars in parallel to specific planets can be important for this issue. These are parallels of declination, which measure locations north and south of the equator. (Crane's footnote reference to Hephiastio's work is book II Chapter 18. I assume this work is his Apotelesmatics although Crane doesn't state this specifically

From our point of view on earth, two planets or stars in parallel would be overhead at the same degree of latitude. A star at a certain degree of north or south declination would be in parallel with a planet if that planet were within a degree of declination. Using parallels of latitude gives a co-ordinate system through which a planet and star not on the zodiac can coincide. (NB Crane clearly means a parallel of declination here although his wording is confusing since his reference to a parallel of terrestrial latitude could be confused with celestial latitude)

The Sun ranges from twenty-three and a half degrees north to the same distance south of the equator. Planets are usually within the same range but can be found up to thirty degrees of declination ( NB This is what modern astrologers refer to as an 'out-of-bounds' planet since it is outside the Sun's range of declination. For more information I recommend Paul Newman's book 'Declination'.)

These stars within the range of the Tropic of Capricorn and Tropic of Cancer , in terrestrial terms , might be in parallel with a planet in the natal chart. Less likely is a star whose declination is outside this range being in parallel with a planet''

Thanks Christina for the information on the orb for parallels of latitude. I understand Zoltan Mason was the pioneer in opening up the ideas of Morin to the English speaking world. Do you think this could approach originate with Morin?

Charles Jayne uses 16' orb