Hello Andrew,
quote]
My opinion on this matter is 'Keep it simple!'
The ecliptic is our Great Circle of celestial reference, so celestial objects, whether stellar or planetary, should be projected on to the ecliptic - and the problem of latitude is thus avoided. This is also remembering that astrologers use the rational ascendant, which does not take into account the bending of light and that would cause astrologers to look many degrees into the zodiac if the signs of short ascension were rising in high latitudes.
1) Use the rational ascendant 2) Project the position of celestial objects onto the ecliptic for most practical causes.
The problem with 'keeping it simple' as you put it is that we create a real divide between our astrology and what is actually happening in the location of a chart.
Many traditional sources emphasize stars are more powerful the closer they are to the zodiac:
The strength and efficacy of the Fixed Stars is to be considered from their magnitude, their splendours, their natures or properties, their nearness to the Ecliptic, their place in the World, their multitude, their first oriental appearance, the purity of their place, the similitude or agreement of the body or rays of a Planet with them and their circle of position.
? The Seven Segments of Cardano
Why bother mentioning this? Why not ignore it as you suggest?
The reason is that when you simply project any stars position on to the zodiac you distort its real location to the observer. The problem of latitude is not simply removed as you suggest by projecting stars on to the ecliptic. In many cases it creates a whole new problem!
Lets look at two examples.
Clint Eastwood ( Actor). His chart has a rising degree of 18.35 Scorpio. At the time he was born the star Vega was exactly rising on the horizon in San Francisco. However, if you simply project that stars position on to the ecliptic it will always be around 15 Capricorn anywhere on earth. In reality though stars rise at different zodiacal degrees in different locations. The divergence between this and the projected ecliptical position is greater the further a star is outside the ecliptic.
Mark Spitz ( Olympic Champion Swimmer) : His Midheaven is 18.07 Taurus. No clues to any fixed star connection there. However, in reality the star Algol is precisely overhead at the location of Spitz birth. Simply projecting this stars position as you suggest would have us hunting 25 Taurus in vain. One of the traditional associations of this star is the ability to overcome any opponent in battle. Spitz certainly fulfilled that perfectly at the 1972 Olympics!
It seems to me we have two fundamentally different attitudes to astrology here. One that can be traced back to ancient Babylonia and Egypt is observational and visual astrology.
The Greek astrologer Anonymous of 379 represents one of the last advocates of this ancient visual approach. As the middle ages progress astrology becomes more and more disconnected from a visual approach.
I think we all accept astrology is only a symbolic representation of reality so it could be argued that we can be allowed some ?latitude? here! Still most of us want to at least approximately represent what goes on in the real sky.
With planets the problem is not too acute. The Moon never drifts more than 5 degrees outside the ecliptic. In traditional terms the planets that drifts furthest out is Mercury at about 7 degrees. Uranus despite its deviant representation sits almost exactly on the ecliptic. Pluto is the real odd one out with an orbit sometimes 17 degrees outside the ecliptic. So if we grant a zodiac belt of 8 degrees either side of the ecliptic (traditional) or 17 degrees ( modern) there is an argument for including stars in this band.
Once we get much further north or south of the ecliptic though the zodiac becomes less and less reliable as an indicator where a star will be. Even, at it is Pluto can be half a sign away from its projected zodical position.
I am not seeking to reject the projection method entirely. However, I agree with Robert Hand and James Crane in limiting its use to stars close to the ecliptic. From what we can establish this was the way the ancient Greek astrologers worked. I think astrologers need to utilize features like Solar Fire ?Star parans?. These allow us to know when stars well outside the ecliptic co-rise, co-culminate , or co-set etc with angles or in mundo with planets.
I am not suggesting your approach doesn?t have any supporters. Diana Rosenberg the fixed star authority works this way. However, I wonder how many astrologers are willing to go as far as Rosenberg and use southern hemisphere stars projected on to the zodiac in northern hemisphere charts?
You stated earlier:
The ecliptic is our Great Circle of celestial reference, so celestial objects, whether stellar or planetary, should be projected on to the ecliptic - and the problem of latitude is thus avoided.
So using that logic Alpha Centauri ( aka Bungula, Rigil Kentaurus) would be valid in a northern hemisphere chart with a key degree at 29 Scorpio. I personally, find this approach too dissociated from both the real sky and the way our ancestors developed their star lore. In my opinion much of medieval and renaissance astrology suffers from the same problem to a lesser extent.
