Skyscript Astrology Forum

This thread is a continuation of a previous discussion on the thread entitled 'New Challenge Answers'.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... c&start=28

This issue coming up from previous discussion concerns the legitimacy or not of considering fixed stars well outside the ecliptic as ever being 'on the MC'. Beyond this the thread provides an opportunity to discuss how we astronomically define the term 'Midheaven'.

I am not the most competent person to comment on the mathematics or astronomical issues at stake here so this is an opportunity for those of you with such knowledge to share their perspective.

My personal view for what it is worth is that describing a star well outside the ecliptic such as Algol or Vega as on the MC because its shares the same longitude is inappropriate. Part of the problem as I see it is that we are trying to use the straight jacket of the ecliptic where it becomes quite irrelevent.

Astronomically the ecliptic is about the Sun and its attendent planets, asteroids etc. Fixed stars are not in this relationship to our Sun or the ecliptic. However, some stars like Spica, Regulus, Aldebaran and Antares are located within the latitude of the ecliptic. The Moon for example can occult Spica. I personally think it is acceptable to work with these stars based on just longitude as if they were planets.

However, looking at the planetarium feature of software like Solar Fire demonstrates how an ecliptic based approach becomes very artificial for stars well outside the ecliptic. For example the fixed star Scheat is +31.08' North of the ecliptic. The traditional planets are only 8 degress north or South of the ecliptic while Pluto is 17. Many traditional sources such as Cardano refer to stars being more powerful close to the ecliptic in terms of latitude. This seems to be a traditional recognition that an approach simply based on longitude is less effective for stars outside the ecliptic.

If we are going to work with stars well outside the ecliptic I support Robert Hand's position that we should be abandoning the ecliptic entirely and following the technique of Anonymous of 379 which focuses exclusively on the co-arising, culminating, setting and anti-culminating of such stars in local space.

An alternative approach which seems to have been suggested by Hephaistio of Thebes is to consider planets and stars in combination when they share the same celestial declination. Again this avoids squeezing such stars into the ecliptic.

Collapsing stars well outside the ecliptic as if they were simply located in it pushes a symbolic approach beyond an acceptable level in my view.

This is a very interesting question.


The answer that I give is that stars are relevant in longitudinal conjunction with planets, primarily with the Sun, this is where I?ve noticed most effects. Though I will not deny other planetary conjunctions.

Longitude is fine for Stars, and I would also suggest the Ascendant also.

You are right in that stars are often tens of degrees away by latitude from the longitudinal conjunction, however it is still an aspect.

It might be worth something to list the Stars which are on the ecliptic and prioritise them somewhat. However, certain stars are of far greater magnitude, brightness and influence.

Which is more important...? conjunct a very dim star and parallel to it; or conjunct one of the brightest most notorious or celebrated stars by longitude only?

I think I know which one I would include in a reading.

I copied my post from the other thread to this one.

*************
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.
******************

Part of the problem as I see it is that we are trying to use the straight jacket of the ecliptic where it becomes quite irrelevent.

Personally I don't have a problem with the 'straight jacket' of the ecliptic. Notwithstanding how fascinating mundane positions and their mathematics can be, I always seem to return to the (tropical) reference frame of the ecliptic. I feel attracted to Cardano's view that the fixed stars are projected on the ecliptic and would be more powerful when close to the ecliptic. In the few cases I looked to fixed stars in a chart I only looked at those within 10? to the ecliptic and usually only at the brightest ones. Note that a bright star may be bright only because it is close to the solar system while a star thousands of times brighter than this one may be many times further away than the former and therefore but a faint star in our sky.

Postioning the stars in a mundane frame could be done with different house systems. Circumpolar stars can be located using Campanus and Regiomontanus. Using Placidus the positioning of circumpolar stars can be done with the Otto Ludwig method described by Michael Wackford, somewhere on this website. However since there are many stars, calculating the postions of many of the circumpolar ones might display what I see as a shortcoming of that system. The sphere could seem 'rumpled up' at some 'edges'.

My remark that "when a celestial body culminates it usually won't be exactly on the meridian." could lead to some confusion. This however is a barely visible effect. We usually see a planet/star rising above the eastern horizon, culminating in the south (on the northern hemisphere) meridian, and setting in the west.

However because of the motion of for example the Sun the culmination moment will slightly be different from the moment the Sun passes through the Meridian. When spring begins we simply say the sun is on the equator/has 0? declination and therefore rises exactly in the east and sets exactly in the east and the day and night are equally 12 hours. Yet there are little differences because in that time the Sun has moved. If we take for example a place on 50? Northern latitude and consider the Earth a perfect sphere, without taking atmospheric refraction into account and say the Sun moves with a speed of exactly1? per day. Further if we take as rising moment the moment 6 hours before the sun exactly crosses the celestial equator then the sun will have a declination of - 0?5?58.01?. Therefore if the Sun is on the horizon at this moment it won?t be exactly on the east but 0.154712523? to the south. In six hours the Sun will have exactly 0? declination and is on the equator. Yet this is not exactly on the meridian but 0.11851678? further (measured along the ecliptic). This means that the Sun passed the meridian about half a minute before. The Sun goes further and exactly six hours later the Sun will have a declination of + 0?5?58.01? and will set not exactly in the west but 0.154712523? direction north.

These miniscule difference won?t differ a lot on normal latitudes but on extreme northern (and southern) latitudes, beyond 89?, there can be huge differences. In practice this causes no problem because I never heard of people born that far, but I like the theoretical approach and I have an example which is quite fun. I take an example of latitude of 89?55?46.85? North, that is about 8.5 kilometers from the pole. Three hours before the Sun is exactly on the equator the Sun will have reached a declination of - 0?2?59? (in decimals that is - 0.04972353022?). On this latitude this will coincide with the rising of (the center of) the Sun above the horizon. However this won?t occur in the east but almost exactly in the south-west (45.00002158 from the west in southern direction). In three hours the Sun is on the equator, has a declination of 0? and culminates in the west. Three hours later the sun has reached a declination of + 0?2?59? and at that moment the Sun will set almost exactly in the north-west (45.00002158 from the west in northern direction). So we see that the culmination point is 90? and therefore way off the meridian. But the fun has only started now. With the sun setting in the north-west it will take three hours for the Sun to reach the meridian in the north. In these three hours the Sun will have reached a declination of + 0?5?58.01?. Since the latitude of the location is 89?55?46.85? North the bodies with a declination of over (90? - 89?55?46.85? =) + 0?4?13.15? will be circumpolar and don?t rise or set during the day. The Sun to reach this declination from the declination of + 0?2?59? needs 1h14m33.46s. I didn?t calculate further for exact moments but this means that the Sun will be circumpolar within those three hours and therefore before it reached the meridian in the north. Therefore the Sun will rise again but now somewhere between north-west and the north. Let?s say one hour later. The lowest or the ?midnight? culmination will thus have occurred in between, half an hour after set and before this rising. So in summary we have (calling sunrise moment 0) sunrise at 0h in the south-west, culmination at 3h in the west, sunset at 6h in the north-west, lowest point at about 6h30 a bit further to the north and sunrise at 7h again a bit further to the north. Since the fixed stars ?move? in respect to the tropical ecliptic 360? in about 26,000 years the effect will be much smaller. About one thousandth of a second in the first example, however there is still a difference.

This dizzy example is not essential in practice and it?s a rather academic discussion but I consider it important in the theoretical discussion in defining the meridian and house systems. The discussion could then be what is more important, culmination or meridian. Since most of astrology is based upon measuring space along a base plane (signs aspects etc) rather than height (latitude/declination), I tend to believe that the meridian is the essential one. However the other approach also has its attractive sides.

Mark, this reminds me of what you wrote in your PM on McCann?s book that he would rather see the use of rulerships according to the hemisphere where a person is born. A system rather based upon the seasons. If this approach is to be taken strictly then the point/moment of culmination would be the more essential one. After all it is the declination of the Sun which determines the seasons and not the longitude or right ascension. If the geometrical approach (meridian etc) would be the essential one then even the ?flipping over? of rulerships on the southern hemisphere wouldn?t be needed. Furthermore the ?normal? rulerships based upon the northern hemisphere wouldn?t be essential either. This would lead to a reference system used in astrology that is entirely based upon geometry. I'm still thinking on this.

I?m sorry for the long and very technical post, I hope it won?t cause too much headache .

I accept even working with planets the projection of positions on to the ecliptic can produce different results to what is happening in mundo ie in the real sky. For example you can have a conjunction between say the Moon and Venus where there is a large gap between them in latitude. Astrologers often ignore this visual factor but it surely must have an impact on how strongly aspects manifest. Still, I am not suggesting an entirely in-mundo approach.

As long as planets and stars are in the band of the ecliptic I can accept longitude as an acceptable way of working. Its simply that the differences between the real sky and ecliptical positions by longitude grow larger and larger the further a body is from the ecliptic. I would personally draw the line at Mercury which is the traditional planet with the largest movement north and south of the ecliptic of about 8 degrees either side. I start to have large concerns about bodies like Pluto, Chiron or other Asteroids which are considerably further out. Still, as these are basically non-visual bodies I suppose this troubles people less. Moreover, for many traditionalists they are completely irrelevant.

Longitude is fine for Stars, and I would also suggest the Ascendant also. ...You are right in that stars are often tens of degrees away by latitude from the longitudinal conjunction, however it is still an aspect.

I cannot agree with you here. The issue is not just about latitude. Its also that these bodies will be completely different zodiacal degrees in local space despite appearing to be in aspect based on simply longitude.

If people want to work with fixed stars based on just longitude they surely have to confront the problem that plotting a star's position this way lets you down rather badly when it is located far outside the ecliptic. I already raised the problem of the difference between star's real position rising at a particular location on earth and the position of the star by longitude. In such cases the real star can be up to two signs away from where the longitude positions indicates where it is! I dont understand how this can be seen as an aspect. Notwithstanding Deb?s point about the Midheaven surely this kind of distorted result happens whenever we rely exclusively on longitude to plot a connection between a star and planet in terms of zodiacal degrees in that particular location? If it was as simple as just using longitude why did Ptolemy apparently take the trouble to plot the rising, culminating and setting times of stars in various locations in the ancient world?

Incidentally, I am now away until the weekend so will not be around to contribute to this thread until then.

I?m away too, so I am going to offer the following as my opinion, not an explanation (because I cannot guarantee following any of these points up further). As I mentioned earlier I have some articles which are to be published soon, and I would rather not attempt a half-hearted explanation in the short term. However, because the arguments seem to be getting more extreme, I want to get some balancing views into the discussion.

If people want to work with fixed stars based on just longitude they surely have to confront the problem that plotting a star's position this way lets you down rather badly when it is located far outside the ecliptic.

This is not a ?problem to be confronted? if we accept the ecliptic as a legitimate plane of reference - and there are many good reasons why the ecliptic was particularly selected for this task by ancient and traditional sources - including Anon of 379 who lists stars ranging from declination 45N to 58S (currently latitudes 60S to 62N) amongst the 'thirty stars' he considered the most relevant. He explained that he was working from the latitude of Rome, and yet the only star he said was too far south in latitude for him to investigate was Canopus (declination 53S, latitude currently 76S) because this one barely touched the horizon at Rome.

If we are going to work with stars well outside the ecliptic I support Robert Hand's position that we should be abandoning the ecliptic entirely and following the technique of Anonymous of 379 which focuses exclusively on the co-arising, culminating, setting and anti-culminating of such stars in local space.

Because this remark could be so easily misunderstood, I want to point out that this doesn't represent the technique recommended in that text - i.e., what you have said here is not a view that we find promoted in any way by anonymous of 379.

Astronomically the ecliptic is about the Sun and its attendent planets, asteroids etc. Fixed stars are not in this relationship to our Sun or the ecliptic ...

An alternative approach which seems to have been suggested by Hephaistio of Thebes is to consider planets and stars in combination when they share the same celestial declination. Again this avoids squeezing such stars into the ecliptic.

I don?t understand your basis for thinking that Hephaistio preferred declination over longitude. His Apotelesmatics, I. 5 describes how the stars are 'affiliated' with their zodiacal degrees. In any case, taking declination as the frame of reference instead only squeezes them in another direction, just one that is not so relevant to the observational needs of ancient astrology. On the other hand, most ancient texts mentioned that it was preferable to have an aligment by longitude and 'latitude' if possible, although longitude seems to have been the most important frame of reference.

In fact there was a very real need to relate the stars to the Sun?s path, because ancient astrology and astronomy (not to mention the calendar) revolved around the heliacal rising and settings of stars and constellations. This is the pivotal ?rising and setting? that Anonymous talks about, in addition to stars co-culminating or co-rising with the degree of the ascendant, or the other angles. (And please note that 'co-rising' makes reference to the zodiacal degree, not the apparent appearance of the star according to latitude. This is why, for example, Anonymous tells us that Lyra (dec. 39N/lat. 62N) ?co-rises? with the 20th degree of Sagittarius ? this is its longitude position for 379 AD. Hence Lyra ?co-rises? with that degree).

If it was as simple as just using longitude why did Ptolemy apparently take the trouble to plot the rising, culminating and setting times of stars in particular locations in the ancient world?

Both Anonymous and Hephaistio follow Ptolemy. It is the heliacal rising of a star that is being referred to, and once it was known that a star was ?helically rising? it was necessary to find the locations where this degree was either rising on the ascendant or culminating on the midheaven. Think about the wise men moving to the location of the bright star in the east ? oriens/'rising' ? because as Anonymous tells us, someone born on the day of a heliacal rising, will find most greatness in the places where that star was rising on the ascendant or culminating at that time.

How do we know the degree of the helical rising? ? it is the degree of the zodiac where the Sun transits the star every year: its longitude position. And this is what Ptolemy explains in detail.

This is challenging, I know, because other modern sources have explained things differently. That is one of the reasons why I want to explain it properly at a better time.

But as I mentioned, various authors, including Anonymous, state that although conjunction by longitude is relevant, conjunction by longitude and latitude is preferred. And I agree there is a point where we are forced to shift our perspective to accommodate, say, circumpolar stars more appropriately. I?m not rejecting your viewpoint entirely, but the suggestion of abandoning the ecliptic, or using only the stars that lie in the zodiac, or dumping certain textbooks in the dustbin (!), is too extreme for me. I?m also not sure if you realise that your proposed solution is not actually supported by the historical texts you mention. The best of all of these is Ptolemy's Almagest books VII-IX (I'm not saying this is the best text available to students of astrology, but that it is the best text to understand if you want to know what Hephaistio and Anonymous expected you to know).

Deb

MarkC wrote: This issue coming up from previous discussion concerns the legitimacy or not of considering fixed stars well outside the ecliptic as ever being 'on the MC'.

Hello Mark and everybody
It's a long thread , and English does not help me so maybe I'm repeating something already written.

I miss something. Why we are talking about MC? Stars at MC are paranatellonta too..
Boll in his wonderful book Sphaera, which is the unsurpassed Bible about fixed stars, says that for ancients a star in angle is an angle whatever angle is.
We can see this in Astrolabium Planum where in many cases the image does not show the star rising in that degree, but culminating or setting or at IC.

For example:
"A crowned king holding an orb in his right hand and a scepter in his left hand."

The image is clearly depicting Cepheus (11 Aquarius at the MC ), but the image has Gemini at the Ascendant.

My personal view for what it is worth is that describing a star well outside the ecliptic such as Algol or Vega as on the MC because its shares the same longitude is inappropriate. Part of the problem as I see it is that we are trying to use the straight jacket of the ecliptic where it becomes quite irrelevent.

I agree 100% .
A star like Algol has a latitude of 22 degrees, it is very far from the ecliptic.

I personally think it is acceptable to work with these stars based on just longitude as if they were planets. ........ Many traditional sources such as Cardano refer to stars being more powerful close to the ecliptic in terms of latitude. This seems to be a traditional recognition that an approach simply based on longitude is less effective for stars outside the ecliptic.

In every case Cardano uses stars in longitude and in his comment to Tetrabiblos, he gives a long list of possibilities, in the sixth point "quae cum aliquo planeta in longitudine iunctae sunt", which for me - for what
I understand means "the ones which in conjunction with some planet by longitude".

I meant that I'm not sure that in Renaissance they did not use stars in longitude.

If we are going to work with stars well outside the ecliptic I support Robert Hand's position that we should be abandoning the ecliptic entirely and following the technique of Anonymous of 379 which focuses exclusively on the co-arising, culminating, setting and anti-culminating of such stars in local space.

This is what Giuseppe Bezza says too.

Anyway he considers even stars with planets. As I wrote in a previous thread he teaches that stars are moved from the motion of the primum mobile, i.e. the daily motion, so he calculates the position in mundo and then he turns this position in an ecliptical degree.
So Algol with the Sun means something for him. Renaissance astrologers did not discard fixed stars with planets. At the moment I'm translating Jean Stade who has a long chapter about fixed stars in nativity, anyway I don't know when I will finish.
In every case for example (from the part I already translated):

The heart of the Scorpio with Venus, musicians or brilliant poets. or The head of Ophiucus with the Moon makes the unfaithful, evasive, cunning ones; with Mercury the brilliant and far sighted.

Now I will read the rest of the thread
Margherita

I can agree with most of Mark?s ideas. I think there is some confusion here with different reference systems. One is the ecliptic, the zodiac, which comprises the sun and the planets. The other is the topocentric system which defines the horizon and the meridian. Can you mix the two? ? I think not.

I am a visual person and writing English is not my strength. So I like pictures.


The first picture shows an alienation of the Moon, Pluto and the fixed star Alphard. They are all culminating together. The Meridian is the thin orange line in the middle; the ecliptic is the fat yellow line.
One can assume that there is an ?interaction? between the three. It?s a paran.

The second picture shows the horoscopic view at the same time. There is a conjunction of Moon, MC and Pluto. But Alphard? Its ecliptic longitude is 26?35? Leo.

Is Pluto conjunct (or better: aligned with) Alphard when it is at ecliptic degree 26?35? Leo? ? I could agree with that. Why? ? Because Pluto belongs to the Ecliptic, is projected on the Ecliptic like Alphard, too.

So is Alphard really conjunct the MC when the MC is at 26?35? Leo? ? sorry but this sounds absurd to me. The MC is a line or better a great circle, not an 'object' on the ecliptic plane.
A projection via the two different reference system sounds to me like shooting around a corner with a crooked (curved?) gun.
I think we should stay in the same reference system when we make a connection (or aspect) between heavenly objects.
So I think Alphard is on the MC when it culminates, when it passes the Meridian and not when the Meridian passes Alphard's ecliptic projection point.
The same goes for the Horizon/Asc of course.

Ren?

Hi Ren?,

your graphics are phantastic and show very clearly, that MC, Moon, Pluto and Alphard are all lying on the Prime Meridian and therefor are all culminating together.

If we would be very precise on the minute neither the Moon, nor Pluto or Alphard would be ON the MC, because dropping a perpendicular from planets and star on the ecliptic to ascertain their ecliptical longitude, would let Pluto be there before the Moon, followed by the MC (shown by your graphics), then Alphard more near Regulus, and at last Regulus.

Thank you for these graphics, which schow very clearly, that a star on the Prime Meridian, with still greater ecliptical latitude (or better greater or lesser declination because of the equatorial reference system the Prime Merdian belongs to) than Alphard in your example would be on the ecliptic far more off the MC before ore after it and never could be on the MC at all!

Johannes

Just to illustrate, this is the situation at the time when the Meridian cuts the Ecliptic at a longitude of 26?35? Leo, half an hour after Alphard culminated. It is hard to see any connection between the MC and Alphard.

But now it looks like Alphard being just ON the MC, doesn't it?

Drop a perpendicular from Alphard to the ecliptic . . . and you get the connection between Alphard and MC now!

I also want to thank you 3D (such an appropriate user-name) - your diagrams show the 3D effect beautifully.

But which software it is? How it is called? It looks so beautiful...
Margherita