Skyscript Astrology Forum

Background: I have an interest, astrological and historical, in the Lizzie Borden murder case. For those who might not know, the trial of Lizzie Borden in 1893, was to the late 19th century, what the OJ trial in the US was in the late 20th century - sensational. And they both had the same outcome. Like OJ it is all but impossible to believe anyone other than Lizzie killed her stepmother and father with an axe in their home. Unlike OJ, from what I've read, the prosecution didn't have a great case. The murder weapon to this day has never been identified, much less found. An axe is a very good guess. And if she committed two grisly murders, how is it that she didn't have a drop of blood on her? There may well be answers to these and other questions, but the jury set her free in less time than the OJ jury took.

Still I keep reading and I discovered that astrologer Barbara Watters wrote a book titled Astrology looks at murder, consisting of an astrological explanation of murder and murders written by Ms Watters.

I immediately jumped to the Lizzie Borden chapter and realized with some disappointment, that the book is not written with experienced astrologers in mind, but is aimed at a more general public. Towards the end though Ms Watters switches gears and notes the influence of a fixed star on her ASC. However this is not a conjunction by longitude or paran a la' Bernadette Brady. Instead she uses right ascension to that point:

The right ascension on the fixed star Zosma falls on 17 Virgo (Watters claims this is Lizzie's ASC)

I confess I've never seen this particular technique and wonder about its validity. I find much of Watter's delineation to be a stretch, but this one I've never heard of. Has anyone run into this anywhere?

Tom

For those who want to play

Lizzie Borden
July 19, 1860
Fall River, Massachusetts, USA
9:46 AM LMT + 4:44:37
25 Virgo rises*

Date of murders: Aug 4, 1892

Date of beginning of trial June 20, 1893

*Watters does not give a birth time much less documentation for a 17 Virgo (no minutes given) ascendant. The time above is from Astrodatabank and rated A (from memory).

Try the chart with both a quadrant house system and whole sign houses. Watters portrayal of Lizzie's personality is very dark and fits the 12th house nicely. She also brings into the picture details of a clandestine real estate deal that was kept from Lizzie and her sister Emma, for fear of their anger, particularly Lizzie's. This deal was supposed to consummated on the day of the murders, but the amount of money involved although substantial for the time, is very small compared to the rest of Andrew Borden's fortune.

Tom wrote:However this is not a conjunction by longitude or paran a la' Bernadette Brady. Instead she uses right ascension to that point: [...] I confess I've never seen this particular technique and wonder about its validity. I find much of Watter's delineation to be a stretch, but this one I've never heard of. Has anyone run into this anywhere?

Robson, pp. 96-97, says that 'it has been suggested that a star may operate through the degree to which its R.A. corresponds', but he doesn't say by whom it was suggested, or when.

Robson, pp. 96-97, says that 'it has been suggested that a star may operate through the degree to which its R.A. corresponds', but he doesn't say by whom it was suggested, or when.

You know the more I think about this idea, the more I wonder if maybe Watters has a point. If I have this right, Ptolemy assigned degrees of longitude by projecting the stars onto the degrees of the ecliptic regardless of how far from the ecliptic the star was located, e.g Algol. Why not use right ascension to do the same thing? It seems no less valid. Obviously I haven't tried this, but I wonder if it isn't worth looking at.

Robson says this of Zosma:

"It causes benefit by disgrace, selfishness, egotism, immorality, meanness, melancholy, unhappiness of mind and fear of poison, and gives an unreasonable, shameless and egotistical nature."

Actually that is a pretty good description of Lizzie Borden. Assuming her ASC is 17 Virgo this would appear to work. She didn't benefit by disgrace, strictly speaking. She benefited by murder. The disgrace came later. Most of the other stuff might be right.

Tom

Tom wrote: You know the more I think about this idea, the more I wonder if maybe Watters has a point.

So why we don't take RA to calculate primary directions to the Ascendant?
RA in my opinion can have a meaning just with culmination, but for me even longitude of stars has little meaning being them so far from the ecliptic,


margherita

Margherita wrote:

I don't understand why your Barbara Watters considers RA of stars with Ascendant.

It does seem quite appropriate to be discuusing her book right now. I believe Barbara Watters book An Astrologer Looks at Murder was first published in 1969 so its the book's 40th anniversary this year. The book still generates a lot of interest. For example two astrologers in my area are giving a talk this month on the astrology of murder and are examining lots of charts in comparison with Watters ideas. I dont know why but Scotland seems to have produced more than its fair share of serial killers in comparison to any other part of the UK.

Actually Scottish natal data provides a good source for natal research for anyone seriously interested in the astrology of murder (or any topic where accurate AA data is required). This is because Scotland (unlike England, Wales or Ireland) records all birth times on birth certificates. I would highly recommend a book on Scottish natal data just published entitled A Multitude of Lives Its by an astrologer called Paul Wright based in Edinburgh.

Getting to the right ascension point it does seem counter intuitive when you first hear it. Does mixing two co-ordinate systems have merit?

I should point out that Joseph Crane in his book The Hellenistic Legacy, suggests that Hephaisio of Thebes (early 5th century AD) advocated working with stars outside the ecliptic that were linked to a planet or angle by celestial declination. Crane suggests this has particular utility for stars like Sirius that are far from ecliptic by latitude but still share declination with the ecliptic. I am not altogether convinced by Crane's interpretation of that section in Hephaistio but I thought I should put this in to give some balance to the discussion.

Margherita in her blog has information about the 16th century astrologer Jean Stade?s who utilised fixed stars by declination in his work Fixis Stellis Commentarius (1560). A very helpful translation of segments has been provided by Lucia Bellizia and Margherita!

http://heavenastrolabe.net/stade-on-fixed-stars/

So I suppose the argument could be that if we can work with declination why not right ascension?

I am not sure if this approach even makes astronomical sense. My brain struggles mathematically and visually to work out how these arcs would intersect. However even if it is possible its surely scraping the astrological barrel in terms of a meaningful astrological connnection with a star and horoscope?

I would suggest a possible fixed star hierachy for delineation in terms of connection between a star and a planet or angle could be:

1 Bodily conjunction (in mundo)

2 Conjunction by ecliptical longitude (not including latitude)

3 Conjunction by latitude (not longitude)

4 Stars on angles simultaneous to planets ( Brady's use of the term 'Paran')

5 Conjunction by celestial declination (Crane's suggestion)

This is only a tentative suggestion by the way. Feel free to totally disagree with it all in true skyscript tradition.

I have left out right ascension from the list to allow more discussion of its merits. Eddy do you have any astronomical insights regarding the implications of this approach?

MarkC wrote: It does seem quite appropriate to be discuusing her book right now. I believe Barbara Watters book An Astrologer Looks at Murder was first published in 1969 so its the book's 40th anniversary this year.

I'm not contesting Barbara Watters, just I'm doubtful about taking RA for Ascendant.

This is Ptolemy which has mentioned- but I believe there are not doubts about this,

Further, in prorogations of the ascendant, the degrees of distances will be equal in number to the ascensional times of the particular latitude; but, in prorogation, from the mid-heaven, to the times of culmination; and, in other prorogations, they will be in proportion to the ascensions, or descensions, or culminations, and will depend on their proximity to the angles; as has been already said in treating of the duration of life.

Why we should take stars in RA when points with Ascendant rise with their oblique ascensions?

It is not like that we calculate primary directions of the Ascendant? The direction is just the difference between two points in OA. Why we should involve RA?

p.s. thanks to have mentioned Lucia Bellizia, she did an hard work with the text too.

margherita

Why we should take stars in RA when points with Ascendant rise with their oblique ascensions?

A fair question which someone with a better grasp on the maths and astronomy should try and answer! Assuming there is a decent answer. Or was Watters talking nonsense?

Eddy are you free?

Mark

MarkC wrote:

Why we should take stars in RA when points with Ascendant rise with their oblique ascensions?

A fair question which someone with a better grasp on the maths and astronomy should try and answer! Assuming there is a decent answer. Or was Watters talking nonsense?

Eddy are you free?

Mark

Not Eddy, but Ed.

My opinion is that for astrological purposes, the "earth" perspective should be one that models ascension of points on the celestial sphere. So the use of mundane position as Margherita proposes is what makes sense rather than the use of right ascension. This is what primary directions are about. Of course, just to keep things in a muddle as usual, there is a long tradition of directing the mundane positions of the ecliptic intersects of planets and other points. Don't use those myself.

- Ed

MarkC wrote:

Why we should take stars in RA when points with Ascendant rise with their oblique ascensions?

A fair question which someone with a better grasp on the maths and astronomy should try and answer! Assuming there is a decent answer. Or was Watters talking nonsense?

Eddy are you free?

Mark

As free as one who had an exam on administrative procedural law till just an hour ago

Notwithstanding what should be the used method (longitude, mundane) I have the feeling that pragmatism played a significant role in Watters' choice for positions in Right Ascension. I googled for the book and it dates from 1969. Astronomers note planetary- and starpositions in right ascension and declination. In those years there were no computers and I might be wrong but I think think she just couldnt get a list of fixed stars in ecliptical/latitudinal position. (however those did exist)

I wouldn't have problems with star positions in RA (after positions in Ecl/Lat it would be my next favoured reference system) but in that case the equator would be the reference frame of which the 'ascendant', i.e. the intersection of the reference frame (here thus the equator) with the horizon would always be the point 90? further than the meridian.

Note that the star in this case usually won't be on the horizon, just as in the case with using longitudinal positions.

With a house table or another astronomical table it is easy to find the equatorial point coinciding with the ecliptical point. Then a star with the same equatorial position is looked for. Yet in my opinion it would be a bit of mixing of reference frames ecl. for determinating the ascendant, eq. for the position of the star. This would manifestate if there would be an example in the book where Watters notes a planet on the Ascendant in ecliptical coordinates at the same time with a star on the Ascendant in equatorial coordinates.

(sorry, library is closing now but this is what I think how her use can be explained, perhaps not a very 'elegant' answer)

Yes this is the 40th anniversary of An Astrologer Looks at Murder, and it is really my first exposure to Ms Watters other than reading what others have said about her. Again my interest in the book is the Lizzie Borden case and to date this is the only chapter I've read. Frankly the astrology isn't all that impressive. I would place its level of sophistication somewhere between sun signs and cookbooks. This is not to say this is the best she can do. I have no idea why she wrote this book and perhaps it was aimed at a wider audience than one comprised solely of knowledgeable astrologers. She gives some quick explanations in the beginning of the book perhaps believing that at least some of her audience would have zero astrological knowledge. Yet right ascension, regardless of what we think of this theory, is a more advanced topic. I have the feeling the publisher told her to throw in something for everyone.

There are some astrological references that are inexplicable. I mean how many of us knew that the 17 Virgo - Pisces axis was an axis of violence?

Another testimony of violence in Lizzie's chart is the degree that marks the axis of the first and seventh houses -- herself and other people. 17 Virgo or Pisces is violent. It is strangely common in the charts of assassins, who by killing a prominent political figure commit symbolic parricide. Both the father and the ruler of a country are authoritarian figures. - p 89

The two most famous assassins in the US are John Wilkes Booth (Lincoln) and Lee Harvey Oswald (JFK). Neither one has anything on the 17 Virgo Pisces axis.

Watters does throw some light on some of the seemingly odd behavior in the Borden family that went on that day. In fact she seems to be a little more knowledgeable about a few things than the staff currently giving tours at the Lizzie Borden House. But her zeal to pin the rap on Lizzie gets in the way of her thought processes. She tells us up front that Lizzie wasn't too bright (probably true) and yet had foresight on the spur of the moment that an experienced Mafia hit man would envy. Oswald had time to figure out how to kill Kennedy, did a poor job, and was captured in about two hours. Borden had less time, wasn't arrested for a few weeks or months after the crimes, and was acquitted.

How was all this accomplished? Neptune!! Neptune is at once the planet due to its presence in the 7th house created the myths about Lizzie that people wanted to believe (her innocence) and yet this same Neptune is conjunct the violent star Scheat and makes Lizzie violent. Which is it: the public myths or personal violence? Oh it's Neptune; it's both. This time the star is conjunct Neptune in longitude.

The astrology isn't all that hot, but then we get this apparently new way of using fixed stars - pretty advanced stuff on page 90 of a book that has to explain the glyphs.

Thank you all for your comments. Keep them coming.

Tom

I have the feeling that pragmatism played a significant role in Watters' choice for positions in Right Ascension

I have a feeling that the method was "throw it at the wall and see if it sticks".

Probably was the only way to connect any star of that nature to the ascendant