skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Help! Experiences with Scheat
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
If we start introducing every kind of chart and astrological permutation there is bound to be an appropriate hit along the way somewhere.

What's so wrong with the common and frequently used method of looking at the New Moon chart before a major event? It's hardly “ every kind of chart and astrological permutation”.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4960
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Kirk,

The chart may have legitimacy but its hardly a killer argument. My point is that there are various valid approaches. Ingress charts, new moon charts, Solar return charts, US national charts and of course the event chart itself.

Also to use the old Brtitish phrase 'one swallow does not make a summer'.

The thing is we are all guilty in astrology of quoting the hits and deleting out the misses from our recollection. That is why I put up the Katrina landfall chart.

If sufficient evidence can be brought to bear from mundane charts to support the astrological projection method on such stars way outside the ecliptic fair enough. I am open to persuasion. I always reserve the right to change my mind.

Mundane events might provide a better way to progress this discussion but then this is the natal forum. Confused

Still, it seems to be we will never agree on natal because experiences are so subjective. RC clearly had a powerful personal experience which she links to that direction to Scheat. While I accept her experience I am not going to accept her technique on faith. Tongue Out Not least because it seems to me this general approach is based on faulty astronomy. This is in no way a personalised criticism though. I would apply the same objection to nearly all the medieval and renaissance astrologers too who used this technique. Lilly is a good example. Ironically, helllenistic astrologers like Anonymous of 379 were more sophisticated in their fixed star work with stars outside the ecliptic/zodiac.

I'm sure most of us would object if another astrologer adopted a sloppy approach to the calculation of where a planet was. The same general approach seems to have become acceptable for certain fixed stars well outside the ecliptic. I've heard the objection this is too complicated. Its much simpler and easier to have stars permanently floating around at certain degrees in our head. 26 Taurus ahhh Algol! Scheat ahh 29 Pisces! That approach is acceptable for stars on the ecliptic. Its worth learning those stars close to the ecliptic. Their ecliptical degrees will give a fairly accurate idea where they really are in terms of zodical degrees anywhere on earth.

A great starting point is Anne Wright's excellent website on fixed stars:

http://www.constellationsofwords.com/Fixedstars.htm

Here you can check the stars by longitude and then on each star page check its latitude in relation to the ecliptic.

How far you are willing to go outside the ecliptic either side is a matter of choice. If you work with traditional planets then you could allow stars about 8 degrees of latitude either side of the ecliptic. If you use Pluto you could allow a zodiac up to 17 degrees of latitude either side of the ecliptic. However, even with Pluto we already start to get issues. At its furtheset out from the ecliptic it can be up to half a sign away in mundo from where it appears with zodiacal projection.

For those stars well stars outside the ecliptic such as Scheat, Algol or Vega zodiacal projection creates nothing less than an astronomical fantasy land. You might as well replace these stars with Sabian symbols if your approach is going to be totally symbolic.


Last edited by Mark on Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:12 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
RC



Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 475

Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

chrysalis wrote:
For the natal Sun to progress to Scheat would be a worry yes, but typically something really major in the life is announced with more than one progression perfecting near the same time. Still it might be wise for your friend to avoid boating for the time being.

One of the better examples I can recall of the influence of Scheat manifesting in mundane astrology is in the new Moon chart prior to hurricane Katrina, when set for New Orleans, Louisiana (August 4th, 2005 10:03 pm, CDT.) Scheat is dead on the ascendant.


My friend had overwhelming thoughts of suicide one night recently and asked me to stay with them until they passed. They truly did not trust themselves not to do it and were really scared of their own thoughts!

This was so out of the ordinary for them. Until I directed their chart today, I didn't know what was causing this. Sun is right on 29:28 Pisces in their directed 12th house. One of the readings for Scheat is suicidal thoughts.

RC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kerenhappuch



Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 396
Location: UK

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An interesting thread, both on Scheat and a more general discussion of the history and uses of the fixed stars. I can offer myself as an additional guinea pig - my Sun is at 28'18" Pisces. The (old!) version of Solar Fire I have puts Scheat at 29'10", which is just within a degree of my Sun.

The "free thinking" aspect I can relate to - but I always thought this was shown by Mars 22 Sag conj Uranus 25 Sag squaring Mercury R at 23 Pisces (also applying square to Sun). Lala Happy

Mental health issues - the Mars/Sun square reliably delivers difficult times when activated, most frequently by a hard Mars transit. Scheat perhaps amplifies the effects, or makes the native more sensitive to such troubles?

Aquarius rises, giving Sun as L7. As L7 often describes the partner/spouse, I wonder what themes in past/future relationships would be shown by Scheat? Perhaps the future Mr Keren-Happuch will turn out to be a Scheat-type chap?

RC - you seem pretty fired up about the effects of this star. Any more information on the specific events you have seen linked to it? An example would be useful for illustration.

Keren
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gunhilde



Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Posts: 800

Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 8:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The "free thinking" aspect I can relate to - but I always thought this was shown by Mars 22 Sag conj Uranus 25 Sag squaring Mercury R at 23 Pisces (also applying square to Sun).



That's not free thinking, KH, that's anarchic! Shocked

I, too, have a Uranus (Libra)/Mercury (Capricorn) square, but Mars stayed away.

GH:)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4960
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe I can make my point better by illustrating it in a few charts. Here is one to kick off:

Albert Einstein: born March 14th , 1879 at 11:30 AM in Ulm (Germany), MC in 12°50 Pisces

If we project Scheat on to the zodiac it will be at the same place on all charts on earth that day at around 27 Pisces. In fact due to precession it will only move one zodiac degree every 72 years.

In reality though stars do move in relation to the earth since the earth moves! The diurnal motion of the earth means stars do move across different points in the chart minute by minute. In Ulm, Germany for example the star Scheat was directly overhead on the MC at the moment of Einstein's birth. So the star was really overhead at 12.50 Pisces not where the projection method generalised it would be across earth.

Here is another chart that demonstrates how the zodical projection method distorts what is actually happening in the real sky with stars well outside the ecliptic. The stars Vega is +61 degrees north of the ecliptic so projecting this star produces even worse distortions than withy Scheat. Rather than being a half sign out in some cases we are nearly two signs out on the stars actual location in the real sky.

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 14 Capricorn anywhere on earth that day.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
kerenhappuch



Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 396
Location: UK

Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lala Happy anarchic, I like that Gunhilde! At school I was labelled with an "attitude problem" - secretly my mother was quite proud of that. (she has Sun opp Uranus) Laughing

MarkC:

I agree wholeheartedly with your comments on astrologers being out of touch with the realities of what goes on in the sky. We are too used to sitting at our computers and having a neat chart come up instantly, with no knowledge of what it *actually* means - even if we were to go outside and look up, we would not know what we were actually looking at! Even the concept of what "retrograde" actually means is lost on a frightening number of "astrologers". But I digress...

However, the prevailing climate aside - I think on Skyscript we are always ready to learn Smile

I think I speak for a lot of members when I admit to being less than clear in my understanding of how the fixed stars are given their zodiacal degrees. Let's go back to basics for a minute for those who may be reading and struggling to understand (including me!).

I understand that the ecliptic is a ring around the Earth which is the path of the Sun. We divide this into 12 to get our sidereal zodiac. Planets and stars are found on either side of this path - hence declination, which shows how far from the path (above or below) the star or planet is at that time.

The problem with some fixed stars is their extremes of declination - they are positioned way above or way below the ecliptic. The question you have raised is how to give these stars a zodiacal degree when they are so far above or below the ecliptic.

I understand what you have said about Vega being projected onto the ecliptic and being in Capricorn, but that it was rising at the same time as Scorpio. To me this sounds relevant and important:

So - what method allows us to find out what is rising even when it is not projected into that zodiac sign? How would I go about doing the same in my charts? Is this what Solar Fire does when it looks for "parallels" and "contra parallels"? What's the difference between the two "parallels"?

Sorry to be going back to basics, but I think it's important to get basics down before we set off on more complex ideas!

To me it looks like a grid. Up/down, we project the star onto the ecliptic. Left/right, we can see when it physically rises/culminates.

Is my understanding correct?

Keren
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4960
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The problem with some fixed stars is their extremes of declination - they are positioned way above or way below the ecliptic. The question you have raised is how to give these stars a zodiacal degree when they are so far above or below the ecliptic.


Hi Keren,

Well yes and no. That is certainly part of the problem but its by no means the whole story in regards the issues thrown up by zodiacal projection of such stars.

Lets get back to basics as you suggest and clarify the fundamental astronomical concepts central to discussing fixed stars:

Celestial Latitude refers to how far a star is outside the ecliptic either north or south expressed as + or - I have been emphasizing the problem of extremes of latitide. Trying to fit stars well outside the ecliptic on to zodiac degree for the whole planet is a bit like trying to fit a size 20 woman into a size 8 dress. Its possible yes but at what cost? Neither will come out of the process without some injury/damage!

This can lead to weird results. For example if you project the stars Spica and Arcturus they appear to be close to each on the zodiac at 24 Libra. In reality though nothing could be further from the truth! While Spica is smack bang on the ecliptic Arcturus has a celestial latitude of 30+ putting it way outside the ecliptic. In the real sky they are nowhere near each other.

Zodical projection can actually produce quite silly results with stars well outside the ecliptic. For example, say your ascendant is at 7 Taurus. If you check a simple list of stars the fixed star Schedir, in the constellation of Cassiopeia appears to be linked to that degree. However, this star is way outside the ecliptic at +46 degrees. Moreover, its declination of +56 means its going to be circumpolar for most of us in the northern hemisphere. In other words the star stays overhead and never rises and sets. So how can it be on the ascendant?

The same situation could occur on earth with the star Scheat when 29 pisces rises. Thus if you are an astrologer in say Mexico city, Miami, or Honolulu the star Scheat is always going to appear overhead (circumpolar) to you. Placing the star on the ascendant in such charts is therefore based on a misunderstanding of astronomical reality.


Celestial declination is another vital astronomical concept. Here we measure stars north or south of the celestial equator. Unlike the ecliptic which crosses the earth at an oblique angle the celestial equator is like a projection of the terrestrial equator going out into space.

Keep in mind at this point that what we call our latitude on earth equates to celestial declination! Thus if you know your latitude and the declination of a star we can establish whether we can see it and whether it will rise and set or stay overhead (circumpolar).

Take the star Rigil Kentaurus ( Alpha Centauri) for example. It has a celestial declination of -61. That means it can only be seen up to a latitude of around 29 in the northern hemisphere. The reason for this is that you can only view a star up to 90 degrees away in celestial declination from the latitude of your location on earth.

Equally, if you know your terrestrial latitude you can easily work out if a star is circumpolar ( never rises or sets) from your location on earth. In short, any star whose position from the pole is less than the observers latitude , will be circumpolar and will never set below the horizon. I.e. If the observer latitude is 45°N and is facing north, then any star will become circumpolar if it lies less than 45° in declination from the north celestial pole. If the observer's latitude is -35°S and is facing south, then these stars are circumpolar within 35° of the south celestial pole. Stars on the equator will not be circumpolar in either hemisphere. If you were were standing exactly at the North or South Pole then all the stars around you would be circumpolar.

Hope this is clear? If not here is a specific example. Say you are in London looking at the night sky. Your latitude is 51, 32 N. This coverts to 51.32N in terms of celestial declination. So a star with a declination of 52N is closer to the North celestial Pole and therefore is always circumpolar from London.

In many ancient cultures the main focus was on stars that rose and set and 'touched the earth'. This is the way cultures like the Babylonians, Ancient Egyptians and Mayans/Aztecs observed the night sky. They would carefully observe the rising, culmination and setting of stars. So in this way of working with stars circumpolar stars have less direct emphasis as they are always overhead and only ever touch the MC of the chart.
This method working with stars did continue into the time of the Roman Empire. The main astrological source we have for this kind of way of working with stars is the astrologer known as Anonymous of 379. Unfortunately, as astrology became less interested in the real sky and focused exclusively on the ecliptic this way of working with stars died out. It has only really, been revived in the last 15 years or so and its main populariser is Bernadette Brady. This way of working allows us to work with stars way outside the ecliptic based on their actual positions in relation to the specific chart in question.

At the other extreme from the 'visual astrology' or locational way of working with stars some astrologers take the zodiacal projection method one step further away from what we can see in the real sky. They actually work with stars that have a declination that means they NEVER rise in the location of the chart. Diana Rosenburg does this. So for example say you have a planet/angle at 29 scorpio. That is where the star Rigil kentaurus ( Alpha Centauri) can be projected on to the zodiac. If you project that star on to the plane of the ecliptic its around 29 Scorpio. Diana Rosenberg will use this star in all charts even though the star is never seen in most of Europe and North America.

Quote:
I understand what you have said about Vega being projected onto the ecliptic and being in Capricorn, but that it was rising at the same time as Scorpio. To me this sounds relevant and important:


Historically, astrologers have taken the view that stars and constellations retain their essential nature irrespective of what sign they co-rise at. For example, the star Antares, can be projected on to the tropical zodiac sign of sagittarius. However, the star retains its Mars-Jupiter nature and is still 'the heart of the Scorpion'. However, I would delinate this as a powerful connection to the star if it was on an angle or next to a planet.

Quote:
So - what method allows us to find out what is rising even when it is not projected into that zodiac sign? How would I go about doing the same in my charts? Is this what Solar Fire does when it looks for "parallels" and "contra parallels"? What's the difference between the two "parallels"?


Parallels is really a different subject but it is related to this discussion. Its its worth knowing what a parallel is. In traditional astrology the main emphasis was if two planets had the same latitude on the ecliptic. Stars like Spica and Regulus often have the same latitude as a planet because they are right on the ecliptic. sometimes they have the same longitude too so we get an occultation of the star by a planet. This happens with the Moon quite often. This is why the influence of these stars is especially important.

A parallel of declination is useful to observe for stars that are otherwise well outside the ecliptic ( not too far!). This means two planets or a star and planet have the same declination in terms of degrees in relationship to the celestial equator. This is useful for stars like Sirius that is far south of the ecliptic but often comes into alignment with a planet or angle in terms of declination. Joseph Crane suggests the Ancient Greek astrologers used this as another way of connecting stars and planets for stars outside the ecliptic. In modern astrology most references to parallels are about parallels of declination. Modern astrology has developed a whole system around this known as 'Out of Bounds' theory. If anyone is interested I refer them to Paul Newman's book 'Declination'. However, this is getting rather technical so lets get back to the essence of your question.

If you are asking about astrological software most programmes like Solar Fire, Kepler, Janus can now do this. However, if you really want to go to town Bernadette Brady's programme 'Starlight' is the Rolls Royce option. If you are using solar fire go to star parans. Actually, parans is a bit more advanced than what i am discussing but the programme also lists stars co-rising on the angles and with particular planets.

Perhaps I need to explain parans simply? Think of the cross of matter=four angles. A star and planet on any one of these angles simultaneously is in paran and therefore astrologically connected.

If you see the star paran feature on solar fire you will see listed when stars rise, culminate, set and anti-culminate with with planets or the angles.

Be aware though that the software lists all these 'parans' and connections all that day. This is the way Bernadette Brady works. She argues any parans formed by stars and planets on the day of birth are important. However, I only focus on stars on the angles or in paran at the exact moment of birth. These connections are far less numerous but much more powerful astrologically in my view.

I think if we are going to determine the real influence of a star this is the best way to do it.

Traditionally, you can also delineate when a star will influence your life based on which angle it falls on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
margherita



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1367
Location: Rome, Italy

Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="MarkC"]
Quote:


Be aware though that the software lists all these 'parans' and connections all that day. This is the way Bernadette Brady works. She argues any parans formed by stars and planets on the day of birth are important.


Hello Mark,
please can you give me a traditional source for this? I'm looking for it since a long time...

On the other hand I completely agree with you. In order to put stars in a chart I'm using an astronomical software or formulas Bezza gives.
Still for some strange reason it seems to me that Astrolabium Planum, which derives from fixed stars positions, works even we don't update degrees. I saw this many times.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4960
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Hello Mark,
please can you give me a traditional source for this? I'm looking for it since a long time...


Hi Gjiada

The only 'traditional' source I am aware of that emphatically proposes the locational approach to fixed stars is ''Anonymous of 379 on The Fixed Stars.'' There is a translation of this currently available from Project Hindsight, translated by Robert Schmidt and edited by Robert Hand.

http://www.projecthindsight.com/archives/hellenistic.html

Another free online version has been translated into Italian translated by Giuseppe Bezza and rendered into English by Daria Dudziak. However, the Schmidt translation is fuller and much better annotated.

http://www.cieloeterra.it/eng/eng.testi.379/eng.379.html

I do not believe there is any traditional source that supports what Brady advocates ie looking at parans throughout the day of a person's birth. Certainly not Anonymous of 379 which she cites as her main source. Of course Brady's approach has the advantage that lots of star parans happen with planets in a day. Its certainly means everyone has some paran happening each day. It may be useful when there is no time of birth. Personally, though I think this approach dilutes the power of star connections tied to time of birth. For example, the artist Picasso had the bright star Sirius rising at the exact moment of his birth.

Incidentally, Picasso's chart is yet another chart showing the failure of zodiacal projection for stars outside the ecliptic. Sirius is the brightest star in the sky but its celestial latitude of -39.36 south of the ecliptic means it doesn't respond well to zodiacal projection. Picasso was born on October 25, 1881 at 23:15 PM in Malaga, Spain. His ascendant was 5.38 Leo with Sirius co-rising at that specific location. However, according to zodiacal projection the star was around 12 Cancer!

In his book 'The Hellenistic Legacy' Joseph Crane claims the idea of linking certain stars outside the ecliptic and planets by their celestial declination comes from Hephaistio of Thebes in his text the Apotelesmatics.

(See Apotelesmatics. , Hephaistio of Thebes, Book I, [tr. Robert H.Schmidt], Project Hindsight, Greek Track Vol. XV., The Golden Hind Press (Cumberland, MD), 1994)

http://www.projecthindsight.com/archives/hellenistic.html

However, it really depends what you mean by the word 'traditional' here. There is lots of evidence that Babylonian, Egyptian and Maya/Aztec astrology or star religion noted the passage of stars and planets rising , culminating and setting.

The original source of the decans for example dates back to Ancient Egypt. Decans first appeared in the 10th Dynasty (2100 BCE) on coffin lids. The sequence of these star patterns began with Sothis/Sirius, and each decan contained a set of stars and corresponding divinities. As measures of time, the rising and setting of decans marked 'hours' and groups of 10 days which comprised an Egyptian year. The 36 decans or 'star clocks' were used to mark the ancient Egyptian year (36 X 10 = 360 days), + plus 5 added days to make up to 365 days.

The idea of assigning planets to the decans comes much later and can probably be traced back to Egyptian astrology from the Roman era (Demotic texts).

As you are an authority on medieval and renaissance sources I would be most interested in your views here. In particular regarding the 'Paranatellonta' ( paran for short) as stars or star groups that fall upon angles at the same time that a significant constellation or planet is also upon the angles. Traditionally these are viewed as as 'attendants'. I understand that in ancient astrology the term was also applied to the constellations that ascended with the zodiacal decans? However, I get the impression that by the medieval and renaissance era this practice was based purely on the theoretical position of stars using zodiacal projection of stars? Is that correct based on the sources you have studied?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
margherita



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1367
Location: Rome, Italy

Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Code:

I do not believe there is any traditional source that supports what Brady advocates ie looking at parans throughout the day of a person's birth.
Certainly not Anonymous of 379 which she cites as her main source.


Hello Mark,
I think exactly the same.


Quote:
Of course Brady's approach has the advantage that lots of star parans happen with planets in a day. Its certainly means everyone has some paran happening each day



The motion of a star is the daily motion, so I'm sure I can find a lot of stars rising or culminating or setting during a whole day 'Razz'


Code:
Incidentally, Picasso's chart is yet another chart showing the failure of zodiacal projection for stars outside the ecliptic. Sirius is the brightest star in the sky but its celestial latitude of -39.36 south of the ecliptic means it doesn't respond well to zodiacal projection. Picasso was born on October 25, 1881 at 23:15 PM in Malaga, Spain. His ascendant was 5.38 Leo with Sirius co-rising at that specific location. However, according to zodiacal projection the star was around 12 Cancer!


Again I agree with you. Still you tried to play a little with Astrolabium Planum? Did you have receive it? Did you like it?
I can't check now but sometimes it works perfectly without updating degrees...For example in my birthchart I found it the description very proper for me. Anyway I can't show any statistics and I'm not interested in it.

Quote:
In his book 'The Hellenistic Legacy' Joseph Crane claims the idea of linking certain stars outside the ecliptic and planets by their celestial declination comes from Hephaistio of Thebes in his text the Apotelesmatics.


I have that book, I will read again pages about fixed stars. Is it something like parallels?


Quote:
As you are an authority on medieval and renaissance sources I would be most interested in your views here.


No Lala Happy
It's just I can read, so I collected several sources about paranatellonta.

Quote:

In particular regarding the 'Paranatellonta' ( paran for short) as stars or star groups that fall upon angles at the same time that a significant constellation or planet is also upon the angles. Traditionally these are viewed as as 'attendants'.
I understand that in ancient astrology the term was also applied to the constellations that ascended with the zodiacal decans?


I can't understand English here. Which word I should read for "these"?

Anyway this is the definition given by one of the (real) authorities together with Feraboli, Professor Wolfgang Hubner in Pauly Wissowa Encyclopedia.


stars 'rising alongside' (or συνανατέλλοντα/synanatéllonta, 'rising simultaneously') are constellations, parts thereof (also of the signs of the zodiac) or especially bright individual stars, which become visible or invisible at the same time as certain degrees or decanal sections (segments of 10 degrees) of the ecliptic. They were first described by Aratus [4] who was criticized by Hipparchus [6]. In antiquity, they were used for determining the seasons and for distinguishing zodiacal prognoses by astrologers. In addition to the four basic types (acronycal and heliacal (= cosmic) rise or descent: i.e. evening's first, evening's last, morning's first, and morning's last visibility), there are the constant ecliptic lengths, which are dependent on latitude, and, especially for the circumpolar constellations, also the two culminations. Teucer of Babylon created speculative links between the signs of the zodiac and the paranatellonta, with specific annual dates of particular importance [1; 2]. He was followed by Manilius [III 1], Firmicus Maternus, Rhetorius and others who also personified the paranatellonta (e.g. as stellar deities). A rich iconography (illuminations in manuscripts as well as descriptive texts) developed from this, which continued into the 16th cent.

Quote:
However, I get the impression that by the medieval and renaissance era this practice was based purely on the theoretical position of stars using zodiacal projection of stars? Is that correct based on the sources you have studied?


I saw updated catalogues in Renaissance astrologers, like Francescco Giuntini, true, still I have the idea they did not always use updated positions. And either I'm not sure they used really rising stars.
What do you think?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4960
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I can't understand English here. Which word I should read for "these"?


Sorry my english is quite cumbersome. Just replace with word 'Paranatellonta''

Quote:
The motion of a star is the daily motion, so I'm sure I can find a lot of stars rising or culminating or setting during a whole day


The cynic in me thinks there wouldn't be much mileage in marketing parans to everyone if they were restricted to those timed just to moment of birth. A lot of people will have nothing much going on. Sad

Quote:
Again I agree with you. Still you tried to play a little with Astrolabium Planum? Did you have receive it? Did you like it?


Sorry reallly busy right now. I am rushing to finish off some things before I head off to London. Looking forward to a one day workshop with Ben Dykes though. Very Happy

Quote:
I have that book, I will read again pages about fixed stars. Is it something like parallels?

Yes exactly. Parallels of declination between a star and planet. No contra-parallels though.

Quote:
No
It's just I can read, so I collected several sources about paranatellonta.


Your far too modest! Cool

Quote:
I saw updated catalogues in Renaissance astrologers, like Francescco Giuntini, true, still I have the idea they did not always use updated positions. And either I'm not sure they used really rising stars.
What do you think?


From the limited sources I have seen translated I have formed the impression that by the renaissance period use of stars by astrologers was reduced to consulting tables with zodiacal projection positions or using fixed stars in cabbalistic magic ( Cornelius Agrippa). So far Cardano has impressed me the most. He seems to have taken fixed stars more seriously than most. I have only read his aphorisms though. It would be great if a complete version of his Seven Segments was translated into english.

I know you have made a study of medieval use of decans/face so I was wondering what you thought! Confused

Ben Dykes translation of Bonatti's 'Book of Astronomy' suggests many of the star positions listed by Bonatti are not recognised astronomically. Either he was relying on corrupted Arabic sources, faulty star tables or these were more like cabbalistic magical points. Certainly, by the time of Lilly and Morin there seems to be little or no actual observation of stars in the sky. Although there are a lot of things I admire about european medieval and renaissance astrology I do not think fixed star work is something we need to be too reverential about. I therefore take statements from Lilly and other contemporaries about Algol, Sirius, Scheat etc with a pinch of salt. Not least because Lilly and his contemporaries did not calculate the actual position of such stars but relied on zodiacal projection for all stars. I think the hellenistic astrologers like Aratus, Geminus, Manilius, Ptolemy, Hephaistio, Firmicus, Anonymous, Rhetorius, etc have more insights to offer in regards fixed stars. Still, I do believe in testing out the fixed star lore in real charts rather than accepting it on faith. I am also open to other star lore ie Vedic, Chinese, Babylonian, Mayan etc rather than just relying on sources through the Hellenistic-Arabic-European transmission of fixed star associations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
kerenhappuch



Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 396
Location: UK

Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MarkC, thanks ever so much for your detailed post in reply to my "back to basics" questions. It is making more sense - a lot of info to take in so I will go and let it sink in then come back to it... I think you are very right to suggest that it is important to really look at the intricacies of where the stars physically are relative to one's position on Earth. I think that it makes a lot more sense to look at the precise position of each star and to correlate this with the precise position of the planets. In this way it is possible to sort out what is a major influence and what is merely sharing a degree which in physical reality it is very far from. That was poorly expressed but you know what I mean! For example I recall a time in the last couple of years where the Moon was right next to - I think it was Antares? - I could be wrong - but I went outside to see, thankfully the sky was clear and I live in a rural area, and I was very taken with how it looked in the sky - to see the Moon right next to a star that I had read about.

Lots to think about, thank you.

Keren
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
margherita



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1367
Location: Rome, Italy

Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
So far Cardano has impressed me the most.


Hello Mark,
still Cardano is the astrologer who desires delete all the Arab nonsense and writes more than once that Firmicus or Albumasar or Ali can't understand anything about astrology.

Anyway if you are thinking about the text about fixed stars in De iudiciis geniturarum it's not so awful, I should admit Smile

Quote:
He seems to have taken fixed stars more seriously than most. I have only read his aphorisms though. It would be great if a complete version of his Seven Segments was translated into english.


As already I wrote to you, Aphorisms are just a juvenile work and if this book is so famous in Anglosaxon world it's just because of Lilly translation.

I'm very doubtful Cardano would write again his Aphorisms after reading Camerararius version of Tetrabiblos, which changed his astrological vision and pushed him to write his own Comment to Tetrabiblos.

Quote:
I know you have made a study of medieval use of decans/face so I was wondering what you thought! Confused


At the moment I'm finishing to revise another text on paranatellonta, I will put on line very soon, in a couple of days.

Quote:
Ben Dykes translation of Bonatti's 'Book of Astronomy' suggests many of the star positions listed by Bonatti are not recognised astronomically. Either he was relying on corrupted Arabic sources, faulty star tables or these were more like cabbalistic magical points.


It depends on Bonatti source, I have not that book. Maybe Bonatti is referring to some stars of Barbarian sphere.
And even about Greek sphere, stars sometimes had a different position.
For example Hercules has a club in Medieval representations, not in Greek ones, but he has one in Teucer description.

Quote:
I think the hellenistic astrologers like Aratus, Geminus, Manilius, Ptolemy, Hephaistio, Firmicus, Anonymous, Rhetorius, etc have more insights to offer in regards fixed stars. Still, I do believe in testing out the fixed star lore in real charts rather than accepting it on faith.
Smile

I think the same. Still Albumasar version is very important, Liber VI had an enourmous impact till the Renaissance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4960
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Gjiada,

Quote:
still Cardano is the astrologer who desires delete all the Arab nonsense and writes more than once that Firmicus or Albumasar or Ali can't understand anything about astrology.

Ah he sounds like Morin! Still Morin seems to have been a very good astrologer despite his prejudices and arrogance.
Quote:
Anyway if you are thinking about the text about fixed stars in De iudiciis geniturarum it's not so awful, I should admit

Quote:
At the moment I'm finishing to revise another text on paranatellonta, I will put on line very soon, in a couple of days.

Indeed I recommend your blog for that and other goodies!!
Quote:
It depends on Bonatti source, I have not that book. Maybe Bonatti is referring to some stars of Barbarian sphere. And even about Greek sphere, stars sometimes had a different position. For example Hercules has a club in Medieval representations, not in Greek ones, but he has one in Teucer description.

As Bonatti was relying closely on Arabic sources I think its far more likely their star lore may have influenced him. However, I hope to talk to Ben Dykes about this specific issue soon and will get his view.
Quote:
Still Albumasar version is very important, Liber VI had an enourmous impact till the Renaissance.

I agree. My reservations were in regards european astrologers specifically. The Arab language astrologers are very much the 'missing link' between hellenistic and european astrology. Their influence was immense in regards the transmission of fixed star meanings and lore. However, a lot of important texts have still be be translated. For example, the work of Haly Abenragel.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated