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

Parallels
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
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4990
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would suggest this discussion has rather lost the wood for the trees.
Confused

Moreover, there has been a real confusion of terms. Lets get back to essentials and make clear there are 3 quite distinct topics under discussion here:

a) Parallel of Celestial Latitude

b) Parallel of Celestial Declination

c) Antiscion degrees (Declination degrees of the Sun only)



a)Parallel of Celestial Latitude.
This is when two planets are at an equal distance north or south of the ecliptic. This was the kind of parallel that traditional astrologers generally focused on. In that respect Bonatti makes it clear that he considers a parallel of latitude (aka conjunction by latitude) when two planets are within the same degree in relation to the ecliptic. He interprets this in a similar way to a conjunction although he considers this a less powerful consideration than a conjunction by longitude. In fact, he doesn't consider latitude a very important factor at all compared to the ptolemaic aspects. Nevertheless, its interesting that Bonatti seems to allow a 1 degree orb similar to modern practice.

Bonatti interprets two planets in contrasting but equal degrees north or south of the ecliptic as similar in interpretative terms to a conventional parallel of latitude. 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°

A parallel of latitude isn't very significant between 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 north or south of the ecliptic. Simply projecting its position on to the zodiac will often give quite a misleading idea of where it is in mundo.

In terms of work with planets or planets and fixed stars a parallel of latitude makes the connection a lot more powerful. The parallel of latitude was also considered on its on in the case of planets. However, there was never a concept of planets equal distances north and south of the ecliptic being in a relationship similar to an opposition. It was still treated like a conjunction by traditional authorities. It is regretable that most modern astrologers largely ignore or confuse this kind of parallel in favour of the parallel of declination.

b) Parallel of Celestial Declination.
This co-ordinate system is based on the position of planets and stars in relation to the celestial equator rather than the ecliptic. When astronomers started to use the co-ordinate system of celestial declination and right ascension from the 16th century onwards the focus shifted to whether planets and stars shared the same declination relative to the celestial equator. Astrology eventually followed suit so that the concept of a parallel became focused on declination rather than latitude.

Modern astrologers posit that two planets an equal number of degrees above the celestial equator are in a relationship similar to a conjunction while two planets an equal distance above and below the celestial equator simultaneously are in a relationship similar to an opposition aspect. The maximum possible declination of the Sun is 23° 28' which occurs at the Solstices, when the Sun passes the Tropics (0°) of Cancer and Capricorn, the limit of the pole's greatest inclination from the plane of the Earth's orbit. The first degrees of Aries and Libra have no declination, since at these points the ecliptic intersects the equator. However, planets at this longitude may have declination. The Moon, Mercury, Mars can reach a declination of 27° north, and on rare occasions Venus reaches 28°. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune have practically the same declination as the Sun.

Planets outside the highest solar declination are assessed as ‘out-of-bounds in modern declination theory and given additional importance in chart analysis.
Advocates of modern declination theory maintain that out-of-bounds planets illustrate a dimension of the person that likes to break the rules and step outside the norm. It is suggested that people with out-of-bounds planets seem to get away with more somehow, or try to. They can be those individual's that are always pushing the limits of what we commonly accept in society.

Examples: Albert Einstein had an O-O-B Moon in Sagittarius. Einstein creatively provided a whole new paradigm in regards to time and space through his work on the theory of relativity. His philosophical beliefs weren't constrained by his era's prevailing system of thought. American talk-show host, Howard Stern, with an out-of-bounds Mercury (23°S41), is another iconoclast pushing the envelope of societies accepted norms. He loves to shock his radio audience with sexually oriented and socially unacceptable topics.

If anyone wants to explore this topic further I highly recommend the book 'Declination in Astrology' by Paul Newman, published by Wessex Astrologer in the United Kingdom.

C) Antiscion Degrees
Antiscion degrees do have a link to declination. However, they only relate to the Sun. There is no certainty, that planets connected through antiscion degrees are going to share the same degree of declination. In reality they probably don’t . As Gjiada has already stated Ptolemy describes this scheme, where he says that 'signs which behold each other' are also signs of equal power since they are equally removed from the tropics. He explains that they 'behold' one another, partly because they rise and set in the same part of the horizon, and partly because:
‘’when the Sun comes into either of them the days are equal to the days, the nights to the nights, and the lengths of their own hours are the same’’
(Claudius Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, Chapter , 1.15 (Loeb edition p.77))

Naturally, since the solstices represent the points on the ecliptic where the Sun reaches maximum declination north (at 0° Cancer) and South (0° Capricorn), its declination is paralleled in the degrees that are equally distant on either side of them.

Some modern authors have suggested that traditional writers like Ptolemy were describing two planets with equal declination when they discussed Antiscion points. However, this seems to be a misunderstanding of the traditional idea of antiscia or solstice points.

Here is Deborah Houlding explaining the traditional meaning of antiscia and contra-antiscia:
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/antiscia.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
3D



Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Posts: 125

Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi MarkC

Interesting topic. Occasionally, I also look at latitude. The effect, however, is not very strong I think.

Quote:
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


The latitudes you give for the planets are heliocentric latitudes. When seen from the Earth, the tilt angle of the planets close to our orbit increases, especially Venus and Mars. Mercury’s latitude seen from the Earth never exceeds 5°.

The two graphic ephemeris charts should illustrate this.

Heliocentric Latitude
http://www.astrologix.de/forum/user_files/48e38e3f3910b22a.gif

Geocentric Latitude
http://www.astrologix.de/forum/user_files/48e38e70396309d1.gif

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


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4990
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The latitudes you give for the planets are heliocentric latitudes. When seen from the Earth, the tilt angle of the planets close to our orbit increases, especially Venus and Mars. Mercury’s latitude seen from the Earth never exceeds 5°.


Hello 3D,

Thanks for raising this. I suppose this means I have been operating under a misconception in relying on heliocentric latitude? Your graphs are interesting but only seem to cover Mercury, Venus and Mars? What is the the maximum-minimum geocentric latitude range of all the planets compared to the list I gave?

I guess I naively relied on heliocentric latitude since every text around states the sun was the only constant along the ecliptic at 0° degrees. However, I can see that could not have been the consensus before the Copernican model became the norm. I take it your point is that traditional astrologers must have relied on geocentric ie visual latitude?

It seems any modern discussion of latitude uses the heliocentric approach with the the sun having 0° latitude at all times. In practical terms, this approach is useful. For example if the Full Moon takes place exactly conjunct one of the Nodes, its Celestial Latitude is 0°. If the Full Moon happens when its 90° from the Nodal Axis, it will be at about 5° 08' North or South Celestial Latitude. A Full Moon anywhere in between will find the Celestial Latitude somewhere in between. The same holds true for a New Moon conjunct one of the Nodes, or any other lunar phase.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
3D



Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Posts: 125

Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi MarkC

Heliocentric and geocentric ecliptical latitude differ indeed because we look at the planets from different positions. Since we are talking about geocentric astrology here, we naturally take the geocentric latitude.
You are right I only chose Mercury, Venus and Mars in the graph.
Venus reaches the greatest geocentric ecliptic latitude when it is close to the earth, about 8°. Mars is next, with a maximum of close to 7°. (excluding Pluto, of course).



I tried to illustrate this with a sketch. I hope it helps!

René

P.S. Deb, I reduced the size to 600 pixels width. Good suggestion, it's still readable. René


Last edited by 3D on Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:36 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4990
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi 3D,

Thanks for that. Glad someone spotted I was spouting nonsense! Laughing

Cool sketch Thumbs up

Mark
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Philip Graves



Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 436
Location: Europe

Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi Mark!

Thanks for the link to Deb's very useful article and for your comments.

I'm not sure what you are referring to precisely when you say you fear the discussion has lost the wood for the trees, but you have me somewhat concerned by that comment! As far as I can see from your post, I think you have expanded usefully on what has been said before in this strand rather than contradicting it, but perhaps I've missed something. As a contributor to the earlier discussion I do not see how, as far as it had reached, it was factually errant in its observations and claims, but I do see the earlier discussion as being more narrowly confined in its focus than the totality of the discussion since your additions. I hope I can explain this simply enough from my point of view.

In answering Night Sky's original question I was referring purely and simply to parallels of declination. It was my presumption from the beginning that this was what the question was about since I have myself read in modern books the notion that parallels of declination can be interpreted broadly equivalently to conjunctions, and since parallels of declination do coincide with conjunctions by longitude roughly half of the time (a reasonably average orb of longitude for the conjunction but just one degree of declination for the parallel being allowed for), and this coincidence was one of the particular observations Night Sky was making, whereas by their nature parallels of latitude have no particular tendency to coincide with conjunctions of longitude. Gijada then related parallels of declination to antiscia, so the mechanics of this relationship became a focus of my further observations. Thus for my part, I left parallels of latitude completely out of the picture since they had not been raised for discussion.

Likewise where the modern theories on the astrological influences of out of bounds planets are concerned, in relation to declination, the question having been purely about parallels of declination, I saw no immediate reason to address out of bounds theory too. As far as I'm aware, and I may be wrong, K. T. Boehrer was the first astrologer to place more emphasis when considering declination in its astrological interpretation on planets being out of bounds than on the planetary aspect the parallel of declination, and the fruits of her research were published in her book 'Declination, the Other Dimension' (Fortunata Press, 1994). Leigh Westin has since built on and expanded the discussion of her theories in her own book 'Beyond the Solstice by Declination' (c. 2001). Paul Newman's book 'Declination: the Steps of the Sun' is much more recent again, and though I have a copy I haven't read it yet, but I presume that it too places more emphasis on out of bounds planets than on the parallel aspect.

The fact that historically astrologers may have been more interested in parallels of latitude than in parallels of declination is very relevant in itself, and I'm glad you brought it up, but I don't personally think that either this fact or the fact that recent declination theorists have become more interested in the interpretation of out of bounds planets than in parallels of declination negates the validity of an interpretative astrological interest in the parallels of declination in themselves!

In relation to antiscia, I hope you agree that the crux of Deb's point when she finds fault with the definition given by DeVore is not that the ancients did not consider antiscia of planets other than the Sun (and it is manifest from her examples that they did), or that antiscia should only be calculated and considered in astrological interpretation for the Sun, but simply that because planets other than the Sun tend to apparently orbit the Earth in varying (from one planet to another, that is) degrees of latitude from the ecliptic, it cannot be guaranteed other than for the Sun (whose apparent plane of orbit of Earth is after all the very basis for the definition of the celestial ecliptic) that a given degree of longitude for a particular planet will correspond to a particular degree of declination from the equator as a fraction of the total declination between the equator and the tropics. And therefore, as has already been clearly stated earlier in this strand by Ed and myself, it also cannot be guaranteed that any planets in antiscial relationship to each other (even if the Sun is one of them) will also be in mutual parallel of declination. This is to say that the calculation of antiscia for use in astrological interpretation is relevant to all planets and not just the Sun, just as parallels of declination have relevance to all planets and not just the Sun, but they are not the same phenomenon, and will coincide only sometimes.

What I find especially interesting from some of Deb's examples is how antiscia were used by the ancients to link together two planets neither directly in aspect to each other nor related by antiscia or contra-antiscia, through the Ptolemaic (geometric) aspects thrown between one planet and the antiscion degree of another. These kinds of references are just what I was hoping for when I commented in an earlier post in this strand that it would be really useful research for someone to go through and dig out all references in the ancient texts to the use of both antiscia and parallels! I wish I had found Deb's article earlier. Smile

Best wishes,

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


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4990
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Thanks for the link to Deb's very useful article and for your comments.

I'm not sure what you are referring to precisely when you say you fear the discussion has lost the wood for the trees, but you have me somewhat concerned by that comment! As far as I can see from your post, I think you have expanded usefully on what has been said before in this strand rather than contradicting it, but perhaps I've missed something. As a contributor to the earlier discussion I do not see how, as far as it had reached, it was factually errant in its observations and claims, but I do see the earlier discussion as being more narrowly confined in its focus than the totality of the discussion since your additions. I hope I can explain this simply enough from my point of view.


Hello Philip,

I seem to have given slight offence here. I assure you it was not intentional. You are one of the most gracious posters on skyscript and I wasn't challenging fundamentally the content or accuracy of what you were stating.

Still, I confess I was genuinely a bit concerned at the level of complexity you were getting into on the topic would overwhelm quite a lot of skyscript readers. Your clearly, coming at this subject with a lot of introductory reading behind you. I was trying to see this from the position of a typical subscriber who hasn't much background in this topic. I accept that is ultimately the decision for subscribers themselves. I am certainly no innocent myself in that respect. I can get very caught up in my passion which is fixed stars. You may have noticed!

Nevertheless, I did feel it was necessary to step back a bit to get the broader picture on this topic before going any further. Using a phrase of my old law lecturer I wanted to 'define our terms' before we carried on the discussion. This I hoped would allow a more straightforward discussion of the 3 topics that can be considered here. I did feel the omission of a parallel of latitude was a serious limitation to the discussion as this was the kind of parallel that most concerned traditional astrologers. I accept though by raising this issure I myself took the focus further away from the original topic which was parallel by declination. Mentioning out-of-bounds theory probably didn't help in simplifying the terms of this discussion. Ironically, I probably ended up contributing to the issue that concerned me!

I was hoping once we had cleared all that up there would be a chance for the original poster to get more replies of a practical astrological nature on what was a fairly straightforward question. That seemed to be what they were really looking for. On balance though, considering the way the thread has developed it may be a bit late for that. I have no objection to discussing the topic(s) theoretically from here on. It sounds like you have done a lot of personal research into this. I am not sure I fully accept all your conclusions but I need more time to refine my position on this. However, it may be a while before I can reply fully as I am away over the next week.

Regards

Mark
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Andrew



Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 360

Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Antiscion degrees do have a link to declination. However, they only relate to the Sun.


I think this is correct. From Bette Denlinger:

Quote:
The word solstice comes from the Latin solstitium (Sol, the Sun; sistere, to make stand). The Sun at the solstices is at its turning point in its apparent course and its declination remains essentially the same for three days. At the winter or summer solstices the Sun turns back towards the equator. A body on an antiscion point of another will make an exchange of energy by way of declination and its position by common relationship to the solstice points and the Sun's path. It could be termed a solar parallel.

Understand the Sun's path and the solstice points and you can understand the antiscion points for any planet.


And Darrelyn Gunzburg writes:

Quote:
It is the tilt to the Earth's rotational axis that gives us our seasons. At the Tropic of Cancer the lengthening days have reached their greatest extent. The noonday sun which prior to this moment has risen higher and higher in the sky on each successive day to reach culmination now rises no higher. It reaches the same height and in effect it "stands still", hangs like a great orb in this position now for three days before she begins her journey southward, pulling in her light, shortening the days as she trudges
slowly but ever surely towards the Lands Down Under, towards the Tropic of Capricorn until the days are at their shortest and Winter cloaks the world with darkness, short days and inward focus.


Maurice McCann has argued in favor of using the same planetary orbs for parallels as for any other aspect. One might think that since the antiscia relate directly to the Sun, the moiety of the Sun (15°) ought to be used to determine which planets are in antiscia relationship. However, as Steven Birchfield has written:

Quote:
Antiscia have nothing to do with aspects and they are a relationship between degrees that is not aspectual!


The symbolism of the solar orb standing still in its position for three days seems particularly apt. Since the Sun moves about one degree eastward each day, thus encircling the sky in the course of a year, I would suggest using an "orb" of no more than three degrees in order to measure the range of antiscial contacts in a chart. This accords with the practice of William Lilly, who appears to have required a close contact of no more than 3° in calculating the antiscia of a particular horoscope. This may also account for Lilly's statement that "A Partile Aspect comes to pass within the difference of three degrees."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4990
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
In relation to antiscia, I hope you agree that the crux of Deb's point when she finds fault with the definition given by DeVore is not that the ancients did not consider antiscia of planets other than the Sun (and it is manifest from her examples that they did),


Quote:
This is to say that the calculation of antiscia for use in astrological interpretation is relevant to all planets and not just the Sun, just as parallels of declination have relevance to all planets and not just the Sun, but they are not the same phenomenon, and will coincide only sometimes.


Hello Philip,

This is a quick attempt at a reply. Its clear we all accept Antiscia does not guarantee similar declination for planets. However, we do seem to have a different understanding of the classical approach in regards planets in antiscion relationship. My perception is that the classical understanding of antiscion/solstice points and contra-antiscion/Equinox points always related back to the position of the Sun. In that sense Antiscia was really a symbolic link between planets based on the literal reality of the position of the Sun in relation to the solstices/equinoxes. I am not convinced (as you seem to be) that classical astrologers ever considered antiscion operating between planets in any other sense. I think the use of the word 'Antiscia' for planets along solstice or equinox degrees excluding consideration of the Sun is a modern update of the traditional use of the term. Our understanding of Deborah's article therefore seems quite different. I would appreciate it if you could point out the examples you feel demonstrate the use 'planetary antiscions' in the article (or elsewhere in the tradition) so we can explore this further.

Thanks

Mark


Last edited by Mark on Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:59 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Philip Graves



Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 436
Location: Europe

Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Mark!

Just came back to the computer after a few hours away.

First of all, I'm not offended at all, so please don't think that. I just wanted to address your doubts about the previous content of the strand and find out what their source was, since I felt uncomfortable with the sense that you disagreed with something but I didn't know quite what and thought it best that we get it out in the open to make sure there is all-round understanding! You have of course a very fair point in criticising my input that it might be a little too concentratedly involved in one topical area to paint a well-balanced introduction to the subjects of parallels of all varieties and declination in all its interpretative applications. I'm sorry for honing in a little too narrowly. I just wanted to address the particular matters that Night Sky and Gijada had raised. With hindsight, you're right, I probably should have discussed the topic more broadly afterwards, but I'm glad you filled in there in the end!

Back to the point about antiscia.

I think that in fact we are talking about the same thing here, but that you are placing a specific emphasis in your mind and in your presentation of the topic upon the relationship between the tropics (0 degrees Cancer and 0 degrees Capricorn) and the path of the Sun whenever you think of antiscia, whereas I have a clear image in my mind of the tropical zodiac in itself without needing to refer it back to the path of the Sun in my head although of course I know as well as you do that the apparent path of the Sun in relation to (and deviation from) the Earth's equator is the source of the demarcations of the basic quadrants of the tropical zodiac.

But when it comes to calculating antiscia I feel we don't really need to think of the Sun so long as we have a clear vision in our minds of the position of the signs and degrees of the tropical zodiac in relation to the equinoctial and tropical points upon it.

Deb early in her article is clearly referring to two planets (neither of which is necessarily the Sun) being at each other's antiscial degrees:

Quote:
a planet at 20° Sagittarius will cast its antiscion to 10° Capricorn, both planets being an equal distance from the Sun's solstice point at 0° Capricorn.
.

I feel that one could just as well say the same but without 'the Sun's solstice point at' and the meaning would be the same, since we are still talking about the same point.

Later on she gives an example figure (from Firmicus Maternus?) that shows the antiscial degree of the Moon forming a trine to Mars, and the antiscial degree of Mars forming a trine to the Moon, at the same time. Clearly neither of these planets is the Sun, yet their antiscial degrees are easy to calculate with our basic knowledge of the relative positions of the zodiacal signs and the tropics and equinoxes.

Ultimately I was only really calling for clarity where you state that 'Antiscion degrees... relate only to the Sun', since to a newcomer to the topic, in the context of your summary of the differences between parallels of latitude, parallels of declination, and antiscia, this might erroneously appear to suggest that the calculation of the antiscial degrees of planets other than the Sun is not valid or relevant in astrological interpretation, whereas I'm sure that this was not what you meant at all!

By way of comparison, if only to illustrate my perspective, when you are looking at ordinary geometric aspects calculated by degrees longitude in a nativity such as an opposition, you could similarly attempt to relate the position of both planets involved to the path of the Sun and say that all the degrees only have relevance to the Sun, because the Sun's passage is the basis for the demarcation of the tropical zodiac. Yet we know well that the apparent paths of all the planets around the Earth, not just the Sun, can usefully be expressed in degrees longitude too, since they too describe a broadly equivalent apparent orbit around the Earth (though with periods of retrogradation from time to time, and a little latitude from the Sun's path), from the northward-moving equinox (0 Aries), to the southward-turning solstice (0 Cancer), to the southward-moving equinox (0 Libra), to the northward-turning solstice (0 Capricorn), and back again to the starting point, cyclically. Once we have got used to this basic pattern, I don't think we need to constantly remind ourselves that the pattern was originally observed in the apparent passage of the Sun. Thus we can clearly say that Mars at 10 degrees Aries is opposite the Moon at 10 degrees Libra in longitude without having to think that the reason for their being marked out in these degrees has its origins in the observation of the equivalent apparent passage of the Sun about Earth and its reaching of these degrees at a pre-defined fraction of its passage between its equinoxes and solstices, though this is true.

To calculate antiscia we are of course using the tropical degrees of 0 Cancer and 0 Capricorn as our reference points, but these tropical degrees are the tropical degrees through which not only the Sun, but also the other planets pass in their cycles of apparent orbit around Earth. I therefore do not personally see any particular advantage in the constant reminder to self that the path of the Sun is at the origin of the definition of the tropics, any more than I see the equivalent need when it comes to geometric aspects between planets, or even simply the placement of any planet in isolation in any degree of the tropical zodiac.

Do you see now that we are in fact talking about the same thing but with different degrees of verbal emphasis on the Sun?[/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4990
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
But when it comes to calculating antiscia I feel we don't really need to think of the Sun so long as we have a clear vision in our minds of the position of the signs and degrees of the tropical zodiac in relation to the equinoctial and tropical points upon it.


Hi Philip,

In practical astrology I totally agree. In that respect these are the relationships in question:

The signs in Antiscion relation are:

Gemini to Cancer and vice versa.
Leo to Taurus and vice versa.
Virgo to Aries and vice versa.
Libra to Pisces and vice versa.
Scorpio to Aquarius and vice versa.
Sagittarius to Capricorn and vice versa.


The Signs in Contra-Antiscion are:

Aries to Pisces and vice versa.
Taurus to Aquarius and vice versa.
Gemini to Capricorn and vice versa.
Libra to Virgo and vice versa.
Scorpio to Leo and vice versa.
Sagittarius to Cancer and vice versa

I had a hard time initially grasping the concept I admit. It was very badly explained to me that Gemini was the 'mirror' of Cancer etc. When I asked why the person explaining it didn't know. Once I understood the connection was linked to the mirror like declination degrees of the Sun it made perfect sense.

I also think its important to understand the original basis of Antiscia relates to the declination of the Sun. For one thing its clarifies that Antiscia is only dealing with a symbolic relationship between planets linked to the declination of the Sun. Clearly, to the hellenistic astrologers this was of fundamental importance. So no I do not agree this is just a presentation issue. Your missing out the fundamental philosophical underpinning of Antiscia and contra-antiscia by neglecting discussion of the Sun.


Last edited by Mark on Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:29 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Mark and Phillip

I’ve noticed a couple of references to my article, and I hope it doesn’t look odd that I’m not using the opportunity to clarify what I meant. At the moment I don’t really have the leisure time to catch up properly with this thread, and I don’t want to rush a comment that adds confusion.

PS - I’m also fantasying about what I’m going to do when I next have some free time, and I think I need to re-design the look of the forum, to allow for wider diagrams, (like the great little sketch that 3D inserted above, which is wonderfully helpful, but it makes the forum layout look bizarre!).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4990
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Deb,

I will look forward to your take on this once you have some time. Very Happy

Mark
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Philip Graves



Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 436
Location: Europe

Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi Mark!

Point taken insofar as that the declination of the Sun was the rationale for the use of antiscia in interpretation by the Hellenistic astrologers.

From the calculation perspective, on the other hand, this rationale is not strictly necessary. For you, clearly thinking of the relationship to the declination of the Sun was pivotal in helping you grasp the concept, so I can see where you're coming from there. For me personally, on the other hand, it wasn't necessary to think of this when I learned how to calculate antiscia, hence my lack of emphasis on the Sun in my thoughts when I calculate them to this day. I think of the solstices and equinoxes as belonging equally to all the planets, including the Sun, since they are the anchor-points of the apparent orbits about the Earth of them all equally. Thus, I view the tropical zodiac as the demarcation of the celestial ecliptic about the Earth without relation particularly to the Sun as compared with other planets, and when I see antiscial degrees in my head it is simply a matter of relating the distance in longitude from the nearer tropic on one side of the 0 Cancer - 0 Capricorn axis to the equivalent distance from the same tropic on the other side of that axis in the same hemisphere.

Otherwise, I would wish to say only that to me personally, the question of whether the Hellenistic concept in interpretation of relating antiscia to the declination of the Sun is necessarily the best or only answer to understanding what antiscia are and how they should be interpreted, if looked at dispassionately without bowing to the earliest tradition, is an open one. Since every planet and not just the Sun has a broadly equivalent apparent passage around the celestial ecliptic, and passes through the solstices and equinoxes of that ecliptic, where we see two planets of equivalent distance as measured by longitude from the same solstice or from the same equinox, from a geophysical perspective it could be argued that the relationship is between the planets and the Earth, and not the planets and the Sun, although their latitudes and therefore also their declinations may differ. But this is just an open-minded thought, and I certainly do not wish to give the impression that the Hellenists would have had time for such a concept!


Last edited by Philip Graves on Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:10 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4990
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The symbolism of the solar orb standing still in its position for three days seems particularly apt. Since the Sun moves about one degree eastward each day, thus encircling the sky in the course of a year, I would suggest using an "orb" of no more than three degrees in order to measure the range of antiscial contacts in a chart. This accords with the practice of William Lilly, who appears to have required a close contact of no more than 3° in calculating the antiscia of a particular horoscope. This may also account for Lilly's statement that "A Partile Aspect comes to pass within the difference of three degrees."

Hello Andrew,

This also accords with the planetary orbs that seem to have been used by the ancient Greek astrologers. The concept of 'three degrees of application' is mentioned in several hellenistic texts. Lilly is probably drawing on that ancient tradition here. In practical terms most traditional astrologers seem to limit Antiscia to 1-2 degrees at the most. For example, John Frawley. Its interersting Lilly went up to 3 degrees. Then again he went up to 5 degrees for key fixed stars too and I dont intend to follow suit. Three degrees sounds more sober and philosophically attractive.
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