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
 
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: 4980
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
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.


Hi Philip,

That is fair comment. I wasn't trying to fit you into a hellenistic straight-jacket! Of course you are entitled to develop the idea further if you so wish. My perspective was more around clarifying the actual practice of classical astrologers. That can be seen as a boundary or a spring board for further enquiry. Personally, I do think its important to gain a clearer historical perspective on what techniques are purely traditional and which are a modern development. This provides a better foundation for astrological debate in my view.
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 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agreed, Mark, and I'm grateful to you for clarifying the specific context in which you were relating the declination of the Sun to antiscia.

I think that as far as technique is concerned, we are still talking about exactly the same thing - our calculations are the same, and we are both allowing antiscia and contra-antiscia between all the planets, and not just the Sun. It was important to establish that from the starting point I feel.

The difference is in the conscious philosophical underpinning or rationale underlying the use of that technique by the Hellenistic astrologers, which may in turn have affected the way that they applied it to interpretation.

The philosophical underpinnings of Hellenistic techniques are themselves not without controversy in some area as I'm sure you realise having seen just as I have the discussions on some of these boards about Robert Schmidt's ongoing attempts to reconstruct the Hellenistic system from a philosophical standpoint as well as in terms of the actual mechanical techniques that were used. But perhaps in some cases the rationale for the use of particular techniques is more clearly and unambivalently documented in surviving texts than others, and antiscia may well be one such case!

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



Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 360

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
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 interesting Lilly went up to 3 degrees. Then again he went up to 5 degrees for key fixed stars too and I don't intend to follow suit. Three degrees sounds more sober and philosophically attractive.


Lilly was conservative in his use of fixed stars: 7.5 degrees was the orb allotted to stars of the first magnitude, 5.5 to stars of the second magnitude, 3.5 to stars of the third magnitude, 1.5 to stars of the fourth magnitude.

Quote:
From traditional astrological sources, not from modern astronomical values.


See:

http://www.academyofastrology.org/resources/Fixedstarstable.pdf

Here is a link to a beautiful photograph of the "Sun pairs" that represent the antiscia:

http://northanger.livejournal.com/69259.html

Another link:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020709.html

And another:

http://www.uwm.edu/~kahl/Images/Weather/Other/analemma.html

A site about the analemma:

http://www.analemma.com/

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


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4980
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Lilly was conservative in his use of fixed stars: 7.5 degrees was the orb allotted to stars of the first magnitude, 5.5 to stars of the second magnitude, 3.5 to stars of the third magnitude, 1.5 to stars of the fourth magnitude.


Hello Andrew,

I am conscious the topic was originally about parallels of declination and not fixed stars. I will therefore keep this response short. As we have already opened up discussion to cover antiscia and parallels of latitude I feel a reply to your comment is justified. I do think there is a link here that might be useful in regards our discussion of three degrees and latitude itself. I have seen the link to the fixed stars list provided by website of Helena Avelar and Luis Ribeirio. I assume that is where you are getting your suggested orbs from? I am not sure what sources they are relying on but I would dispute the view that there was a traditional consensus on this. We have noted Lilly. Morin took a different line too. Studying Bonatti his approach was different again:

Quote:
The 145th Consideration of Guido Bonatti is as follows: -" That thou see in Diurnal Nativities whether Cor Leonis ( Regulus) be in the Ascendant, that is to say, in the Oriental Line or above it one degree or below it three degrees; or whether it be in the tenth in like degrees, without the Conjunction or Aspect of any of the Fortunes, for this alone signifies that the Native shall be a person of great note and power, too much exalted, and attain to high preferment and honors, although descended from the meanest parents. And, if any of the Fortunes behold that place also, his glory shall be the more increased''

Its significant I think that Bonatti affords a bigger orb (3 degrees) to a star diurnally rising below the Ascendant. Regarding latitude it is noteable that all that all traditional authorities such as Cardano, Lilly etc emphasize that stars close to the ecliptic with similar latitude to a planet are more powerful than those outside the ecliptic. I am sure the real reason for this teaching was that when stars only share a projected zodiacal longitude with an angle or planet and not latitude there is little likelyhood their real position in the sky will correspond to their zodiacal one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Andrew



Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 360

Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As I noted in the "Orbs For Fixed Stars?" discussion, James Wilson, in his Dictionary of Astrology (1819), writes that stars of the first magnitude have 7 degrees and 30 minutes for their orbs; of the 2nd magnitude, 5 degrees and 30 minutes; of the 3rd magnitude, 3 degrees and 30 minutes; of the 4th magnitude, 1 degree and 30 minutes.

Johannes Schoener also lists the orb for first magnitude stars as 7 degrees 30 minutes and demonstrates the full extension by orb in his work.

It is likely that Vivian Robson obtained his information on the orbs of the fixed stars from James Wilson; did James Wilson obtain his information from Johannes Schoener? Possibly, but it seems clear that these orbs of influence for fixed stars were not unique to Schoener. Avelar and Ribeiro state that these values come from traditional astrological sources, and since their approach to astrology is strictly traditional and their use of fixed star orbs conforms to Schoener, I suspect they are correct. This does not, however, mean that there was a consensus on this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4980
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Avelar and Ribeiro state that these values come from traditional astrological sources, and since their approach to astrology is strictly traditional and their use of fixed star orbs conforms to Schoener, I suspect they are correct


I wasn't questioning the fact that Avelar and Ribeiro have solid traditional sources to base their statement on. I have no command of Latin and judging by the quality of their work I have read I am sure there are texts supporting this view. I am wondering about not just Schoener, but also Montulmo, Garcaeus, and Junctinus? I actually tried to contact Luis Robeiro/Helena Avelar on this issue on their website. Unfortunately, the email link seems to be giving problems. Mercury retrograde strikes again.

My point is that the major European astrologer at the start of the reintroduction of astrology in the west (Bonatti) and the two leading astrologers of the 17th century (Morin & Lilly) seem to have adopted a different approach.The time frame for the develeopment and acceptance of the approach to fixed star orbs suggested by Avelar & Ribeiro may therefore not have been that long. The key question I have is whether any Arab, Persian, or Hebrew sources support this view? That would certainly add extra weight to it if they did.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Night Sky



Joined: 13 Sep 2008
Posts: 127

Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:35 am    Post subject: Re: Parallels Reply with quote

RC wrote:
Night Sky wrote:
Ok, read over and over it says parallel = conjunction, or similar to conjunction.


You should look for parallel from moon to POF as well.

Contra parallel works like an opposition.

RC


Funny you should say this. I have a natal POF conjunct Moon. But no program, out of ZET8, Astrolog32 or even online will let me calculate latitude for Fortuna... why not? The Ascendant has a line of latitude.

Also how about Venus parallel Descendant, orb is tight, one minute. ; )
This is a funny one, she is in house 1 but parallel Dsc... conjunct yet also in opposition.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Night Sky



Joined: 13 Sep 2008
Posts: 127

Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A Solar Eclipse can only occur when Sun and Moon are parallel. This is clear to me now.

18 degrees of longitude for the nodes, fine.

Just wondering what is the orb of latitude... between Sun and Moon that is for both an Annular, a Partial and then the Total?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
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
Page 3 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