Ascending degree vs. rising planet

1
Hi all,

It?s clear that the ascendant is the ascending degree of the ecliptic, while planets or fixed stars on that degree sometimes rise earlier or later than the degree (f.e. when the moon was rising today it was already 7? degrees in house 12).

My question is if the actual time of rising or setting of a planet or star was ever taken into account astrologically and how (as this does not show in the chart) ?

another example: in a relocated natal chart there is 26 taurus on DC, but Algol is already below the horizon. How is Algol to be delineated here ?



thanks for your help


leywand

2
I think it depends on how you handle houses. If you use the whole sign method, then there's no particular issue with basing the house position on the ecliptic intercept of the point.

Then there's the question of angularity, succedence and cadency. If you use a quadrant system whose divisions are not based on the ecliptic, then the mundane position you refer to should be used as the basis for determining a point's "house longitude". So a rising point would be considered more important than the relationship of the ecliptic intercept to the ascendant.

There are several programs that will give either Gauqelin sector positions or rationalized semiarc positions which are both Placidus mundane positions.

- Ed

Re: Ascending degree vs. rising planet

3
leywand wrote:Hi all,

It?s clear that the ascendant is the ascending degree of the ecliptic, while planets or fixed stars on that degree sometimes rise earlier or later than the degree (f.e. when the moon was rising today it was already 7? degrees in house 12).

My question is if the actual time of rising or setting of a planet or star was ever taken into account astrologically and how (as this does not show in the chart) ?
In my opinion the answer is yes.
In Firmicus chapter 8th and Manilius chapter 5th these astrologers take into consideration which stars are rising. In fact they are called "paranatellonta", "stars 'rising alongside' (or '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. " (Wolfang Hubner- Pauly Wissowa Encyclopedia).

Anyway it's very difficult to explain in a few lines. you can try to start from Anonymous 379

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

4
My opinion on this matter is 'Keep it simple!'

The ecliptic is our Great Circle of celestial reference, so celestial objects, whether stellar or planetary, should be projected on to the ecliptic - and the problem of latitude is thus avoided. This is also remembering that astrologers use the rational ascendant, which does not take into account the bending of light and that would cause astrologers to look many degrees into the zodiac if the signs of short ascension were rising in high latitudes.

1) Use the rational ascendant 2) Project the position of celestial objects onto the ecliptic for most practical causes.
http://www.astronor.com

5
Andrew J. Bevan wrote:My opinion on this matter is 'Keep it simple!'

The ecliptic is our Great Circle of celestial reference, so celestial objects, whether stellar or planetary, should be projected on to the ecliptic - and the problem of latitude is thus avoided.
Hello!
I agree, still many stars are very far from the ecliptic and if I well understand many well known astrologers teach that we should not take them into consideration like that.
Bezza at least does. And I read the same in Joseph Crane book "Hellenistic legacy".
Anyway Bezza gives formulas for doing this, but surely it is not an easy way, without a proper software it is very difficult to follow his method.

6
Hello Andrew,
quote]

My opinion on this matter is 'Keep it simple!'
The ecliptic is our Great Circle of celestial reference, so celestial objects, whether stellar or planetary, should be projected on to the ecliptic - and the problem of latitude is thus avoided. This is also remembering that astrologers use the rational ascendant, which does not take into account the bending of light and that would cause astrologers to look many degrees into the zodiac if the signs of short ascension were rising in high latitudes.

1) Use the rational ascendant 2) Project the position of celestial objects onto the ecliptic for most practical causes.
The problem with 'keeping it simple' as you put it is that we create a real divide between our astrology and what is actually happening in the location of a chart.

Many traditional sources emphasize stars are more powerful the closer they are to the zodiac:
The strength and efficacy of the Fixed Stars is to be considered from their magnitude, their splendours, their natures or properties, their nearness to the Ecliptic, their place in the World, their multitude, their first oriental appearance, the purity of their place, the similitude or agreement of the body or rays of a Planet with them and their circle of position.
? The Seven Segments of Cardano
Why bother mentioning this? Why not ignore it as you suggest?

The reason is that when you simply project any stars position on to the zodiac you distort its real location to the observer. The problem of latitude is not simply removed as you suggest by projecting stars on to the ecliptic. In many cases it creates a whole new problem!

Lets look at two examples.

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 15 Capricorn anywhere on earth. In reality though stars rise at different zodiacal degrees in different locations. The divergence between this and the projected ecliptical position is greater the further a star is outside the ecliptic.

Mark Spitz ( Olympic Champion Swimmer) : His Midheaven is 18.07 Taurus. No clues to any fixed star connection there. However, in reality the star Algol is precisely overhead at the location of Spitz birth. Simply projecting this stars position as you suggest would have us hunting 25 Taurus in vain. One of the traditional associations of this star is the ability to overcome any opponent in battle. Spitz certainly fulfilled that perfectly at the 1972 Olympics!


It seems to me we have two fundamentally different attitudes to astrology here. One that can be traced back to ancient Babylonia and Egypt is observational and visual astrology.
The Greek astrologer Anonymous of 379 represents one of the last advocates of this ancient visual approach. As the middle ages progress astrology becomes more and more disconnected from a visual approach.

I think we all accept astrology is only a symbolic representation of reality so it could be argued that we can be allowed some ?latitude? here! Still most of us want to at least approximately represent what goes on in the real sky.

With planets the problem is not too acute. The Moon never drifts more than 5 degrees outside the ecliptic. In traditional terms the planets that drifts furthest out is Mercury at about 7 degrees. Uranus despite its deviant representation sits almost exactly on the ecliptic. Pluto is the real odd one out with an orbit sometimes 17 degrees outside the ecliptic. So if we grant a zodiac belt of 8 degrees either side of the ecliptic (traditional) or 17 degrees ( modern) there is an argument for including stars in this band.

Once we get much further north or south of the ecliptic though the zodiac becomes less and less reliable as an indicator where a star will be. Even, at it is Pluto can be half a sign away from its projected zodical position.

I am not seeking to reject the projection method entirely. However, I agree with Robert Hand and James Crane in limiting its use to stars close to the ecliptic. From what we can establish this was the way the ancient Greek astrologers worked. I think astrologers need to utilize features like Solar Fire ?Star parans?. These allow us to know when stars well outside the ecliptic co-rise, co-culminate , or co-set etc with angles or in mundo with planets.

I am not suggesting your approach doesn?t have any supporters. Diana Rosenberg the fixed star authority works this way. However, I wonder how many astrologers are willing to go as far as Rosenberg and use southern hemisphere stars projected on to the zodiac in northern hemisphere charts?

You stated earlier:
The ecliptic is our Great Circle of celestial reference, so celestial objects, whether stellar or planetary, should be projected on to the ecliptic - and the problem of latitude is thus avoided.
So using that logic Alpha Centauri ( aka Bungula, Rigil Kentaurus) would be valid in a northern hemisphere chart with a key degree at 29 Scorpio. I personally, find this approach too dissociated from both the real sky and the way our ancestors developed their star lore. In my opinion much of medieval and renaissance astrology suffers from the same problem to a lesser extent.

7
MarkC wrote:
I am not seeking to reject the projection method entirely. However, I agree with Robert Hand and James Crane in limiting its use to stars close to the ecliptic. From what we can establish this was the way the ancient Greek astrologers worked. I think astrologers need to utilize features like Solar Fire ?Star parans?. These allow us to know when stars well outside the ecliptic co-rise, co-culminate , or co-set etc with angles or in mundo with planets.
Hello Mark,
I have a question about this. Are you sure that SolarFire parans work?
I mean, you checked when SF says that a star is rising is really rising or just its longitude corresponds with the Ascendant?
I have the doubt it is the second case because once I tried with an astronomical software and I had different results.
Anyway I did not really check this, mine is just a question.
Have you ever tried it?

8
I'll go with "As simple as possible, and no simpler". In my experience, mundane positions offer too much information to ignore. This does not invalidate the use of the ecliptic. It complements it.

- Ed

9
Hello Mark,
I have a question about this. Are you sure that SolarFire parans work?
I mean, you checked when SF says that a star is rising is really rising or just its longitude corresponds with the Ascendant?
I have the doubt it is the second case because once I tried with an astronomical software and I had different results.
Anyway I did not really check this, mine is just a question.
Have you ever tried it?
There are probably much better qualified people to answer on the astronomy and software ( Ed F..help!) but as I have stuck my neck out as it were I guess I better take the risk of having it chopped off!

I have compared what I get on charts with SF to what Brady states in her books. They co-incide exactly. So you do not actually need her Starlight software to identify parans. If there is an astronomical mistake as you claim it is one that Bernadette Brady is also making in her calculations. I think that is rather unlikely myself.

As for whether these are identical to the ascendant then in terms of the 'rational ascendant' I suspect not. Paran software only discusses stars and planets co-arising, co-culminating and co-setting, and Anti-culminating on angles in the actual location of a chart. I had assumed these were in mundo positions. Although I suspect there often not significant difference though for stars and planets very close to the ecliptic. For example Princess Diana has Spica on her MC if you check the zodiac degree of her MC. As Spica is very close to the ecliptic this is a reliable indicator that Spica was also culminating at the time of her birth.
That is my understanding. However, I will be happy if someone else can clarify if that is substantially correct or whether I am wallowing in astrological ignorance. :???:
Last edited by Mark on Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:03 pm, edited 3 times in total.

10
Indeed the question seems to be if to interpret the chart or the visual sky. Concerning fixed stars and parans Bernadette Brady has done lot of work.

http://www.zyntara.com/visual_astrology.html

BTW. Does anyone know how to find the heliacal rising star in Solar Fire or Janus ?

In practice I also came across this topic in astrocartography maps. Janus plots f.e. lines for fixed stars rising, setting positions.


But for me the initial problem was a horary chart with the moon as Lord 8 in House 12 already by 7? but rising in mundo at that moment.
Delineating the moon as being in house 1 or on the ascendant made much more sense (or should the moon 7 degrees after the ascendant always be considered being on the ascendant (orb)?? ).

I used to doublecheck SolarFire Parans with SkyChart III and usually it works. I just now checked the Parans to the Asc again. It?s seems to work ok.

11
BTW. Does anyone know how to find the heliacal rising star in Solar Fire or Janus ?
Good question! I wasn't aware either programme did this. That is the one thing that might make me buy StarLight. However, I did see an astronomy programme that was significantly cheaper that could do this. I would also like to be able to do this for planets too as this is hard to determine just from zodiac degrees along the ecliptic. As far as I know Starlight only considers helical rising fixed stars and not planets.
But for me the initial problem was a horary chart with the moon as Lord 8 in House 12 already by 7? but rising in mundo at that moment.
Delineating the moon as being in house 1 or on the ascendant made much more sense (or should the moon 7 degrees after the ascendant always be considered being on the ascendant (orb)?? ).
Of course we have the traditional 5 degree rule for planets and non-luminous points. However, 7 degrees outside is quite a stretch. I did discuss a horary like this with Deborah Houlding once where I wanted to use the half orb of the Moon to count it influencing the 7th house rather than the 6th where it was placed. Lilly did occasionally use this approach. However, the traditional half orb of the Moon is only up to 6 degrees ( Al Biruni/Lilly). That still wouldn't have it influencing the 1st house. :(