Fixed Stars : Algol & The Pleiades

Maggiemay

Hello Everyone,

I've never really paid attention to fixed stars before but I just started wondering: What influence, if any, do the fixed stars really have on a chart? (ie: Algol & the Pleiades)

Is there a consensus amongst astrologers about those?

Thanks,

Maggie :)
 

Minderwiz

Fixed stars have a long and revered use in Astrology. Indeed their use dates back to the origins of Astrology. Up to the Seventeenth Century it was common for Astrologers to use fixed stars in any chart reading.

William Lilly lists about 50 fixed stars, which he used regularly. The revival of Astrology in the Twentieth Century largely ignored their use - read any modern introductory text and they are largely conspicuous by their absence. Instead modern Astrologers tend to use asteroids, or mid points, or centaurs, or Kyper Belt objects or even imaginery planets. This leads to problems with software, much of which will give information on the latter but do not contain information on fixed stars, or if they do, only a small number.

Without going into technicalities, there needs to be some care in using fixed stars in terms of establishing relationships. Firstly orbs need to be kept very small and secondly, because of the geometry of space, establishing the rising degree of a star presents some difficulties.

There are really only two modern texts that deal with fixed stars in detail, one by Vivian Robson and a much later one by Bernadette Brady. Brady's book has led to something of a resurgence in interest in the fixed stars, so we may find them used more frequently in the future.
 

Bernice

Hi again,

I have Vivian E. Robsons' book (The Fixed Stars & Constellations in Astrology. ©1969). There are math formulae at the back of the book, one of which is "To Find The Sidereal Time Of The True Rising and Setting Of A Star".
However, one of these formulae doesn't work (sorry, forget which one now...), it even defied a scientific calculator!

But the rest of the book is definately recommendable. I was tempted to buy Bernadettes book, but had no spare cash at time - so I still don't have it. I've wondered how it compares with Robsons' book.

Bee :)
 

Maggiemay

Minderwiz said:
Without going into technicalities, there needs to be some care in using fixed stars in terms of establishing relationships. Firstly orbs need to be kept very small and secondly, because of the geometry of space, establishing the rising degree of a star presents some difficulties.

I understand that Algol is at 26'07 Taurus. My mercury is at 27'23 Taurus! I hope it doesn't spell bad news for my mercury! I mean...I'm rather fond of my mercury....lol

About the 'rising degree of a star'; yeah...I was wondering about that...

As usual, thanks a bunch Minderwiz! ( thank you for the book references)

Maggie

Bernice said:
I have Vivian E. Robsons' book (The Fixed Stars & Constellations in Astrology. ©1969). There are math formulae at the back of the book, one of which is "To Find The Sidereal Time Of The True Rising and Setting Of A Star".
However, one of these formulae doesn't work (sorry, forget which one now...), it even defied a scientific calculator!

Hi, bee!

Does Vivian Robson mentions anything 'positive' about Algol?

Thank you for your post,

Maggie :)
 

Minderwiz

Maggiemay said:
I understand that Algol is at 26'07 Taurus. My mercury is at 27'23 Taurus! I hope it doesn't spell bad news for my mercury! I mean...I'm rather fond of my mercury....lol


Maggie :)

Well this is where some complexity sets in. The position you quote is that accepted by Astronomers and most Astrologers. It is obtained by projecting the position of the star in 3D space onto the two dimension ecliptic using the poles of the equator. This projected Ecliptic Degree (PED) is different from that originally determined by Ptolemy, who used the poles of the ecliptic as the basis for his projections. Under Ptolemy's approach Algol lies ata 25 degrees 30 minutes of Taurus. Both these systems are 'right' within their own terms - it's the origin of the measurement system that differs.

Both these systems were devised for Astronomical purposes, rather than Astrological ones, although they are now the predominant method of positioning stars.

However, the Astrological system that preceded them, and perhaps is a better reflection of the influence of the Stars, was based on actually looking up at the sky and noting the position of the star relative to the position of a planet.

Now Stars are more variable than planets in terms of their declanation to the ecliptic (a geocentric concept). All the planets lie virtually on the ecliptic plane, with very little declination (in absolute terms). The planetoid Pluto does have greater declination but it is more properly a Kyper Belt object.

Stars however can have large declinations, even those that are part of a zodiacal constellation can have quite large declinations and the further removed from the ecliptic they are, the greater the declination. This means that stars can rise in the sky from any point from the North to the South of the Horizon, running through the Eastern point.

Now the Horizon depends on your latitude, and the degree of the Ecliptic rising at any one point in time will vary depending on latitude. That is two people born at the same time but in different latitudes will have different Ascendants.

At some latitudes some stars never rise, i.e. they can never be seen in the sky - so it raises the question as to whether a never visible star can have any affect on your natal planets. Other stars will rise and set, and still others will never set, i.e. they are permanently visible (called curtailed passage). The latter two cases would suggest that the star would have some effect.

The system of 'parans' used to be used before Ptolemy's system took over and parans seem to be making a comeback. Algol would affect your Mercury if:
Mercury is rising at the same time as Algol (co rises)
Mercury rises as Algo Culminates (Appears on the MC)
Mercury rises as Algo sets
Mercury rises as Algo is on the IC.

Or Mercury is culminating, on the IC or setting whilst Algo is in any of these positions.

Sounds complicated but on a clear night it would be easy to check this simply by looking. Some more expensive computer software can do this for you, so you don't need to get cold standing outside.

However the degree of Algol if it co rises with Mercury or Culminates with Mercury or Sets with Mercury or is at the IC with Mercury is not necessarily the 26 degrees of Taurus quoted above, it depends on the latitude of the observer. That is any star that is not on the ecliptic will not rise with the same degree of the ecliptic in all locations.

So do you take Algol as affecting your Mercury if it was not in any paran relationship when you were born? Or do you say that because it has the same two dimensional longitude, that there must be some relationship?

This is one of the reasons I've not started using fixed stars. I'd like to but it will take some study to get my head round it.
 

Maggiemay

I beam with pure intellectual gratification everytime I read one of your post. *blushing*

Now, that being said, your post was extremely clear and explanatory of this otherwise 'tricky' subject.

Based on the information you provided me with, I don't believe I should be concerned. My mercury is in the beginning of my 3rd house...so I don't think it applies.

I don't see that it has when I look upon my life and the areas of my chart governed by mercury.

I'm breathing better now....

Thanks,

Maggie :)
 

Minderwiz

An additional point

if you were born at 49 degrees North or greate Algol never sets, so Any influence is more likely to be something you can't change (according to Brady)

The Algol influence comes from it's position as Medusan's head as held by Perseus. According to Brady it will charge any plsnet it touches with 'strong, intense, sexual energy'

If you go for the PED approach then that's the way that it will affect your Mercury.

I look forward to your take on that one LOL
 

Maggiemay

Minderwiz said:
if you were born at 49 degrees North or greate Algol never sets (...)
(..) According to Brady it will charge any plsnet it touches with 'strong, intense, sexual energy'

If you go for the PED approach then that's the way that it will affect your Mercury.

I look forward to your take on that one LOL

LOL big time!

Please, correct me if I'm wrong but 49' degree north would be found in the constellation of ........ Aries(?)

Judging by my current ''state of mind''.... there seems to be no other alternative but to go with the PED approach...*shaking her head laughing and looking for hole to hide in''

Thanks,

Maggie :)
 

Minderwiz

No 49 degrees North on Earth. That is if your place of birth was further North than 49 degrees North, then Algol will never set.

If you were born South of this line of Latitude then Algol would have risen and set at your locality. If you were born further South than 49 degrees South then Algol would never rise at all at that locality.

I've not seen anything concerning relocation in terms of the effects of stars, but presumably that could be worked out.

It doesn't matter what House Mercury was in at your time of birth. What matters is would it rise with Algol later in the day (or any of the other combinations). Parans hold for the whole day of birth. Without your natal details I can't tell you. However under one of the three methods you would have a Mercury/Algol relationship
 

Maggiemay

Minderwiz said:
No 49 degrees North on Earth. That is if your place of birth was further North than 49 degrees North, then Algol will never set.

If you were born South of this line of Latitude then Algol would have risen and set at your locality. If you were born further South than 49 degrees South then Algol would never rise at all at that locality.

I am born at 46n39 at dawn...
For that location, Algol would have been conjunct the MC ( and mercury) later during the day at exactly 3:15 pm.
I guess it affects me.

Thanks again,

Maggie :)

ps: Hoping I am not driving you mad