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.