Date sent: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 12:33:58 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jonathan C. Dunn" To: valja@tartu.customs.ee Copies to: RobertHand@Prodigy.com Subject: I just read the essay Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 12:29:19 -0700 Newsgroups: alt.astrology Subject: I just read the essay 'The Ascendant, Midheaven and Vertex in Extreme Latitudes' from Robert Hand's 'Essays on Astrology'. I checked and rechecked and programmed and diagrammed and discussed (on this group and elsewhere) and must conclude that the body of this chapter consists of the expansion of one single mistake. I don't know if, 14 years later, Mr Hand has realized or been told... Let me say that 'Planets in Transit' and 'Planets in Youth' are always nearby and I refer to them often, being somewhat timid where interpretion goes. These are great books and I recommend them heartily to anyone. Also, the rest of the essays in 'Essays...' are quite thought-provoking. Having said that, here goes. > On 16 Aug 1996, John A. Halloran wrote: > > > The grand master of modern astrology, Robert Hand, has already > > thoroughly explored this subject of the ascendant, midheaven, and > > vertex at extreme latitudes. > > > > There are two ways to define and determine the ascending or descending > > nodes of intersection between the great circle planes of the ecliptic > > and the horizon and meridian circle. > > > > I quote from Essays on Astrology, copyright 1982 Robert Hand. > > > > "1. The Ascendant > > > > "A. According to Direction: The intersection of the ecliptic and > > rational horizon in the east, i.e., the eastern node. > > "B. According to Up and Down: The ascending node of the ecliptic > > upon the rational horizon. > > > > "2. The Midheaven > > > > "A. According to Direction: The intersection of the meridian circle > > and the ecliptic in the south. This is expressed by the old > > English term "southing," used for upper meridian passes. > > "B. According to Up and Down: The intersection of the meridian circle > > and the ecliptic that is above the horizon, as opposed to the one > > below the horizon, which in normal latitudes is the Imum Coeli > > (I.C.)." > > ... > > You should obtain and read Hand's book yourself. He concludes a > > lengthy discussion by saying, "I always favor making the Ascendant > > the ascending node of the ecliptic upon the horizon, and > > concurrently making the Midheaven the ecliptic-meridian intercept > > above the horizon. NO PROBLEMS WITH THE ASCENDANT: The formula used throughout the essay for the Ascendant is 'forward square from the zenith'. I will call this '1-C-forward'. The tacit assumption throughout is that this (1-C-forward) is always the same as 1-B-rising, and that this is sometimes different from 1-A-east. There is a detailed discussion of the conceptual troubles this causes and the difficult decision involved with choosing one or the other. Fortunately, this turns out to be completely unnecessary and untrue. I will explain, starting with some of the concepts easiest to visualize. Figure 1, on page 33, shows the motion of 2-A-south for the MC and what is stated to be 1-B-rising. The MC progresses through all Longitudinal values throughout the 24 hours, and the ASC stays within +/- 25 degrees of zero Libra. To define the ASC as 'rising' and to say that it is always in Virgo/Libra, and never in Pisces/Aries cannot be true. This says that 0 Libra rises, and then rises again 12 hours later, without ever having set, which is not possible - just think of the Sun on the autumnal equinox. Regardless of latitude, on the equator or barely under the pole, it rises due east and then sets due west 12 hours later. The unavoidable setting of the Sun on this day, and thus 0 Libra all days, means that 0 Aries rises at some moment all days. A similar argument can be made for all points which are not circumpolar at the latitude in question: if it rises, it sets; if it sets, it rises. So in the book's example, the truly 'rising' point is 5 Virgo to 25 Libra (while the zenith is direct) and 25 Aries back to 5 Pisces (when retrograde). Furthermore (and this was not perfectly obvious to me until I did a few graphs of the horizontal motion of various ecliptic points over 24 hours) every point which rises does so in the East, and every point which sets does so in the West. This means that 1-A-east and 1-B-rising are ALWAYS the same, although they deviate from 1-C-forward 1/2 the time. Which implies that all of the painful issues involving the 'choice' of 1A vs. 1B do not exist at all. Nice. There just may be a few choices to be made regarding the MC (but not for me or anyone who is satisfied that the 10th-house cusp should correlate to that ecliptic point at its own maximum altitude). :) Looking at Figure 1, and moving along the Ascendant curve (which again is really 1-C-forward, not 1-B-rising), I believe the curve should turn retrograde (upward) at the moment the lines cross, not a little after, as my book pictures. It turns out that at the moment of this upturn, the line drawn ceases to be 1A or 1B (which, since they're the same, I'll call 1A/B). At this moment, 1A/B becomes (automatically, without arbitrary manipulation) the opposite point (shifted 180 degrees up or down) and thus remains in the 180 degrees forward from the MC. Specific Passages: Starting on page 132, almost every paragraph contains unfortunately incorrect conclusions. Only a very few examples should be necessary: 'In terms of the two definitions...above, this is...the ascending node of the ecliptic with the horizon...' It actually isn't. '...Ascendant... is always near 0 Libra...' Only 1-C is, not 1A/B. '...the Ascendant [rising point] moves from the eastern half of the horizon to western half...' Only 1-C. 1st paragraph, p134 'One has to....to an opposition'. This is all incorrect, following from the one mistake. And so on. One more example which solidifies my claim that 1-C is being used: p133 'At the North Pole the Ascendant is always 0 degrees Libra (again according to this definition)' Clearly, at the north pole, there is no east or west, but also no rising or setting. However, there is the zenith. The zenith at the north pole is always and ever zero Cancer, and thus if one is using 1-C (formula on p139 as 2.D.) you will get zero Libra, the forward square. In other words, the above quote can only be referring to the forward square, not the 'rising' point. This is probably old news to many (probably including Mr. Hand himself) and certainly to Per, who quite rightly deduced in a recent example that Pisces was rising because the Sun in Virgo was setting. Happy motoring and programming!