Talk:Midheaven

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 August 2023. The result of the discussion was redirect.

This page was proposed for deletion by Salimfadhley (talk · contribs) on 18 November 2021.

Request for expansion[edit]

I still don't get the nature of the Midheaven and exactly how come a 15° Taurus Ascendant is not concurrent with a 15° Aquarius Midheaven. This delineation is critical for the ongoing, heated discussion of house systems in astrology. Thanks for any expansion on it. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current text babbles. I believe Midheaven is the ecliptical longitude of zenith. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two definitions of Midheaven. Historical it is point exactly over head, equally distant (90 degrees) from every point on horizon (Manilius, Astronomica, in modern vocabulary called 'zenith'). Modern it is ecliptical longitude of the ecliptic point where local meridian cuts ecliptic. This modern point - ecliptical Medium Coeli - has definitely different ecliptic longitude than 'ecliptical longitude of zenith'. GrzegorzWu (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is incorrect. There is only one definition of the midheaven; we are not talking about a "modern point", but an historically established definition that is specific to ecliptic measurement. The page needs to establish clearly the difference between the midheaven and the zenith, not confuse the two together as if they could be the same thing. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 05:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In one period in history one definition was used, in another times (Up to nowadays) the other was used. GrzegorzWu (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry GrzegorzWu, but that's not correct. The specific term 'midheaven', when used in relevance to anything to do with the zodiac, has never been been used to signify the zenith, not even by Manilius. There are many references to the midheaven in ancient works, and they are all indicating the point of upper culmination which divides the ecliptic between the ascendant and descendant. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manilius' Astronomica defines Midheaven as point equally distant to every point on horizon. There was no Asc and no nowadays Midheaven in astronomy and astrology wisdom that Manilius transformed into poetry. In currently available translation in Loeb series the term previously translated as 'Midheaven' (latin 'Medium Coeli') is changed to 'zenith', as explained in the footnote. GrzegorzWu (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The poetic account describes it as "the midpoint of shadows" (p.145 - ie, place of the Sun at noon) which "divides heaven in two with imperceptible meridian" (147), being "the station nearest the zenith" (153) - all of which accurately describe the midheaven. It is not the zenith itself, and in context of the book's obvious use of the zodiac, and the mention of the planets being in this place, it is illogical to assume he was referring to anything other than the midheaven, which cuts the ecliptic and defines the zodiac. (The planets make their passages through the zodiac, not the zentih). But the bigger point is that this one poetic account, valuable as it is, shouldn't grab undue attention. There is a clear understanding of what the midheaven is, and the page should simply communicate that. I hope you agree. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

father or mother[edit]

i have been practicing astrology for many years, and i find the Midheaven to be much more in the relation to the father, than in the relation to the mother. what about you ?81.33.63.231 (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The common, most widely-found definition in astrology is that it's got to do with one's career. That it's related to how we saw and see (perceive) a parent only comes from psychological astrology, as an explanation that how we we saw and see the parent with a career influences our own career aptitudes, abilities, and inclinations. --2003:EF:170B:F986:EC77:64E9:555E:7EE1 (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Midheaven vs Ascendant[edit]

The page says: "In the northern hemisphere, ... [the Midheaven] will always be the part of the zodiac that is due south at any time... The reverse is true in the southern hemisphere where the planets culminate on the midheaven in alignment with due north. (This rule holds true for all locations outside of the tropics)." Followed by a footnote to The Houses: Temples of the Sky by Deborah Houlding.

The last sentence is not correct; it is based on a misreading of the source that it was taken from. Houlding actually says: "With the MC [Midheaven] and IC [Imum Coeli] then, there is true alignment between the astrological angles and the cardinal directions south and north. This is not usually the case with the ascendant and the east, or the descendant and the west." Then she puts a footnote and says: "This rule holds true for all locations outside of the tropics." (p. 101-102 of The Houses: Temples of the Sky)

What Houlding is saying is: at northern and southern latitudes the MC and IC match up with north and south, but the Ascendant and Descendant don't usually match up with east and west. However, in the tropics these four angles usually DO match up with the cardinal directions. The MC and IC are always north and south, but whether or not the Ascendant and Descendant match up with east and west depends on whether or not the observer is in the tropics.

Ok.. I hope that's clear!! Please let me know if you think I'm wrong.... Mattj2 (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is only correct when the Midheaven point is a solstice point. At other times, the ascendent and descendent are not due east and due west, because they are displaced from the equator, but do remain opposite each other. This turns the midheaven point away from being due south or north.

Karl (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made my previous statement on the assumption that the midheaven point is the highest point of the ecliptic, which is always halfway between the ascendant and descendent. A read of house (astrology) suggests that this is not correct, but instead the midheaven point is the higher of the two intersections of the ecliptic to the north-south line. By this definition, the midheaven point is always due north or south.

Karl (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]