Parans

[SteveS]

With Sidereal Astrology, I have always considered technically a Paran involving two or more planets simultaneously on the horizon - meridian angles. And as Fagan taught: This is the "most powerful" aspect known in all of Sidereal Astrology. I can certainly attest to my own experience with return charts when I see a planet on an angle I feel its symbolic potency to its fullest.

I once asked Matthew Quellas what is technically considered "ON" an angle pertaining to Parans? He replied: The planets must be mundanely partile (1 degree or less) "ON" the angles. I have no reason to debate this point since it is taught in Sidereal Astrology, "Partile Aspects Reign Supreme."

Regardless what we define as "ON" an angle, are we all in agreement a Paran is the most powerful aspect known in Sidereal Astrology?

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Regardless what we define as "ON" an angle, are we all in agreement a Paran is the most powerful aspect known in Sidereal Astrology?

No.
Are we all agreed Fagan sometimes indulged in hyperbole when he was excited about something?

[Jim Eshelman]

...are we all in agreement a Paran is the most powerful aspect known in Sidereal Astrology?

To agree with this, I have to change the language.

I agree with the following paraphrase: The most powerful astrological aspect known to us occurs when two planets are each exactly angular and in exact aspect to each other. (For sake of conversation, define this as: When two planets are each within 1° of an angle and within 1° of aspect each other.)

In pre-computer dates, there was a mysterious wonderfulness around the idea of a paran (made even more mysterious and wonderful because almost nobody could really calculate them). I might almost call it "The Cult of the Paran." The word paran became a buzz word. But... break it down. What's it really talking about? It's talking about two planets being exactly angular at the same time. When they are exactly (and mundanely) on major angles - conjunct on the same angle, opposite each other across the meridian or the horizon, or on adjacent angles such as one on MC and one on Asc - this exact co-angularity also forms a mundane aspect (aspect in PV longitude).

Breaking it down... we see what I think is a more fundamental thing. We see two planets angular at the same time (and either actually or implicitly in aspect to each other). That's powerful!

Why do I make a big deal? Because a lot of these exact co-angularities aren't parans! By definition, parans are mundane; but the SMA work has made clear that transits to angles work ecliptically, not mundanely. If one planet transits (ecliptically) your MC at the same time another planet transits (ecliptically) your Ascendant, that's not a paran because parans are necessarily mundane. This simultaneous transit to angles, though, is incredibly powerful and important.

The SMA work - specifically discovering that transits and quotidian contacts work by ecliptical contact (not mundane contact) - put the final nail in the coffin of the classic understanding of parans for me. I'd spent years manually calculating specula to calculate exact mundane quotidian crossings and I now know that that was all waste and rubbish - I was making it harder on myself in order to get poorer results. I'd have done better to just take the straightforward ecliptical contacts.

[SteveS]

Jim, all I know is Fagan wrote in "Primer of Sidereal Astrology" a Paran was "the most powerful aspect known in astrology," and I have proven to myself Fagan was speaking the truth. But like I said, at this point in my life the whole business about any kind of Paran is not a big deal to me. I respect your final judgement about em.

[Jim Eshelman]

Jim, all I know is Fagan wrote in "Primer of Sidereal Astrology" a Paran was "the most powerful aspect known in astrology," and I have proven to myself Fagan was speaking the truth.

Imagine, though - just to simplify things - that every time you see Fagan say "paran," you substitute the wordier description, "two planets on an angle at the same time." In practice, I'm certain that this is what he meant and, to him, it didn't make a difference how they were on an angle.

I agree with Fagan completely if (as I suspect) he simply used paran to mean "two planets on an angle at the same time."

BTW - this is not what paranatellon (shortened by Joanne Clancy to "paran") meant in ancient times. It's entirely a modern coinage. Fagan took one thing that was a big deal to ancient astrologers, dismissed how they used it, and put the word to another use that literally (but not historically) fit its meaning. Siderealists (and, eventually, much of the rest of the astrological world) just went along with him on that. See: https://www.lexico.com/definition/paranatellon