Kerrenhappuch states:

A lot of posting going on... but it seems we're arguing theory here, not specifics. In relation to horary, I don't see that any of these arguments/concepts would have any influence on how I would interpret a horary chart...

This is not just a theoretical debate. Using or not using orbs can effect a judgement significantly.

For example because the moeity of the Sun/Moon is quite large its possible for say the Moons next applying aspect to be the next contact with the Sun. Another planet might be closer but still not within orb.

Frawley's approach seems to take no account of which planets are involved. The whole medieval/renaissance approach is founded on the idea that planets make aspects not the aspects themselves. Frawley, seems to have abandoned this outlook. This sounds more like a modernist approach to aspects than a traditional one.

In looking at aspects that perfect across the sign boundary sources like Lilly are not compatible with the approach advocated by Frawley. From a traditional approach to horary one would need to check the orbs/moeity of the planets concerned. For example if the Moon was at say 29 Pisces and the Sun at 10 Leo this would constitute an applying trine aspect in orb according to Lilly. If I understand Frawley's approach this would be discounted at it does not perfect within 3-4 degrees of the sign boundary. Such differences will clearly make a difference to a judgement.

Another example is that if that the Moon can be void in a sign ( this is different from void of course) because it is not involved in any applying/separating aspects. This will certainly effect the judgement of the Moon and horary as a whole. Frawley's approach totally ignores such a point.

The idea that orbs don't matter in horary is clearly unsustainable from mainstream medieval/renaissance sources. Frawley pays frequent tribute to Lilly, Al Biruni etc in his books but he seems to have little time for the technique they actually taught in regards orbs.

If Frawley's ideas on orbs ( or non-orbs!) do originate from hellenistic sources, as Tom claims, I would be interested to know what those are?

Mark

The 3-4 deg orb is what John uses in natal astrology. He argues that anything greater than that should be ignored. So he uses orbs that are somewhat tighter than most astrologers use. However, in horary he says that any two planets that behold each other, that is are in signs that aspect each other, are to be considered regardless of the orbs. He is arguing for no orbs at all for horary astrology. As long as the two planets are in signs that aspect each other it does not matter whether they are 4 degrees apart or 24 degrees apart. If they will eventually perfect without any impediment then they are to be considered as an applying aspect and positive to the outcome. To use Tom's words:

The aspect will perfect or it won't. If it perfects before it can be prohibited the thing will come to pass regardless of the initial distance separating the two significators, and I've never seen anything to the contrary anywhere.

And by the same token, I have never seen it written that orbs are irrelevant in horary judgements by any other astrologer other than John Frawley. In fact, the opposite is true and every traditional astrologer I have read has spoken of orbs. They mostly give very similar figures for these orbs (except that Partridge inexplicably gave the Moon a 1 deg orb) and explain the fact that interaction between planets does not take place until they are within orb. Am I again expected to believe that of all the astrologers from vast number of centuries stretching back that only John Frawley has it right?

I believe it was Alan Leo who changed the idea of planets having orbs to the aspects having orbs. This is quite late in history.

Tom is correct when he says that Hellenistic astrologers did not use orbs. However, I'm not sure we can use a direct correlation here since there is no real evidence of the way horary worked before about the 5th century apart from Dorotheus who doesn't really go into great detail about such matters.

Hello Sue,

Its undeniable Frawley counts any perfecting aspect within sign as long as its not impeded by some other contact first.

Thats obviously a vital difference to the way he approaches horary from the medieval/renaissance astrologers. Lilly wouldn't consider a potential perfected aspect in sign unless it was already in moeity/orb with that next planet. This must mean Frawley and his students count a lot of contacts in sign that would be discounted by other traditional astrologers as outside orb.

However, I am not sure you are correct when you suggest Frawley only uses the 3-4 degree orb for natal work. From what I have read Frawley appears to use the 3-4 degree standarised 'orb' in his Horary Textbook when he discusses applying aspects perfecting over the sign boundary. That was the context of the example I gave.

This seems to be discussed in the following section of the Horary Textbook:

'Limit this to a few degrees inside the next sign. If the aspect does not perfect within, at most, 3 or 4 degrees of the next sign, the thing will not happen'. The Horary Textbook page 91

Note there is no distinction made on which planets are involved. This looks suspisciously like a modernist 'orb' to me. What is the astrology student to make of this? On the one hand Frawley tells us we don't need orbs and then seems to suggest a special standarised orb to planets out-of-sign?

Maurice McCann has already pointed out this approach is totally contradicted in the previous page of the book where Frawley rules out the possibility of out-of sign aspects.

Up until now I had assumed Frawley's approach was purely whole sign but the above quote implies otherwise. Logically, both positions cannot stand.

Perhaps Tom can clarify here?

Whatever view one takes on Frawley's approach to horary it cannot be seriously argued that removing orbs/moeity does not make a significant difference to the practical judgement of a chart.

Mark

*chuckles* So we're still arguing... My take on Frawley is that he advocates a "common sense" approach, which is what I like about his books

My understanding of orbs/aspects/whatever is that if the aspect perfects, it's a positive indication of the event happening (depending on receptions). If the aspect is prohibited then it is an indication that the event will not occur. If the aspect perfects, it does not matter how far from perfection the two bodies are.... and we use the number of degrees travelled by the applying planet to reach perfection to indicate the timing of the event.

Am I right?

Mark C seems to be arguing that if two planets are above a certain number of degrees from perfection then the aspect cannot be counted. Again, I would really, really like to see a specific chart with judgement and outcome, in which this point of theory is proven or disproven. I think we should trawl through our past charts and see if we can find an appropriate one we could pick apart.

A nice diversion on out-of-sign aspects! I think this debate has flared up nicely! This is a tricky one. I think I'm with the "out of sign aspects do not exist" camp though. After all, modern software can plot the planets' positions accurately so there is no need to fudge on sign boundaries or planetary positions. And no matter how wide the "orb" of a planet, its centre is surely just that, its centre and therefore the most important part of it, or else we'd plot planets on a chart as being a fuzzy ball: "Jupiter is at 3'10 - 9'10 Aries" or whatever. I completely understand the concept of orbs - that the planet in reality IS a fuzzy ball! But in horary we are concerned with EXACT aspects only to show an event, not fuzzy edges brushing past one another...

Also consider the change of receptions a planet undergoes when it changes sign - surely this is extremely important? Especially in horary - surely such a situation could only show an event which occurs *after* an important change has taken place? I personally don't recall ever having judged a chart involving this issue. Does anyone have a chart we could study involving out of sign aspects/changing sign to perfect an aspect-type stuff?


Mark C - you describe Frawley's "3-4 degrees" rule as a "special standardised orb for planets out of sign". Excuse me Mark, but I don't think he's setting out a rule, more a guideline. And yes, he does seem to contradict himself in this area. But I think the important thrust of what he's really trying to say is "Use your common sense!" Each chart is unique and I'd hate to think that we are so bound up in rules, looking for the answer to be delivered in a predictable, neat, labelled little box, that we allow ourselves no personal discretion or style and we are unable to perceive the message of the chart. See the "When will the fridge arrive?" question in "The Real Astrology Applied", page 56. Astrology is a marriage of art and science, so let us not forget the art Again, I really think an actual chart would really help here.


Just my thoughts (or fuel to the fire)...

Hello Keren,

My understanding of orbs/aspects/whatever is that if the aspect perfects, it's a positive indication of the event happening (depending on receptions). If the aspect is prohibited then it is an indication that the event will not occur. If the aspect perfects, it does not matter how far from perfection the two bodies are.... and we use the number of degrees travelled by the applying planet to reach perfection to indicate the timing of the event.

I assume your understanding of horary is derived from John Frawley? That sounds like a reasonable summary of his approach.

Mark C seems to be arguing that if two planets are above a certain number of degrees from perfection then the aspect cannot be counted.

I am not arguing with anyone here. I simply stated that this is the stance of all the great traditional horary astrologers. Its Lilly, Bonatti etc or John Frawley...take your pick.

Again, I would really, really like to see a specific chart with judgement and outcome, in which this point of theory is proven or disproven. I think we should trawl through our past charts and see if we can find an appropriate one we could pick apart.

To be honest I have only recently appreciated how different Frawley's approach was to everyone else. As a consequence I haven't collected neat examples to show which approach is better. It seems to me as John Frawley and his students are the real innovators by deviating from the tradition the onus is on them to prove their case. Moreover, if you want proof of how effective the traditional approach is I suggest you check out William Lilly's Christian Astrology if you have not already done so. The great thing about the book is that it contains lots of worked examples of charts and judgements. If you want to see how powerful the traditional approach to horary is its all there.

On out-of-sign aspects issue I have specific charts I have judged where this has clearly worked. However, I respect differing views. For most medieval practitioners out-of-sign aspects would be excluded.

I am all for common sense Keren. I have 4 traditional planets and my ASC/MC in earth! However, reducing everything to a pragmatic 'it works for me' approach will take us into the amoeba like state of modern astrology. I don't think its being narrow minded or fundamentalist to expect traditional astrologers to follow a traditional approach. If they genuinely disagree with elements of the tradition I can respect that. Great astrologers such as Ibn Ezra to Morin did this. The main objection I have to John Frawley's approach in his Horary Textbook is that he never explains what are generally accepted teachings and what are his idiosyncracies or deviations from mainstream traditional astrology. As a consequence a whole group of people are reading Frawley's Horary Textbook and thinking his ideas are all mainstream traditional astrology. In some very important areas they are not.

Mark

In answer to Maurice's initial call for comment - orbs are absolutely important! To suggest they are not is to suggest that ?aspectual contact? is not important. I?m stunned by the suggestion that orbs are important in natal work and traditional astrology generally, but not horary. Does that suggestion apply to decumbitures and electional charts too? What does this ?dumbing-down? of technique say about the respect given to horary as a valid branch of astrology?

It is nonsense to suggest that a ?no orb? approach is justified within the horary tradition because the Hellenistic Greeks didn?t use orbs in their whole sign system. For one thing, that issue remains under exploration because we still have access to only a very tiny proportion of classical texts. We know that there are references to planetary orbs in the works of Ptolemy, Firmicus, Porphry and others, and keep in mind that some of the blanket statements that were being put about just a few years ago regarding classical practice have already started to be revised. But to avoid the diversion into that issue, let?s suppose it is the case: it would still mean nothing. No authority has ever proposed the whole-sign system as an ideal structure for horary. Much of horary technique depends upon developments that were either introduced under the Arabic influence or at least more clearly evident in their sources. They are not compatible with the whole sign system and if Frawley is in support of this then why is he so clear in urging his readers to adopt the Regiomontanus house system? This is the best, he says, not for any subjective reasons, but because it gives the most accurate and reliable cusps (p.15). And that?s the same reason why we use planetary orbs instead of signs to determine planetary contact.

Tom questioned whether Lilly actually used the orbs himself. Very much so. Lilly?s work reveals just how fundamentally important orbs are. To be within the state of ?application? or ?separation? planets need to be within the limits of the orb. Beyond that they may be ?moving towards? or ?moving away from? an aspect, but they are no longer within the limits of the contact, so at that point they are not capable of influencing each other. In addition Lilly routinely considered the last aspect of the Moon and the main significator to reveal past influences on the question, even if he had to go as far back as the middle of the previous sign to find it ? but that was a previous aspect, not a ?separating? one. There is a very important difference and a great deal of traditional astrology rests upon understanding it.

Past aspects and future aspects reveal a potential for things that have or might happen. But the orbs represent the limits by which the planets are able to impress the ?force of their bodies? upon each other, or transfer influences from one to another. So the Moon is never void (empty of influence) whilst it is within orb of a contact. This is because the Moon, the most inferior planet and the most impressionable one, takes the influence of the planets it is in contact with, and bears the main responsibility for translating influences from one planet to another. So the Moon is never void unless out of orb; but it can be void in the middle of the sign if it is not within orb of an aspect - even if it will later perfect an aspect at the end of the sign (see for example, CA p.439). This is one example of why orbs are so important. Additionally, the Moon (or any other planet) cannot translate light between two planets if one of them is outside of the orb of contact. A planet cannot translate between its last contact to its next wherever the planets are; they have to be within its reach. If the translating planet is fully separated from one (out of orb) the influence is lost, so there is no ability to transmit. By all means check out Christian Astrology for yourself. The examples are too numerous for me to list here, but in every instance where Lilly refers to a planet translating or transferring light, influence, power or virtue to another planet, this is always happening within the limits of the orb. Yet wherever the Moon or another planet moves from one significator to another and this doesn?t happen within orb, there is never any reference to translation of light because ?translation of light? isn?t happening. The significance of orbs impacts upon so many traditional techniques that it can hardly be over-estimated.

Karen, you suggest that this is just arguing ?a lot of theory? and you can?t see its relevance in how to interpret a chart. But without a firm understanding of the theory and the philosophy behind it, students will not understand the traditional principles embedded within horary and so will struggle to become as confident and skilled in its practice as they could be. As for the ?out of sign? perfection which you question, Lilly absolutely allowed for this. For one of my examples already on the site see http://www.skyscript.co.uk/ring.html - or just look at one or all of Lilly?s charts to see that what I am saying here is the reality of how he worked.

So no, by no means could I accept that it?s a ?common sense? approach to suggest that ?orbs are useless?, that they mean ?absolutely nothing? and that students ?don?t need to bother with them? ? it?s a failure to explain the principle; and it makes a mockery of the efforts of the astrologers in the past who worked so hard to understand the philosophical and mathematical principles involved and catalogue the benefits of their experience. Every time we ?simplify? traditional principles, rather than take the trouble to explain the purpose and value of them, we lose something of the baby along with the bathwater. Thanks to the lingering influence of Lilly, astrologers have finally started to come around to the notion that planets, not aspects, determine the orb ? how ironic that at the same time we?re now being persuaded that aspects belong, not to the planets that actually create them, but just to the signs by which their movement is measured.

Deb,

Of course I can see the relevance in the concept of orbs, and I do understand the concept! Of course I agree that the notion of "banishing orbs" or "orbs are useless" is daft not to mention misleading... I don't think there's anyone here who would seriously argue that we should ignore/banish orbs.


Mark,
Thanks for clarifying for me what you said about aspects being counted only if they are within orb.

Deb,
Thanks for your clarification of the importance of planets being within orb in order to influence one another, I found this very helpful

I feel the concept has been brought down to earth now, thanks!

And no, Frawley's "Textbook" (nor any of his other writings) does not make this concept clear.

I agree that the book is misleading in that he does not indicate clearly the parts where he deviates from CA or other historical references.

Thanks all for your informative posts

Deborah,
Would it be possible to have a vote on whether or not people agree with Frawley on the subject of doing away with the orbs? The reason I'm asking is because I'm doing some research on orbs and would like people to give their opinion through a 'yes' or 'no' vote.

Maurice.

I just saw this thread.

What a ridiculous suggestion! (that orbs aren't important) Frawley must be trying to invent a new horary technique. To not use orbs - Does that mean an aspect must be exact or you don't use it??

I was so un-impressed by his grossly over simplification about planet's standings and receptions in arriving at an answer to a question, (she loves him, he hates her, etc..) that I finally gave up on referring to his book at all. It would be nice if it were so easy but it isn't that simple.

Now to hear this, I am sure that he either poorly stated his position on this or he is altogether just wrong .

I like the wide non-orb idea, within reason...the Moon, say, is applying to a planet but hasn't got there yet. Frawley says that this equates to 'nothing will happen...yet', which seems to me to be more realistic and sensible than 'yes' or 'no'. Life is full of waiting games.

Keren H of course has the best idea; we should all trawl back through our charts with known outcomes. The proof of the pudding etc.

Me, I haven't really made my mind up. Maybe looking back through my charts will convince me one way or the other! Yes, and Lilly, of course.

GH

Gunhilde wrote:I like the wide non-orb idea...the Moon, say, is applying to a planet but hasn't got there yet. Frawley says that this equates to 'nothing will happen...yet', which seems to me to be more realistic and sensible than 'yes' or 'no'. Life is full of waiting games.

Keren H of course has the best idea; we should all trawl back through our charts with known outcomes. The proof of the pudding etc.

Me, I haven't really made my mind up. Maybe looking back through my charts will convince me one way or the other!

GH

You may like the idea but I don't think there is any historical basis for it.

I have never heard of this before now.

He (or anyone for that matter) could make up a lot of nice simple rules, but that wouldn't make it true!

I must be not understanding the argument here and I really don't have the time to spend on Mr. Frawley to see what he's talking about or going back over this entire thread. So I shall just shut up.

I think people really should just use whatever works for them. If non-orbs work for some, more power to them. Otherwise, people will happily argue until they're blue in the face, with no change in viewpoint from either side. As shown here.

GH