Deb wrote: I know that Ben Dykes implies something along the lines of what you are saying in his footnote, but this is one place where I consider his footnote misleading. The problem is that this part of the text talks about planets ?conjoining?, but in the Latin texts this could equally mean to join by aspect as well as by bodily conjunction.

Bezza thinks the same you states here, that a different vis luminis for different aspects is an insertion of late astrology, around 1700 if I well understand.
But Placidus still wrote:"every star has around a certain orb or action area as all the inferior causes, like the fire which can warm just inside the circle it is contained."
Margherita

So in using the total orbs for aspects, do you use the orb of the planet being aspected to? That planet will be a superior planet correct?

That probably needs quite a full answer because there are different ways to use this, according to different techniques (for example, horary could make a different use of this than natal astrology), and even within one technique, it can be put to different uses (for example in horary this can mean different things depending upon the context of the question and what the application represents). In addition, this is only one of the ways that orbs were calculated and applied.

For example (from memory) I think Dariot mentioned three prevalent ways to decide that the planets are in a state of ?application? ? one is simply to say that any planets within 6 degrees are in application (this is the most reliable because all the planets have orbs with a larger radius than 6 degrees); one is when they were both simultaneously in the force of each other?s body; and the other ? the one he describes at length -- is where both orbs are considered and there is a joining in the middle of their mutual force (this is what we think of as ?the moiety of the orb?). The point I wanted to stress is that this was not always the procedure, and older astrologers did speak about one planet being able to be within the orb of another, without this implying a mutual joining.

I hope that helps a little, but I know you need a clearer explanation really.

For Papretis, in regard to the comment I made about your post, here is a good example to show that the approach was used in aspects as well as the conjunction. This is from the 5th century text of Olympiodorus, ch.16, (564: Variant text for p. 29, ll. 9-23 - p. 30, ll. 1-2.) ? I am using the Dorian Greenbaum translation:

? application/connection by body is said whenever the Moon, when being carried to one of the stars, should come together with it from a distance of 12?. And again separation by body, whenever, after coming together with the star, it should stand the same 12? away. After these [degrees] it is not said to separate by body. Application and separation by figure is said whenever it comes to be with a star before 12? of the precise figure-description of a hexagon, square, triangle or diameter, up to its connection; but separation from it is standing away up to 12?? after the separating of a star either by body or by figure, one must examine if it applies to another.

(Late Classical Astrology: Paulus Alexandrinus and Olympiodorus, (Reston, VA; 2001).

Paulus and Olympiodorius are also good texts for demonstrating that orbs were not constrained 'within sign'. BTW, I started researching this in-depth for a presentation I gave at the Warburg last year, and I will be repeating the presentation at the Regulus conference in Melbourne in October. After that I will be able to put more references and some of the more illuminating practical demonstrations online.

(Now I have to stop looking at the forum for a few days, to focus on the work I should be doing !!)

Mithra6 wrote:So in using the total orbs for aspects, do you use the orb of the planet being aspected to? That planet will be a superior planet correct?

I reply with my notes, I don't know what others will write:

We can have:
1) partilis or perfectissima: by degree
2) mutua or platick: when both are in the other's orb
3) partialis when just one of the planet's orb is involved
4) no aspect.

I call Semi-diameter SD the half of vis luminis of planet 1 and 2;

SD aspect= (sd1 +sd2)/2

1) if the distance of the aspect = or less than 1
2) if the distance of the aspect is less than SD aspect
3) if the distance of the aspect is greater than SD aspect but lesser than the greatest between sd1 and sd2
4) if the distance of the aspect is greater than both sd1 and sd2

Margherita

Incidentally, one of the footnotes in Ben Dykes work (and I have seen this comment made by several other authors too) claims this is a different approach to that taken by William Lilly, suggesting that Lilly used 9? as the total orb of Saturn, rather than its radius. I know that Ben will correct this in a later edition, but just to be clear - this is very much the same approach that Lilly took. For example he says of Saturn (CA p. 60) ?His orb is 9 degrees before and after; that is, his influence begins to work when either he applies, or any planet applies to him, and is within 9 degrees of his aspect, and from that aspect?.

From The Astrological Judgement and Practice of Physick by Richard Saunders (1677):

The Menographick Aspect is, when two planets do behold each other, and yet the distance between the Centre of both their Bodies doth not differ from a perfect Aspect above the Semidiameter of one of them, and yet it must exceed the Semidiameter of the other of them ... if Venus were in the 4th degree of Cancer, and the Moon in the 12th degree of Aries: here the difference from a perfect Aspect is 8 degrees, which is less than the Moon her Semidiameter, and more than the Semidiameter of Venus, so that the Moon by her beams toucheth Venus, but not Venus the Moon, and therefore in that respect, the configuration between them is not so perfect.

That is, the menographic aspect described by Richard Saunders uses the full extension of the orb.

Andrew wrote:
That is, the menographic aspect described by Richard Saunders uses the full extension of the orb.

What "menographic" means is dark for me. Is there another easier word for it?

In every case it seems to me the case called "partialis." (case 3 in my previous post)

The distance of two planets is 8 degree, moiety of Venus is 7 and moiety of the Moon is 12.
So this distance 8 is greater than Venus moiety - we don't have this word, so I called it semidiameter- but lesser than the Moon one.
This means that Venus is the action area of Moon but Moon is out from Venus area.

I thought that the Greeks just used the positions of the signs and not the planets as basis for their aspects. So a planet in Capricorn and a planet in Aries would always be in square aspect, whether their distance was 61? or 119?.

Could medieval astrologers have found inspirations for the orbs in the size radius of the epicycles of the planets in the Ptolemaic system?

I couldn't find a lot but here I found some numbers of sizes.
http://mathdl.maa.org/mathDL/46/?pa=con ... =3120&pf=1
?7, Table 2.

I tried to copy it but it got a bit messy, but still readable I think.

Length
Time (days)

Mercury
12?
20

Venus
15?
40

Mars
16?
72

Jupiter
10?
120

Saturn
7?
140

Deb wrote:For Papretis[/b][/i], in regard to the comment I made about your post, here is a good example to show that the approach was used in aspects as well as the conjunction. This is from the 5th century text of Olympiodorus, ch.16, (564: Variant text for p. 29, ll. 9-23 - p. 30, ll. 1-2.) ? I am using the Dorian Greenbaum translation:

? application/connection by body is said whenever the Moon, when being carried to one of the stars, should come together with it from a distance of 12?. And again separation by body, whenever, after coming together with the star, it should stand the same 12? away. After these [degrees] it is not said to separate by body. Application and separation by figure is said whenever it comes to be with a star before 12? of the precise figure-description of a hexagon, square, triangle or diameter, up to its connection; but separation from it is standing away up to 12?? after the separating of a star either by body or by figure, one must examine if it applies to another.

(Late Classical Astrology: Paulus Alexandrinus and Olympiodorus, (Reston, VA; 2001).

Thank you Deb! Those being there listening your presentations benefit, and we benefit from your research here...

Hi Tom,

In case you noticed my earlier post and are wondering why my comment has changed, I just realised that your comment wasn't addressed to me, so my response wasn't necessary, and probably wasn't helpful.

Hi Deb,

Nope missed it in its entirety. Don't worry about it.

Tom

MarkC wrote:Hello Johannes,

this must be a misunderstanding: Morin (volume 16 chapter 13 of AG) speaks of: "18 gradus pro semidiametro orbis sua luminis"
for the Sun. And that is 18 degrees before and behind him, as always.

No argument about that. I was discussing the combined moeity of the Sun + Moon together. 18+12=30

Hello Mark,

exactly, and that is the point! As far as to my understanding of Morin, he is not in dissens to the general doctrine of dividing into halves the sum of the half diameters (or radii) of the aspecting planets (or perhaps not in dissens to the older technique mentioned by Deb). In any case Morin would not combine the sun's and the moon's orbs to an amount of 30 degrees. Let's see it at about 15? - 18? at the most.

As to my knowledge Dariot first mentioned moieties, but as a term for semidiameter or half the diameter = radius.

Lilly used the term moiety in the meaning of half the orb = half of the semidiameter = half of the radius. This as an anticipated step of calculation, because he uses a planet's moiety exclusively in addition to the moiety of another planet to determine their application or separation.
In the end the result is just the same as dividing into halves the sum of both the?r orbs = radii.

Perhaps this is the point of a misunderstanding?

Andrew wrote: From The Astrological Judgement and Practice of Physick by Richard Saunders (1677):

The Menographick Aspect is, when two planets do behold each other, and yet the distance between the Centre of both their Bodies doth not differ from a perfect Aspect above the Semidiameter of one of them, and yet it must exceed the Semidiameter of the other of them ... if Venus were in the 4th degree of Cancer, and the Moon in the 12th degree of Aries: here the difference from a perfect Aspect is 8 degrees, which is less than the Moon her Semidiameter, and more than the Semidiameter of Venus, so that the Moon by her beams toucheth Venus, but not Venus the Moon, and therefore in that respect, the configuration between them is not so perfect.

That is, the menographic aspect described by Richard Saunders uses the full extension of the orb.

Hi Andrew,

is menographic possibly a misprint? Menographic is unknown to my dictionaries. The meaning of mono- (greek monos - single, alone) would make sense in this context of focussing on only one orb (radius) of applying or separating planets at a time, even though the term monographic sounds a little strange in this context.

Johannes

Hello Mark,

exactly, and that is the point! As far as to my understanding of Morin, he is not in dissens to the general doctrine of dividing into halves the sum of the half diameters (or radii) of the aspecting planets (or perhaps not in dissens to the older technique mentioned by Deb). In any case Morin would not combine the sun's and the moon's orbs to an amount of 30 degrees. Let's see it at about 15? - 18? at the most

Hello Johannes,

I claim no knowlege of what Morin said or didn't state about this subject. I was simply responding to what Tom said.

Morin gives these (rather large) orbs in Astrologia Gallica Book 18

Sun 36 degrees
Moon 24 degrees
Mercury 16 degrees
Venus 26 degrees
Mars 13 degrees
Jupiter 16 Degrees
Saturn 14 degrees

The moieties are half these.

Perhaps I misunderstood what Tom meant? I am really only familiar with using Lilly's approach and that has undoubtably coloured how I perceived this. Its clearly more complicated than I appreciated. As I already seem to have confused what Al Biruni was saying on orbs and moeities I am cautious to say anything else in case that is wrong too!