Gjiada wrote:I have Bezza "Commento al primo libro del tetrabiblos" and to me it seems it is talking about whatever aspect. He gives this example from Porphirius:
Moon at 20 Scorpio, Saturn 10 Aquarius, Jupiter 25 Leo.

Why do you think he is talking about conjunctions?

In my opinion what you are calling "monographic"(?) its partial conjunction.

Moreover in Italian we don't have the word moiety, I cannot even translate in my mother tongue.

And now I'm proud to present your Italian moiety (hoping the best for my dictionary!) to you: met? or mezzo . . . ?

You will not believe me, but being an Italian I know my mother tongue a little better than you. And the word "met?" is not unknown to me, even it seems to you unbelievable.

Its just that we have not an astrological technical word, as we dont have a word for "void of course". We should use a paraphrase, something like "half (met?) of the orb".

In every case I should say that its not the first time people from abroad in the Internet try to teach me Italian, moreover very common words that children learn when they start to talk, its very strange for me.

Olivia wrote:And here? You see moiti? et moiti? in the shops all the time - it's something you put in coffee. Not what Dariot was writing about, I'm certain!

johannes susato wrote:
really appears a little strange to me.

Gjiada wrote:
Well, Im sorry if I misunderstood your words.

Andrew wrote:

'Monographick' with its Greek meaning (monos - alone, single) would make sense in our context of focussing on only one orb (radius) of two applying or separating planets at a time.

You're right! It seems to make perfect sense.

A misprint in the AstroAmerica edition. See also:

http://www.astrologiamedieval.com/Orbes.htm

Please excuse my overlooking your agreement (fine!) and your link to Steven Birchfield's very interesting article!

Were the classical rules also applied in transits of planets? In modern astrology the orbs of transiting planets usually are tighter than those of the planets in the natal chart.

Andrew wrote:

Were the classical rules also applied in transits of planets? In modern astrology the orbs of transiting planets usually are tighter than those of the planets in the natal chart.

Some traditional astrologers apply the moiety of the orbs of the planets, i.e. the full extension. So, for example, Jupiter or Saturn would have a transit orb-allowance of nine degrees.