Hello

I'm following this discussion with interest.

Apologies for the brief interjection but I want to comment on this:-

...a quick check of Google OR Wiki...

With all due respect, and aiming to be sensitive, I'm sorry, this really mustn't become our modern-day way of checking things. Obviously I don't know how you personally conducted your search so please don't take this as directed at you, but I've seen many astrologers, and indeed many professional journalists, be overly trusting of these websites and when I've discussed it with some astrologers they really haven't known that there are reliability and 'honesty' issues with the search results, and that Wiki in particular is a blessing and a dangerous curse. False results propagate around the globe before the truth has got its boots on, as the famous quote goes.

Google and Wiki are USA-centric, for starters, even when using non-USA Googles or non-USA Yahoos etc, it can be easy for some astrologers to forget to set them to search outside the USA and outside English-speaking websites.

Google and other search engines are also full of sponsored links, and deals done with other websites.

Wiki references tend to be spawned like weeds, masquerading as numerous other websites, clogging the search results and skewing them grotesquely.

The topmost search results are rarely the most representative.

The pareto principle, at least as an analogy and maybe as a mathematical reality, seems to apply to Google and Wikip(a!)edia.

Using those websites is like going into Wal-Mart or Tesco (substitute your own local monopolistic consumerist corporation) to assess what food is: one has to be very careful indeed and one must know the nature of the beast.

Regards

H.

And if you're working in trad astrology, it's that much more difficult. Wilson certainly wasn't an unknown in astrology. Devore's encyclopaedia (I think originally published in the 1940s or 50s?) is used more now, but that's got an entirely modern bent to it - check the different defintions of the same terms sometime - it's englightening. Or a little scary, depending on your view.

I just thought I should fill in on the printing history of James Wilson's Complete Dictionary of Astrology for the record:

1. First published 1819 by William Hughes, Islington Green, London.
2. Revised and corrected edition published 1820 (though undated) by William Hughes
3. First American edition published 1885 by Rolfe & Co., Boston, Mass., 1885
4. Reprinted by Samuel Weiser 1969
5. Second Weiser printing 1970
6. Third Weiser printing (but sold as second) 1971
7. Health Research reprint (comb-bound) 1971
8. Fourth Weiser printing (sold as third) 1974
9. Fifth Weiser printing (sold as fourth) 1978
10. Kessinger Publishing (print-on-demand) reprint 2003
11. Astrology Classics reprint 2006

By my reckoning that makes it a common book with many thousands of copies in print. However, it is interesting to note that Thomas Ring's work was mostly published in the 1950s and 1960s, some 70 years since the previous impression of Wilson's book. He may therefore quite plausibly have been unaware of it, if indeed he was the one who adopted the term 'quindecile' with a completely new meaning.

Wilson is also noted historically for having made one of the earliest printed translations in English of Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos (or at least the Proclus paraphrase thereof). His translation came after that of Whalley but predated that of Ashmand. Unlike his Dictionary of Astrology, however, his translation of Ptolemy is very scarce.

I appreciate all of the comments. (especially the updated information on Wilson, who in my 20 years of Astrology have never once heard of...)

Always interesting to read and understand other people's views and perspectives...

That being said, utility rules.

Since several commented on my Google/Wiki comment, let me briefly explain WHY I said that. It was put forth by Philip that the Quindecile term being used for a different aspect than historically written was like redefining the sextile. (still absurd, the relatively obscure quindecile can't be related to the commonality of the sextile,...or I would hope that no one would ACTUALLY think that changing the meaning of this rarely used aspect in Astrology would BE ON THE SAME LEVEL as changing the meaning of "sextile" as Philip said. Graves used the word TANTAMOUNT...ie. EQUAL. I still think it is either a very bad analogy, a misunderstanding of the word "tantamount", or a serious miscalculation as to how many people actually use it) The point is... a) MORE people see the quindecile as 165? than otherwise (in terms of those USING it) and b) it has ALREADY been "converted." To go BACK to the old definition would actually confuse more people by COUNT than what has already occurred, in my opinion.

The quindecile as a term for the 165? aspect has already been adopted in a major way. (It had a major thrust, obviously, from an astrologer who has been given a Regulus Award for helping provide Astrology (as a field) with a more professional image.)

As my Grandmother would likely say, "don't cry over spilt milk."

It is done.

That said, and a few people being (perhaps) irritated, now let's do something that is actually productive and take a look at this aspect in the charts that you are doing.

That is the purpose of this thread, I think.

My advice (who the f am I?) is to see it AS IT HAS PRESENTED ITSELF and see if you do not see it as the COMPULSIVE EXPRESSION of THE CONNECTED PLANETARY THEMES EVEN WHEN IT BRINGS PROBLEMS and QUITE OFTEN REGARDLESS of HOW THE CLIENT TRIES TO RUN DAMAGE CONTROL. Those two planets keep interrelating come hell or high water.

It works.

If you like it, use it.

If not...to each his own. None of us must/can use every working technique in Astrology.

Andrew brought it up...I commented from my experience and knowledge of it...and here we are. I participated in the discussion in hopes of SHARING something that I see that WORKS. I certainly hadn't expected to be considered guilty by proxy of theivery or obfuscation.

In order to completely obliterate any chance for confusion in using this term, I'll try to refer to it as the "useful quindecile."

Have fun!

Atlantean

Hi Atlantean!

First of all, nobody is accusing anyone of being guilty by proxy of anything. Please don't take the points I raised as a personal attack on you, or as a denial of the relevance of investigating the 24th harmonic aspects. They are not so intended at all. I am raising issues of what I believe to be principles of systematic coherence as well as history.

I would really appreciate a reference to Ring's original use of the term quindecile since this is an important piece of astrological history from where I am looking. I do not have all his books, but so far am leafing through Astrologische Menschenkunde Book 1: Kr?fte und Kr?ftebeziehungen (first printing 1956). In the section on Aspects, Ring mentions the 15 degree, 75 degree, 105 degree and 165 degree aspects together on p. 250. I quote:

Schliesslich kann f?r Beurteilungen der Feinstruktur ?ber die Zw?lfteilung hinausgegangen werden zum Vierundzwanzigeck, mit den Winkel von 15?, 75?, 105? und 165?.

Then on p. 278 he continues:

Wird die zw?lfstufige Ordnung durch weitere Aufspaltung verdoppelt im Vierundwanzigeck, so entsteht eine regel?ssige Figur mit 15?-Aspekten, worin neben s?mtlichen Aspekten der Zw?lfordnung die schon dargestelten [Quadrat] und [Anderthalbquadrat] mit umfasst sind. Als neu sondern sich 15?, 75?, 105?, 165? aus.... Als besonders eigenartig sei nur der 165?-Aspekt herausgehoben, charakterisierbar als feiner, trennender Schnitt, bei anaolgen sonstigen Anzeichen deutbar als Beitrag zu schicksalhaten trennungen, seelischen Amputationen usw. Aspekte dieser Ordnung gelten lediglich als Best?tigung von Tendenzen, die in normalen Aspekten schon angezeigt sind.

This is all very interesting as an introductory exposition to Ring's approach to these aspects and in particular his interpretative slant on the 165 degree aspect, but I am still looking for evidence that he coined the term quindecile. He shows clear and strong awareness in these extracts of the sourcing of the 165 degree aspect in the division of the circle by 24, repeatedly using the word 'Vierundzwanzigeck' to describe them collectively.

I would have to ask why on this basis Ring himself would have seeked to use the term 'quindecile' rather than 'quartvigintile' (or similar), if he were to write in English. Did he in fact use the label 'quindecile' (or the direct German equivalent) in some of his writings, or might this possibly be misunderstanding or free licence taken by the later translators and popularisers of his ideas in English? I'm happy to reserve judgement on this pending further relevant references.

Philip

PS: In the introduction to Ricki Reeves' book, I note that Noel Tyl claims personal responsibility for coining the term 'quindecile', to be pronounced in Italian, for reasons of sonorous aesthetics rather than historical conformity. Therefore I at this stage have serious doubts that Ring ever used the term or would in any way have sanctioned it.

Kudos to Noel Tyl for taking Thomas Ring's observations and making a serious study out of them, and I have a lot of personal respect for the man as an inspiring astrological teacher who has committed a great deal of his life to his vocation. Yet I still don't personally believe that his case for renaming a 24th harmonic aspect 'the quindecile' (if indeed the use of the word in this way is, as he claims, of his own coining) is a strong one.

From what I can see so far, Ring was true to the history of aspect nomenclature in using the word 'Vierundzwanzigeck'.

In 'Astrology of the Famed' (1996), published five years before the Ricki Reeves book, Tyl states that the 165 degree aspect is called the quindecile. He refers to Leonardo da Vinci's birth data as it appears on the pull-out final leaf of Ring Volume I (1956 - the same volume from which I quoted above) but refers the reader to Ring's apparently later book 'Genius und D?mon' (1980) for Ring's analysis that inspired Tyl himself to investigate the 165 degree aspect.

Clearly Ring was already advocating the importance of the 165 degree aspect in 1956. Nonetheless, I want to investigate this further so I plan to order a copy of 'Genius und D?mon' shortly. There are quite a few on the used book marketplace.

So far the earliest reference I can find to the use of the term quindecile to mean 165 degrees is Tyl (1996).

According to Tyl (Astrology of the Famed p 247):

Ring called it (the 165 degree aspect) the "Abtrennungsaspekt," the separation aspect in the sense of divorce, disruption, upheaval. I should like to add "compulsion," the response to such upset in the life, the obsessive nature in response to trauma. [Italics in the original]

Tyl, a former opera singer, teaches his students to use the Italian pronunciation "Kwin de CHEE' lay" for dramatic effect. More:

Michael Munkasey, an expert in harmonics, amplifies this observation of separation significance and compulsion: he suggests that the aspect defines something that overrides common sense [I'll agree with that - tc] that puts the life out of balance, that drives the entire life in order to play out the energies symbolized.

That's quite a bit of umph for any aspect. Tyl, ever the dramatist, may or may not be the first one to use the term "quindecile." I don't know. I do know that no inhibition would prevent him from redefining it had it been used elsewhere to mean something else. He hijacked (Lee Lehman's word) the word "peregrine" and turned its meaning on its head. Why stop there?

Tom

By way of providing evidence that James Wilson is far from being the only major astrological writer who has drawn attention to the 15th harmonic aspect of 24 degrees, which Wilson called the quindecile, I wish to point out that John Addey devotes almost three pages of his extremely well-known modern work 'Harmonics in Astrology' (1976) to expressly speaking of the importance of the 24 degree aspect in astrology. See pp. 172-174. I shall quote just the first paragraph but believe this piece of recent history penned by a widely respected leader in modern astrological research in the mid-late 20th century undermines any claim to the 165 degree aspect being regarded as 'the useful quindecile' or similar in modern practice.

One very important derivative of the quintile series which is almost entirely ignored, as a rule, is the third sub-harmonic of the quintile, which gives us the aspect of 24? and its multiples. This is the fifteenth harmonic, the third of the fifth or the fifth of the third. Figure 60 shows the aspect angles involved. It will be seen that this series includes the angles of 72?, 120? and 144? with which we are familiar but also the angles 24?, 48?, 96? and 168? which are not customarily used or understood but which are certainly important and can now be given quite a definite meaning in the horoscope.

Nomenclature is not an issue here. Addey does not go into names for the aspects much at all, preferring to refer to them in descriptive long-hand in relation to their place in harmonic theory. Otherwise he is only concerned with studying them in practice.

I have just been refreshing my memory of the work of David Hamblin and Delphine Jay on the harmonics. They both treat of the fifteenth harmonic and accord it significance. Whereas Hamblin, like Addey before him, is content to give a purely narrative description of each aspect in terms of harmonic theory (eg the 'fifth harmonic trine'), Jay expressly names each aspect.

The source for Jay is her book 'Practical Harmonics' published by the American Federation of Astrologers, Inc., Tempe, Arizona, 1983.

See page 10, where she expressly names the 24? aspect the quindecile, just like Wilson 164 years before her.

Therefore my impression is that Noel Tyl (1996) and (following in his foosteps) Ricki Reeves (2001), in adopting the name 'quindecile' for the 165? aspect, have overridden the precedent set not only by James Wilson in 1819 but also Delphine Jay as recently as 1983. This is an unfortunate state of affairs in my opinion that can only serve to cause confusion.

In short I simply do not accept that 'the change has been made; it's no use crying over spilt milk'. It currently appears to me from the available evidence highly probable that the 'change' (which could equally be viewed as an unsatisfactory duplication of names for different concepts rather than a replacement) dates back only to 1996, and not to the work of Thomas Ring; while as recently as 1983 the term quindecile was still being used in print to refer to the 15th harmonic (24?) series of aspects, and all three of the major interpretative English-language books on harmonic theory of the 1970s and 1980s have expressly drawn attention to the importance of the 15th harmonic aspects in astrological interpretation. What I see as being more the historical reality here rather than a 'change' is that two concepts that have concurrently seen a large amount of use in modern astrology albeit from the points of view of different schools of thought have ended up being given the same name as each other, though the 15th harmonic aspect got the name first and had had it for the best part of two centuries before the 24th harmonic aspect was given it. This does not logically mean that the Tyl-defined (24th harmonic) quindecile has rendered the Wilson / Jay-defined (15th harmonic) quindecile invalid or superseded in astrological use. That such an impression may have been obtained, alas, is part of the inherent drawback of the duplication of names. So long as there are advocates of harmonic theory, the 15th harmonic aspect will be used, and the quindecile is the logical name for it.

I don't accept that the application of harmonic theory in modern astrological practice is dead or has died since 1983 either. These ideas were certainly still very current in the 1990s, and Addey's book for one has continued to be reprinted in the 2000s. The quindecile as used by all the adherents of this school needs a name too, and already has one that perfectly describes what it is, consistently with the traditional principles of aspect terminology, so let's keep using it.

If you are looking from this issue as a past student or Noel Tyl, then of course that will be your primary source of reference. But while I admire him very much in many ways, Noel Tyl is not representative of the only major current in modern astrological thinking with regard to the harmonics and minor aspects.

I do think however that there may be a case for adopting a term like 'Tyl / Reeves quindecile' to distinguish it from the traditional quindecile, among those who have got used to that name and do not wish it to be changed more radically to something more in tune with what Thomas Ring suggested in German (to judge by the extracts from his 1956 work I quoted directly in an earlier message), which would be in accordance with the tradition: something along the lines of quartvigintile for the 24th harmonic series that includes the 165? aspect - or in terms of harmonic theory, it has been described by some of the English authors I mentioned above as the 4th harmonic sextile.

Well, that's Noel Tyl for you!

No, I didn't say that out loud, did I?

1. Another important 20th century source predating Delphine Jay by several decades that addresses the quindecile is:

Llewellyn George 'A to Z Horoscope Maker and Delineator'*

In the section headed 'Part I: the Natal Chart' (p. 93 in the 7th edition, 1939; p. 85 in the 4th edition, 1928; pp. 91-3 in the 29th edition, 1972), George writes under 'Minor Aspects':

Quindecile - 24 degrees apart, slightly good, has an orb of 2 degrees'

.

In the section headed 'Part V: Additional Studies', George further describes the quindecile thus (7th edition, 1939: p. 720; stated 3rd edition [but 2nd?], 1913: p. 353; 3rd edition, 1923: p. 409; 4th edition, 1928: p. 647; 29th edition, 1973: p. 784):

Another of Kepler's minor aspects; 24 degrees, slightly good

Llewellyn George's cited work above is probably one of the best-selling astrological text-books of the 20th century, having been through about thirty printings between 1910 and the late 1970s, prior to being reworked in a shorter format from the 1980s onwards. I believe this demonstrates that even if Wilson's Dictionary of Astrology was hard to obtain for many in the early-to-mid 20th century after the 1885 printing fell out of print and before the 1969 impression was produced, the traditional definition of the quindecile was still in common currency thanks to the oft-reprinted textbook of Llewellyn George, at least in the United States of America.

*1913 and 1923 editions are called 'A to Z Horoscope Delineator'; I do not have the 1910 first edition but this had the same name too

2. Further, the earlier continuity of the tradition at least on the level of nomenclature through the late 19th century in England is demonstrated in:

Alfred Pearce 'Text Book of Astrology' Volume 1 - Cousins & Co., Covent Garden, London, 1879

I quote from p. 39#

There are other aspects, viz., the vigintile (18?), the quindecile (24?), the decile (36?), the quintile (72?), the tredecile (108?), the biquintile (144?), and the quincunx (150?). All these aspects were invented by Kepler, and their influence is undeniable, with the exception of the vigintile, quindecile, and the tredecile, which require confirmation.

So Pearce, who was quite a traditionalist, was perhaps a natural sceptic towards novel ideas but nonetheless open-minded, whereas Llewellyn George seems for his part to have been more openly sold on the utility of the quindecile in interpretation.

# NB: In the 2nd edition of Pearce, published by Mackie & Co., Ld., Warrington and Fleet Street, London, and by Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co. Ld., 1911; also reprinted much later by the National Astrological Library, 1950s, and by the American Federation of Astrologers, 1970 and 2006, this quotation appears instead on pp. 30-1

3. I do not have all Kepler's works by any means, but am trying to find the possible source for the claim in James Wilson, Alfred Pearce and Llewellyn George that Kepler invented the quindecile (24?) aspect. In:

Johannes Kepler 'The Harmony of the World', translated by E. J. Aiton, A. M. Duncan and J. V. Field, American Philosophical Society, 1997:

Book IV, Proposition XV, pp. 347-8:

Kepler groups together the 15th and 20th harmonic astrological aspects as being, in the translators' words:

configurations which are on the borderline between influential and non-influential, namely the arc of 24? from the pentekaidecagon (fifteen-sided figure), and 18? from the icosagon

.

Kepler expressly includes the multiples of the 15th harmonic series, 48?, 96? and 168?, in his description (p. 348). He also includes two others in error, as the editors note in their footnote.

I do not have the presumed German original (unless it was Latin - I confess I do not know), but it seems clear that if the reference made was to a figure that the translators have called a pentekaidecagon, Wilson was not being unreasonable to transpose this in astrological lingo to quindecile, if indeed he is the earliest source of the English language version, which remains to be proven.

Hello Tom,

Re: "Tyl, ever the dramatist..."

Thank you for my morning coffee spit-take.

I comment to thank you for that moment of levity, but also because your comments sparked an important thought. (to me anyways)

As you mentioned, Noel certainly has made much of the Italian pronunciation of quindecile in his presentation of it. As anyone and everyone could read "quindecile" and likely figure out how to pronounce it (in English), IT MAKES IT DRAMATICALLY TIED TO HIM by "enforcing" the (arbitrary, though interesting) Italian pronunciation.

Of course, Tom, as Americans, WE stand on shaky ground commenting on the pronunciation of anything. How many Americans still pronounce Porsche as if it were Porsch? Or even more amusing how many pronounce the shoe brand, Adidas, as if it were a plural of "Adida", even though it is a shortening of the person's name, Adi Dassler. http://inogolo.com/audio/Adidas_4728.mp3 demonstrates how it should sound and how you will actually hear it said here (Germany). Since it is HIS name, it matters not if every single other person in the world said it differently, they would still be wrong.

It is quite easy for Americans to come across similarly as George Bush when he commented that "the problem with the French is that they have no word for entrepreneur."

In terms of the quindecile aspect, I honestly don't care WHAT we call it. I just hope that more will take notice and use it. I am USED to calling it quindecile...and as I mentioned, it HAS (in terms of those who actually USE it) already been "appropriated."

Thank you for the quote from Munkasey. I have much respect for him. His approach is normally quite empirical...so, for him to also comment on the "quindecile" aspect and to have found similar results supports the ideas previously presented.

Re: Peregrine

I have commented to Tyl about this particular appropriation, because this word IS commonly used and has a useful function. My main problem was that there is already the word "unaspected" which has the EXACT MEANING that he is imparting to the word peregrine. Upon reflecting on your comments, Tom, perhaps he found unaspected as not dramatic enough.

Take care,

Atlantean

Philip,

Thank you for the time to look up and post those references.

Your posts always make interesting reading!

It is not necessary that I agree with everything said in order to still be entertained/amused by its presentation.

One interesting point in the quindecile vs. quindecile debate is that one presentation is basically based on the 15th DIVISION of the circle, giving the 24?; while the other is based on the 24th DIVISION, giving the 15? series of aspects. Now it should be fairly obvious that the 24th DIVISION would seem to be MUCH MORE LIKELY TO BE IMPORTANT since EVERY NORMAL ASPECT USED IN ASTROLOGY (conjunction 0/24ths, semi-sextile 2/24ths, semi-square 3/24ths, sextile 4/24ths, square 6/24ths, trine 8/24ths, sesquiquadrate 9/24ths, quincunx 10/24ths, opposition 12/24ths) [& "quindecile" 11/24ths] can be derived from particular fractional divisions of the circle by 24. (I obviously purposely didn't reduce the fractions in order to demonstrate my point...)

Using the 15th DIVISION, in terms of (somewhat) common aspects we get the quintile (3/15ths) and bi-quintile (6/15ths), and of course the trine (5/15ths). [Of course, the conjunction will show up in every division as the "0th" harmonic.]

Take care,

Peace

Atlantean