Tanit wrote:Gabby - Kepler was the one who introduced minor aspects. I'm not sure if that has been mentioned yet. Lilly was familiar with the minor aspects when he wrote Christian Astrology, but he still has a section in book I about "signs not beholding one another." Apparently he dabbled with minor aspects, but it took a while for astrologers to start using them regularly.

It's nice to get both worlds - old and new thinking.

I agree that the quincunx aspect can mean adjustment, two parties supporting a third one, and other interpretations are possible. I think it is Bil Tierney who says that in a quincunx we also have to consider the speed and direction of each planet, so basically if the "third party" is faster than the other two, the quincunx is rapidly dismembered and doesn?t have that much impact (actually, he suggests that the only "real" quincunx would we the one that has Pluto as the apex).

Nevertheless, this question originally belongs to the horary forum, and that?s why as I said in my first post, I only stick to the classics when dealing with horary questions, even though I look at the quincuxes when interpreting a natal map.

Have a good one

gabkins wrote:
Aglaya, you said

So, if it's quincinx than it's an aspect and if it's inconjunction than it is the lack of one. It can sound very confusing. I think I understand the whole question better now.

Yes, I guess I had seen people use the two words interchangably (or thought that I had... perhaps modern or natal astrologers do that, I don't know) and that made me think they meant the same thing. I am also less confused now about the whole situation.

well, don't be surprised if you come across different explanations too! I'd say that the word used for this placement often speaks for itself. Authors who use the term "inconjunct" usually want to stress the qualities that we discussed earlier (inconjunct=non in aspect). But I've seen beautified descriptions of this aspect in contemporary literature as well.
Also, and as Melina already pointed out, traditional authors like Lilly did use minor aspects only, at least in Lilly's case, not in Horary astrology.


And, just a brief explanation of this:

Also, for a second I was going to argue with you about quincunx and lack of "contact" because the job I was trying to get did contact me to tell me why they weren't hiring me...

When I said contact i meant - contact between the planets (aspect) and, consequently, contact between the Querent and the Quesited or, in even better words, between the Querent and the personthing/activity sought after, relevant or otherwise important. No contact (i.e. no aspect), in a relationship chart for instance, surely doesn't mean that the persons will never meet each other or talk to each other again. If two people are going through a divorce and we see their rulers inconjunct or otherwise unconnected we do not assume that they would never hear from each other again- obviously, it is more likely that this placement is descriptive of their relationship, the quality of communication and, even a lack of any possibility that the two of them would get back together (just some examples). But, if they are to see each other in court again, then they will. Same goes for other types of questions including your example. It wasn't the phone call that you were hoping for but a job. The lack of aspect was obviously suggesting that you would not get the job, not that they would not inform you about it. The Quesited is the job, not the information.
Of course, if you check Lilly's chapter on the 10th house maters (CA vol.2), you will find a few examples and aphorisms in respect to positive outcome promised by charts with no direct application (L10 inside the 1st and vice versa, the applications of the Moon etc.), I'd say that it is worth comparing your chart to the rules mentioned this chapter too!


Cheers!

gabkins wrote:Handn, you said:

So if I said that a conjunction isn't an aspect either, and that two planets in the same Sign can't be in aspect with one another, would it be clear why I was saying that, or would you just think I've been possessed by the light of the silvery Moon?

I would not think you were possessed, as I'm sure you know what you're talking about, but no, I don't understand what you mean when you say that. ???

Hello again, and sorry for the delayed reply. Thanks for thinking I am not possessed

I asked the question because it's the same really as the quincunx questions... i.e. Are they aspects? If they are, then what do they mean? If they're not, then why would we use them?

From the more modern point of view there is a bucket called 'aspects' and just about any angular measurement can be thrown into it. (I don't mean to imply that that's necessarily a bad thing.)

But from the older perspective that's not how aspects worked.

The whole 'logic bubble' of what an aspect is, used to be very different to the 'logic bubble' that is predominant in most modern astrology textbooks/courses. It's not that 'never the twain shall meet', it's just that they both have to be understood on their own terms, otherwise we're looking at one through the lens of the other, and that leads to mix-ups not clarity.

It's like speaking one language and then one day running into someone who speaks the language that preceded it but which has mostly died out now. At first we'd think 'they talk funny!' If we stay inside our own language we'll never understand theirs, and never see where and how theirs gave birth to ours. But if we step out of ours for a moment (without abandoning it, obviously, but just putting it aside for a wee while) and into theirs, we'll see that their language is rich and meaningful, just like ours. But if we don't see that there are two languages (or maybe two dialects of the same language, whatever would be the appropriate linguistic analogue here...), related but different enough to be discerned, we'll just be confused.

Latin and Italian aren't the same thing, but they're not entirely separate either... both are worthy of study. The more modern view of aspects isn't the same as the older view, but they're not entirely separate either... both are worthy of study.

To state the obvious for a moment, before the concept of 'quincunx' being an aspect, a lot of astrology was practised perfectly well without it. But those astrologers didn't lack an understanding of 'inconjunct Signs', nor of what planets placed in those Signs could or couldn't do. On the contrary, the understanding of 'inconjunct Signs' back then was richer than what's written in most of the modern astrology textbooks. Before Italian, people who spoke Latin..... I'm sure you get the analogy hopelessly imprecise though it is.

The same goes for the conjunction. We now put it in the bucket/bag marked 'aspects', but the predominant view used to be that two planets in the same Sign can't aspect each other. When they move close together they are bodily joined (conjunct/conjoined) but it wasn't an aspect as such because two became one... and one shiny orb cannot aspect itself, it can only aspect another shiny orb. The very concept of what constituted an aspect was different. Nowadays we tend to say that an aspect is these angles of degrees.... 0... 60.... 45.... whatever... that measure the separation of the planets. The older views didn't emphasize that as much as we tend to nowadays. The older views of aspects took more things into account, and IMO had more nuance as a result.

The link that Deb gave explains a lot so I hope you've found that helpful, as do books like Ptolemy's 'Tetrabiblos' and the 8 books (thankfully quite short ones!) of Firmicus Maternus (both available as free downloads via the 'links' section of this site), and it wasn't a link but the title of the article Goran/Cor Scorpii quoted from is well worth a read because it goes into the detail of the older 'logic bubble' that underpins most of the astrology on this forum. If you're interested in reading the article beyond the quote, it comes straight up on a search engine if you copy and paste the title and author. It does a fantastic job of showing how sophisticated and nuanced things can be (I believe this is what Melina was pointing to, in her post at the start of this thread).

I agree with Tanit about the old and the new. Mixed well, IMO the older understanding of inconjunct Signs, aversion, and so on, can only enhance and enrich and give background to whatever we learn from modern sources about what we now tend to refer to as the 'quincunx aspect'. IMO, when you ask 'do you all use it' the answer is really 'yes and no'. Some use it as one of the many 'aspects in the bucket' , probably all use the understanding of inconjunct Signs and mitigation etc even if they don't use it in the way of the 'aspects in the bucket'.

Regards

H.

PS Sorry to all if I have not done justice to the older concepts and history. I'm aware there are heaps of people here who are much more into the history than I am. I'm open to corrections.

Hello, new user here!

I've checked this thread a couple of times in the past, and some of the responses have been helpful. I now have some experience with the quincunx aspect, and it's connected in my mind with the dignity of 'face'. In three charts where I've asked a question about a relationship, and whether there was a connection, I've been answered by having only superficial contact with someone, which then goes nowhere, and there's nothing to be done about it. In one example, I was wondering whether a friendship would develop with someone I'd met socially, and the answer was that we passed each other by shortly thereafter, and nodded a 'Hello,' but were clearly being kept separate by how our lives were arranged. In another example, someone sent a message to re-establish contact, then promptly re-disappeared.

So, the feel I have for the quincunx is that it's a, "Hi, bye!" aspect, when it comes to relationships. Technically, there's an interaction, but, by its nature, it's superficial and passing, and contains no potential for anything deeper.

Cheers for now,

-- Horararian