James_M wrote:

lilly and morin seemed to like the minor aspects

I will leave Tom to pick up the issue of Morin. On Lilly though I think your comment is quite misleading. In regards horary at least (which Lilly is best known for) there is hardly any evidence to support your assumption.

This online article has an interesting discussion of traditional aspect theory and minor aspects.

http://magnumopusastrology.com/the-aspe ... -astrology

I have extracted this particular section which discusses William Lilly's use (or non-use!) of minor aspects specifically.

William Lilly has been derided for being an early adopter of Kepler?s aspects. He introduces them early in Christian Astrology and includes not only Kepler?s quintile, biquintile and sesquiquadrate but also, against Kepler?s design, even the semisextile, semiquintile, semisquare and sesquiquintile. Later, in the section on ?Effects of Directions?, Lilly gives further guidelines for finding and interpreting these aspects and then puts them to practical use in his lengthy delineation of the chart of ?an English merchant?. David Plant remarks that Lilly?s delineations would emerge as ?the standard textbook interpretation of the ?minor aspects?? through the present day. He too is disappointed in Lilly.

Has Lilly?s incorporation of this new material really led him outside the tradition? A careful review of the facts leads me to think not. Context is important. When we first meet the minor aspects in Christian Astrology, it is in the section dealing with how to read the annually published ephemerides in his popular almanac Merlini Anglici:

??we seldom use more aspects than the conjunction, sextile, square, trine, opposition: to these of late one Kepler, a learned man, has added some new ones? I only acquaint you with these, that finding them any where you may apprehend their meaning.?[Christian Astrology page p32]

Lilly is telling the truth here. We have already seen that in the entire horary portion of Christian Astrology he factors in only one minor aspect, the semisextile. None of the ?new ones? put in an appearance. That counts as seldom use in my book. For that reason, I do not think that there any reason to doubt him when he goes on to say that he has included a list of Kepler?s aspects for the sake of completeness. Lilly was after all in the almanac business and would probably have felt some pressure to remain au courant so as not to limit his customer base. Evidently nobody else much cared for them, either. By 1651 Lilly had dropped the minor aspects from Merlini Anglici and never revived them.

As for their rather prominent place in the natal portion of Christian Astrology, it may be significant that he involves them only in the delineation of primary directions. Never does he consider them in connection with the geniture, revolutions or profections. What is going on here, I believe, is that Lilly perfectly understands the link between the zodiacal signs and the Ptolemaic aspects. However, primary directions are formed not through the secondary motion of the ecliptic but rather through the primary motion of the equatorial, measured in right ascension. Perhaps, then, Lilly permitted these minor aspects in relation to primary directions because, in this context, they simply do not refer to the twelve-fold zodiac. They are appropriate on their level, given that the rapt motion of the sky supersedes the secondary motion of the planets. This would also help explain why Lilly quickly dropped the minor aspects from his almanac. Why waste the time on the tedious calculations if they cannot be used?

Mark

james_m wrote: hi elka - the quintile is in reference to the 72 degree aspect - division of the 360 by 5... kepler apparently used this aspect and some of the extensions of it as i understand it. i think morin did too.. it has also been adopted by different astrologers since the 1970's as i read about it in books written back then. i think even lilly used it, but then he used a lot of aspects too. lilly and morin seemed to like the minor aspects.. the use of the 4 letters 'quin' seem to connect with 5.. quincunx has always struck me as a confusion of sorts, as opposed to the inconjunct..

Hi James, yes as I said above the division of the circle by five, named by Kepler the Quintile - 72 deg - a number that represents 72 names of god/elohim within the Tetragrammaton scheme. The number five is central to Pythagorean and Kabbalistic doctrine and represents the Quintessence of ancient thought. For this reason, although not a Ptolemaic aspect, I wouldn't class the 72 degree aspect as minor. Practically, probably not used so much as it is not that obvious to find in a hand written chart.

'Quin'* does mean five [parts], quite apt for the Quintile aspect but I do question* Kepler's naming the 150 deg angle as the Quincunx*, whose real meaning relates to a pattern of five, esp in the Tetraktys pyramid. The term Inconjunct fits better imv.

Edit
*I've done a bit more research- see post further down for clarification

Yes, interesting. Did Morin adopt a harmonic view of aspects - ie the 12th harmonic of 360/12 x 5 being 150 degs ?

I seriously doubt it. I would love to answer this question by referring to the AG book on aspects, but I'm travelling on business and I won't be home until Friday night (EDT). Going by memory, always risky, I think Morin just picked up the minor aspects from Kepler's writings. Morin was a very well educated man (physician, philosopher, mathematician etc), he would have read Kepler. Morin even adopted Tycho Brahe's idea of the planets orbiting the Sun and the Sun, with satellites in tow, orbiting the Earth. Although I've always had a hunch that he used this to avoid difficulty with the Church having seen, as an adult, what happened to Galileo. I offer nothing but my gut feelings to support this. On the other hand he did go so far as to write a letter to Galileo explaining why Galileo was wrong about the planets orbiting the Sun. We know Galileo received it, since he commented on it in a correspondence, but if he ever replied to Morin, it hasn't been found.

We also know that Morin had a few run-ins with Church authorities in France (he never hit the big time, like Galileo, and had the Pope keep tabs on his disagreements) regarding his astrology.

Despite the protests of some contemporary traditionalists, Morin was very much a traditional astrologer. His non-traditional activities included being frequently critical of Ptolemy, which was not done in the 17th century. But nowhere does it say that Ptolemy was above criticism then or now. After 15 centuries taking a critical look at Ptolemy was long overdue. In fact by the 17th century it might be fair to say that the Bible had more critical commentary written and spoken about it than Ptolemy over the same period.

In my reading I've only come across a few instances where he used the minor aspects in delineation, and they didn't play a major role, although (memory again) he didn't seem to distinguish major (Ptolemaic) aspects from minor (Kepler's additions.

Hi Elka,

Thanks for your fascinating posts. I agree with James that it would be great to hear from you more often in the future!

Elka wrote: Tue May 27, 2014 9:03 pm

Also in trying to uncover the dynamic picture of the stand alone Quincunx 'aspect', I looked briefly at the sacred geometry of the Pythagoreans. Who, to put it succinctly, stated that all right triangles [which show up in various astrological triangular patterns] operate on the level of "Nous". The triad or trinity aspect in some religions, for example, shows a triangular relationship pattern of the god-head or ultimate causal pattern.

Well, the only right triangle formed by any aspect pattern is part of the T-square ? generally not seen as the most "noetic" of constellations! I guess what you mean is simply triangles, in general. Of course, the grand trine could be thought of as representing the Trinity most clearly, but (conceivably) this quality would be conveyed to the other triangular patterns as well. Am I reading you right here?


Mark: re yours Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:20 pm

Overall though the move towards wider astrological use of minor aspects seems to be a later 19th century development associated with the revival of astrology and attempts to 'modernize' it. Hence in this period nothing less than a reformation in aspect theory took place which replaced aspects based on planetary orbs in favour of aspects derived from purely numerical relationships. In large part this was an attempt to incorporate the outer planets into aspect theory and to 'moderize' astrology in light of the new astronomical discoveries of Uranus and Neptune. Historical research by the late Maurice McCann suggested the first native born American astrologer William Chaney was an early pioneer in this area who influenced others such as Alan Leo.

Mark, I am not sure what the revision of aspect theory would have to do with the outers? Could you elaborate, please?

I really must buy a copy of the The Harmony of the World, as its no doubt an important text in the philosophy of astrology and movement away from Ptolemy that underpins so much of modern astronomy and astrology.

Furthermore, that book is a wonderful portrayal of the universe of classical astrology and hermeticism, notwithstanding Kepler's own innovations. Absolutely, you've got to buy a copy ? you certainly won't regret it.

Historical research by the late Maurice McCann suggested the first native born American astrologer William Chaney was an early pioneer in this area who influenced others such as Alan Leo.

I have a copy of Chaney's Primer of Astrology and he is credited with writing another 52 page work titled The Astrologer's Vade Mecum, about which I know nothing. Chaney was a student of English born Luke Broughton, the man who more than any other brought astrology to the US. However Chaney wasn't his only pupil. Among others Broughton taught American born John Hazelrigg and Susan Thompson. Hazelrigg taught Llewellyn George, if I recall correctly, and Susan Thompson was one of Evangeline Adams' teachers.

I'll have to check to see what Chaney might have written about the outers and/or aspect theory. Chaney might be better described as the "Johnny Appleseed" of American astrology. He met Broughton in New York, took lessons, got tossed in jail with Broughton because of astrology and probably for Chaney's penchant for street brawling. Chaney had a falling out with Broughton (and everyone else he ever knew), and travelled across the US probably teaching astrology, as well as teaching mathematics and practicing law. The multi talented Professor Chaney spent enough time in San Francisco to father famed Adventure writer Jack London (1876-1916), whom he denied. Chaney would go so far as to cite the date of his leaving London's mother Flora Wellman as June 3 1875, thereby making it biologically impossible for him to be London's father as London was born, full term, in January 1876. However Chaney also said he married Flora and no documentation of that marriage exists. But there was a major earthquake in San Francisco in 1906 destroying many records. The point being Chaney was not above telling a fib now and then particularly if it served to protect him from a paternity suit.

Chaney moved to Chicago in 1895 where he listed his profession as "astrologer." It was here that he most likely wrote his pamphlets and ultimately published his book. By that time Alan Leo was making a good living off astrology in London, England. Frankly, I don't see how Chaney could have influenced Leo, since Chaney didn't write anything except some narrowly circulated pamphlets later sewn together to make up a book first seeing the light of day after Leo established his own reputation.

However Leo would live until 1917, and it is possible that somehow, he came across Chaney's work and was subsequently influenced by it. I wish I was home to catch up on all this.

Mark wrote:James_M wrote:

lilly and morin seemed to like the minor aspects

I will leave Tom to pick up the issue of Morin. On Lilly though I think your comment is quite misleading. In regards horary at least (which Lilly is best known for) there is hardly any evidence to support your assumption.

This online article has an interesting discussion of traditional aspect theory and minor aspects.

http://magnumopusastrology.com/the-aspe ... -astrology
Mark

thanks for sharing the article mark. i think it is a good place to start in understanding the classical astrology point of view.

lilly used minor aspects but since he was primarily known as a 'horary' astrologer we must obviously ignore what he did when he wasn't doing horary? if he used primary directions - we can ignore his use of the minor aspects? if he did any natal astrology, we can just say it is misleading to say he used and supported the use of minor aspects.. not to fall back on an article, but here is a quote from a sue ward article.."He used the minor aspects quite widely for nativities, but only as points to which directions were made to ascertain future events."
http://www.horary.com/sward/sward5.html

so just how important were primary directions for lilly? was his great focus on horary enough of a reason to say it is misleading to say "lilly seemed to like using minor aspects"? it appears you think it is! does it imply primary directions weren't of much use to him either?

in morins book 21 baldwin translation morin mentions the use of the semi sextile and quincunx aspects and how he viewed them as 'weak' aspects. i see no mention of any other 'minor' aspect from morin, but i am only going on book 21 and don't know morins work as well as tom. perhaps the newness of the idea of using minor aspects, or approaching astrology in a fundamentally different manner would be something neither of these men were interested in embracing as it didn't conform with the view on how classical astrology was done since antiquity. but i doubt that. i think they would have been curious to explore there use. obviously lilly was as he did! keplers book came out in 1619. lilly lived from 1602-1681. morin lived from 1583-1656..

back to the article you linked to.. it was interesting in having the history on the use of an aspect that crossed over signs (not able to see one another- ptolemiac) was thru ibn ezra 1100 odd years ago.. in other words ibn ezra seemed to think aspects had relevance in a way that outweighed the ptolemiac idea of signs not seeing one another..

something i keep coming back to in the writers negation of minor aspects aside from his primary involvement in horary, is the idea of the sacredness of the 12 signs of the zodiac..why 12? these 30 degree wedges are the basis for the zodiac signs and hold a certain significance whereby certain signs can't see one another..i infer from this it's okay to divide the circle by 12, but not by 5.. i have a hard time getting my head around that though and find the quick dismissal of aspects or geometry in favour of the antiquity of the 12 signs especially challenging - a little bit like ibn ezra i guess with his use of aspects over signs not being able to see one another!!

i think what it comes down to is how an astrologer wants to place emphasis on some element of astrology over another.. if someone wishes to adhere to a classical viewpoint of astrology - these minor aspects, or minor aspect patterns don't fit! new discoveries, whether they be planets, or harmonics have to be dismissed in order to maintain a particular viewpoint that makes me think of a type of mental straight jacket..

i was looking at the charts of kepler, lilly and morins.. all 3 men have a mercury/uranus conjunction in their charts... this suggests a willingness in seeking out or exploring new ideas.. it also suggests a refusal to be held down to a particular doctrine only if for no other reason - it was the doctrine handed down to them from someone previously. maybe i am wrong on this though and my comment on their use of the minor aspects is indeed misleading..

Re: W.H. CHaney and minor aspects.

My information is coming from Chaney's Primer of Astrology and American Urania, publication date 1890. I mistakenly believed it was closer to 1900. Chaney claims it is the first astrology book of its kind to be published in the US, and he might be right. Broughton's didn't come out unilt the late 1890s. The title page lists other works written by Chaney, Astrological Definitions, Chaney's Ephemeris, and Chaney's Annual. My guess is that, except for the ephemeris these are probably pamphlets and/or periodicals. As I noted in a previous post he is credited with writing An Astrologer's Vade Mecum in 1902. He died in 1903.

Regarding the minor aspects, on page 27he lists the following aspects and orbs:
conjunction: when two planets are together
Semi sextile (30)
semi-quartile (36)
Sextile (60)
QUintile (72)
Quartile or Square (90)
Trine (120)
Sesqui-quartile (135)
Bi-quintile (144)
Quincunx (150)
Opposition (180)

OK at face value we might think he used all these, but moving along to page 59-60 he says:

In Part I I have given a long list of aspects, but must caution the reader against placing much reliance on any except the Conjunction, Sextile, Square, Trine and opposition.

Then on page 60

It is recorded that Kepler "discovered" (italics in the original) some new aspects, such as the Semi-sextile, Semi-quartile, Quintile, Sesqui-quartile, Bi- Quintile etc (italics in the original). The door of discovery being thus thrown open, every fakir (itliacs in the original) in the science has sought distinction by discovering other aspects. But why some smart ALeck has not discovered a Semi-quincunx before this time is very strange, for it would be as scientific as its name is poetical ...

Then on page 61

But I will not waste time combating, with hypotheses, and have referred to these "new aspects" (quotation marks in the original) only that I might expose the quackery which has sprung up in consequence. It is in no way a personal matter, but if men calling themselves astrologers feel that the coat fits them, they are welcome to it. I cannot do justice to the truth without exposing error.

Unless he changed his mind in Vade Mecum, I don't think we can count him among the advocates of the use of minor aspects.

Chaney lists Uranus as the ruler of Aquarius, but says of Neptune "is not known as the ruler of any sign."

I'll check on Morin next.

michael,

maybe tom meant semi-quintile, lol... may as well call it semi-quacktile for those who don't consider these aspects, and how about the use of harmonics and how they might be looking at this from a wider lens?

funny thing about these aspects is john addey and david hamblin started exploring the concept of harmonics - partly inspired by the indian astrologers perhaps? - who were looking at cycles in a different way then the way that astrologers are typically exposed to aspect theory out of an astrology 101 text book..

I have no idea how it happened that I wrote something under Michael Sternbach's name. I must have hit the wrong button and simply posted it. Apologies to Michael It was unintentional. So in order to eliminate the dreadful confusion I caused here is what should have happened. First I quote Michael:

Tom,

I don't mean to be fussy but (to avoid confusion) the semi-quartile in your list should read 45?, not 36?. Smile

Michael

Then I reply:

I meant to comment on that. The book says 36 degrees. I quoted accurately, but it is highly probable that it is a typesetter's error. I didn't check elsewhere to see precisely what he meant since it made no difference to my point, but I should have mentioned it. Thanks for pointing that out


I can't figure out how I did that, but it was entirely my fault. I'm going to delete the errant post. Please understand I'm not deleting anything written by Michael. I'm only erasing my own mistake.

Tom,

It's hardly a big issue!

Best,
Michael