Skyscript Astrology Forum

Zodiacal Argol-Gauric Placidus directions are counted with latitude in Kolev programs.Significator is taken with the right latitude.The aspect latitude is calculated according to Bianchini.Calculation without latitude is possible only under pole(Kuehr navigator).

Thanks Petr
I was looking at a post by Deb in the Horary forum, on Lilly's Aspects.
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1742
She writes of 3 types of aspects according to Antiochus :

1) According to the relationship of the signs
2) According to the actual degrees
3) According to what he calls ?temporal differentia?, which considers the affect of ascension.

This third type of aspect was later called an aspect ?in mundo?, or ?mundane aspects?. These kinds of aspects are measured in right ascension and they are easy to recognise in non-proportional chart forms because they are maintain the relationships of the house cusps. For example, any planet close to the IC will be in a mundane square to a planet close to the asc or desc, even if by zodiacal measurement they are closer to a sextile or trine.

I notice that in Solar Fire (I have 5.09) you can calculate "3-D aspects":
"3D Aspects (True Body) - Astrologers usually work with aspects in ecliptic longitude, which means that the positions of the planets are projected onto the ecliptic before aspects are calculated between them. An alternative is to measure the true angle between the two bodies along the shortest distance between them. These are known variously as 3D, true-body or great circle aspects. Because most of the planets have orbits close to the ecliptic, there is normally not much difference between traditional aspects and 3D aspects. However Pluto has an orbit that is at a significant inclination to the ecliptic, so it is possible that 3D aspects of Pluto will be significantly different from the traditional aspects. The other area in which 3D aspects may be especially interesting is in relation to fixed stars."(SF Help topic)

I would think that these are "zodiacal with latitude". Am I right? Later versions of SF have a "Placidus mundoscope" which enable us to visualise and note what I think are some of the major mundo aspects, in the sense Deb describes and (I think) Placidus used.

Can anyone confirm if I'm correct or not?
Graham

Graham Fox wrote:

3) According to what he calls ?temporal differentia?, which considers the affect of ascension.

This third type of aspect was later called an aspect ?in mundo?, or ?mundane aspects?. These kinds of aspects are measured in right ascension

In this case, I believe Deb was misled by an erroneous footnote (by Rob Hand) in the Hindsight translation of Antiochus. There are in fact three quite different relations (I'm not sure they should be called 'aspects') mixed up here:

1. The kind Antiochus refers to, which is calculated by oblique ascensions. The oblique ascension of any planet or point is the part of the celestial equator that would rise simultaneously with it. Another way of understanding this relation is temporally: two planets are in 'temporal sextile' if they would rise exactly 4 hours apart (since 24h/6 = 4h, and 360?/6 = 60?).

2. Relations measured in right ascension. These are simply angles between two points, such as the projections of two planets, on the celestial equator. If two such projected points are 60? apart, they are in 'sextile by right ascension'.

3. 'Mundane aspects' as propounded by Placidus and his followers. These are based on equating each planet's semi-arc with 90?; therefore, 1/3 of its semi-arc equals 30?. So if planet A has completed, say, 5/6 of its semi-arc from the Asc to the MC, and planet B is exactly half-way through its semi-arc from the MC to the Desc, they are in 'mundane sextile'.

I notice that in Solar Fire (I have 5.09) you can calculate "3-D aspects":
"3D Aspects (True Body) - Astrologers usually work with aspects in ecliptic longitude, which means that the positions of the planets are projected onto the ecliptic before aspects are calculated between them. An alternative is to measure the true angle between the two bodies along the shortest distance between them. These are known variously as 3D, true-body or great circle aspects. Because most of the planets have orbits close to the ecliptic, there is normally not much difference between traditional aspects and 3D aspects. However Pluto has an orbit that is at a significant inclination to the ecliptic, so it is possible that 3D aspects of Pluto will be significantly different from the traditional aspects. The other area in which 3D aspects may be especially interesting is in relation to fixed stars."(SF Help topic)

I would think that these are "zodiacal with latitude". Am I right? Later versions of SF have a "Placidus mundoscope" which enable us to visualise and note what I think are some of the major mundo aspects, in the sense Deb describes and (I think) Placidus used.

I haven't seen the 'Placidus mundoscope', but SF is not always correct in its descriptions. The '3D aspects' described here are not identical with zodiacal aspects with latitude as defined and used by earlier authors, as these were based on each planet having its own unique aspect circle, without reference to the position of any other planet. The aspect points along this circle were then directed just like planets with latitude.

Here's an earlier quote I made on this:

"The late 2nd century astrologer Antiochus, in part 15 of his Thesaurus, makes it clear there were three ways to determine aspects, the first of which is to determine them by degree, "in accordance with the Handy Canon of Ptolemy".

The second is the determination of ?temporal aspects? (ie, aspects ?in mundo? used by many traditional astrologers and particularly championed by Placidus de Titus). These, Antiochus says, can be traced to the doctrines of Antigonus (3rd cent. BC) and Phanes the Egyptian, showing that they have a very long heritage. Mundane aspects certainly don?t rely upon the relationships of the signs; they often contradict them because they are calculated by right ascension - so it is possible to have, say, a 'mundane square' between two planets which would be in trine or sextile according to zodiac definition.

The third, Antiochus says, ?is the zodiacal or common and universal differentia, in relation to which we are all in doubt?. Note the reference to ?doubt? which points to some element of widespread confusion. Rob Hand suggests ?he is addressing the question of the use of aspects by sign when they are beyond partile?.

The conclusion is that aspects could be determined by degree, by temporal ascension or by sign..?

I did integrate some of the explanation offered by Rob Hand, so I was going to type up the translation of the actual text where Antiochus defines the 3 types of aspect, but I can't find my copy of Antiochus - which is serious, because I think that passage is quite significant and worth knowing about. Sorry I can't help more without the text, perhaps if someone else has a copy they can put the actual text here so we can see what it says about the second type of aspect regardless of the footnote.

I can't thank you enough, Steven, for going to all that trouble.

Deb wrote:Here's an earlier quote I made on this:


The second is the determination of ?temporal aspects? (ie, aspects ?in mundo? used by many traditional astrologers and particularly championed by Placidus de Titus). These, Antiochus says, can be traced to the doctrines of Antigonus (3rd cent. BC) and Phanes the Egyptian, showing that they have a very long heritage. Mundane aspects certainly don?t rely upon the relationships of the signs; they often contradict them because they are calculated by right ascension - so it is possible to have, say, a 'mundane square' between two planets which would be in trine or sextile according to zodiac definition.


The conclusion is that aspects could be determined by degree, by temporal ascension or by sign..?

Thanks for this quote, I did not know.
I always thought that Placido invented aspects in mundo and in cieloeTerra were freaked with them without any reason.
I always refused to calculate them, because I did not believed someone other Placido ever used them, but now I should say I was wrong.
In every case you are the only one to give the quote, it's really a great place here,
Margherita

You are very welcome Margherita, but the best text is that which Steven has posted, because this gives the actual quote.

I migliori auguri!
Deb

Gjiada wrote:I always thought that Placido invented aspects in mundo and in cieloeTerra were freaked with them without any reason.

Well, you were right. -- at least about Placidus inventing (his style of) mundane aspects. The variety discussed by Antiochus are very different, as we discussed above: based solely on oblique ascensions, rather than on semi-arcs.

Martin Gansten wrote: Well, you were right. -- at least about Placidus inventing (his style of) mundane aspects. The variety discussed by Antiochus are very different, as we discussed above: based solely on oblique ascensions, rather than on semi-arcs.

You see why I'm not reading anymore whatever thread about Primary
margherita

The variety discussed by Antiochus are very different, as we discussed above: based solely on oblique ascensions, rather than on semi-arcs.

So if I understand well then when at a latitude of 49?North (a bit north of Paris) 0?Capricorn is on the horizon and 0?Cancer rises 8 sidereal hours later the aspect based upon oblique ascensions is 120?. In other words, at 49?North the solstice points are in a trine aspect?

Eddy wrote:So if I understand well then when at a latitude of 49?North (a bit north of Paris) 0?Capricorn is on the horizon and 0?Cancer rises 8 sidereal hours later the aspect based upon oblique ascensions is 120?. In other words, at 49?North the solstice points are in a trine aspect?

Yes, that is what Antiochus is saying. And as your example illustrates, the difference between zodiacal and ascensional 'aspects' can be very great. I am not aware of any examples of ancient (or later) authors actually using these 'aspects', but perhaps others may be?

Martin Gansten wrote:I am not aware of any examples of ancient (or later) authors actually using these 'aspects', but perhaps others may be?

I might be wrong but doesn't a modern house system known as Natural Graduation make use of this method. (I couldn't find any description of the Natural Graduation system on the internet.) The ascendant is cusp I and the degrees in the signs that rise each two sidereal hours later determine the following cusps. In the 49?N latitude example 0?Capricorn then would be cusp I and 0?Cancer would be cusp V.