Skyscript Astrology Forum

is menographic possibly a misprint? Menographic is unknown to my dictionaries.

Not a misprint. It occurs in the Astrology Classics Medical Series reprint edition published by AstroAmerica as well as the original facsimile edition published by Kessinger. Meno, month; graphic, written.

I suspect the orb values provided by al-Biruni may be idealized: if one takes Saturn (9?) and the Moon (12?), their values differ from each other by a difference of 3?; if one takes Jupiter (9?) and Mercury (7?), their values differ from each other by a difference of 2?; and if one takes Mars (8?) and Venus (7?), their values differ from each other by a difference of 1?. In other words, the difference in orb values between these planets descends from 3 to 1 in an ordered sequence of proportions.

In practice, Morin distinguishes between what he calls the extension of the "influential force" of a planet and its "intensity of influence." He states that the influential force (strength) of the Sun is 18?, that of the Moon is 15?, that of Saturn and Mars is 12?, that of Jupiter, Venus and Mercury is 8?. Then he adds, "In reality, no mortal can determine the influential force of a planet with precision." Thus, perhaps, the idealized orbs of al-Biruni.

Andrew wrote:

is menographic possibly a misprint? Menographic is unknown to my dictionaries.

Not a misprint. It occurs in the Astrology Classics Medical Series reprint edition published by AstroAmerica as well as the original facsimile edition published by Kessinger. Meno, month; graphic, written.

Just going to ask you about the meaning of 'month' in our topic I read in The Astrological Judgment and Practice of Physick, London 1677, scanned original, pages 3 and 4 your quotation - but beginning:
"The Monographick Aspect is, when two Planets behold each other, . . . "

Still a later misprint?

Please, could you give book and chapter of your very interesting Morin quotation? It's a lot easier to find in the Latin original then. Thank you!

Johannes

Just going to ask you about the meaning of 'month' in our topic I read in The Astrological Judgment and Practice of Physick, London 1677, scanned original, pages 3 and 4 your quotation - but beginning:
"The Monographick Aspect is, when two Planets behold each other, . . . "

Still a later misprint?

Hmm ... I scanned and enlarged the text and it seems you might be correct: the enlarged text seems to show an "o" rather than an "e" though it could easily be mistaken for either one. The "AstroAmerica" edition clearly renders the word as "menographic." "Monographic" is related to "a scholarly piece of writing of essay or book length on a specific, often limited subject." In this context, "menographic" seems to make more sense; maybe Saunders wrote "monographic" when he meant "menographic"?

Please, could you give book and chapter of your very interesting Morin quotation? It's a lot easier to find in the Latin original then. Thank you!

Astrologia Gallica Book Eighteen: The Strengths of the Planets, p. 11.

Andrew wrote: Hmm ... I scanned and enlarged the text and it seems you might be correct: the enlarged text seems to show an "o" rather than an "e" though it could easily be mistaken for either one. The "AstroAmerica" edition clearly renders the word as "menographic."

But in the 'facsimile' of the original there is 'Mono-'! Undoubtedly, as is easily to be seen here:
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/1586/screenshot615.jpg

Andrew wrote:"Monographic" is related to "a scholarly piece of writing of essay or book length on a specific, often limited subject." In this context, "menographic" seems to make more sense; maybe Saunders wrote "monographic" when he meant "menographic"?

'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.
But how could in contrast to that 'Menographick' (with the Greek meaning of month- as you said) give any sense in our context?

Having no ideas at all I'll wait for yours.

johannes susato 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.

In my opinion, in every case we always should consider half of the whole planetary orb, i.e. the moiety.
See the picture - it's taken from the Comment to the first book of Tetrabiblos by Giuseppe Bezza:
In my opinion what you are calling "monographic"(?) it's partial conjunction.

Margherita

I don't think orbs should be applied very strictly. I tend to believe that the orbs can differ from time to time. For example, perhaps the orb of the Moon close to a full Moon should be more wide than the orb of the Moon close to a new Moon. Considering a variable orb gives astrology a more 'living' or 'natural' character.

I tend to use tight orbs but I know of a friend of mine who has a same aspect of the same planets in the same signs as I have. His aspect is quite wide and mine almost exact. However in both cases we seem to experience some similar life issues in quite a similar way.

When four planets are all in exact square aspect to eachother, they form a so called 'grand cross'. A fifth planet in a conjunction to one of these which according to a strict orb would be considered not in conjunction, still may be noticed in the natal chart because the four planets enforce eachother so much that the orb is widened.

Gjiada wrote:

johannes susato 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.

In my opinion what you are calling "monographic"(?) it's partial conjunction.

You are right: In Bezza's definition the by Saunders so called "Monographick Aspect" is in case of a conjunction a partial-one. But remember that Saunders speaks of aspects, you with Bezza of conjunctions only.
Only discussing with Andrew, which term Saunders used I spoke of "Monographick Aspect" so it is not quite correct to attribute this term to me; especially I don't agree with the '-graphick'-part of the word.

Gjiada wrote:In my opinion, in every case we always should consider half of the whole planetary orb, i.e. the moiety.

You are right again to define the terms you use. There is some confusion about orbs as you see in the beginning of this thread. But as to your definition of "moiety = half of the whole planetary orb" I can't agree with you.

As to my knowledge the term of moiety was first defined by Dariot in the meaning of half the diameter: moiety = semidiameter = radius. Lilly adopted this term but changed its meaning into: moiety is half the orb, and the orb with Lilly is the planet's force before and behind it. And this before and behind is already the half of your "whole planetary orb"! So with Lilly the moiety is half the radius of a planet's total of power = a quarter of the diameter of the total orb in your definition.

Hello,

johannes susato wrote: "Monographick Aspect" is in case of a conjunction a partial-one. But remember that Saunders speaks of aspects, you with Bezza of conjunctions only.

This is not true
If it seems like that it's because surely i was not clear, but try to understand English is not exactly my mother tongue.
Deborah Houlding wrote better than me this in this same thread. And the same Bezza, he writes that different orbs for different aspect are a late addition, around 1700.

Only discussing with Andrew, which term Saunders used I spoke of "Monographick Aspect" so it is not quite correct to attribute this term to me; especially I don't agree with the '-graphick'-part of the word.

Again I was not clear, I'm not attributing anything to you, I understand it was a quote from Saunders. But hardly I can reply to him without a medium.

As to my knowledge the term of moiety was first defined by Dariot in the meaning of half the diameter: moiety = semidiameter = radius. Lilly adopted this term but changed its meaning into: moiety is half the orb, and the orb with Lilly is the planet's force before and behind it. And this before and behind is already the half of your "whole planetary orb"!
So with Lilly the moiety is half the radius of a planet's total of power = a quarter of the diameter of the total orb in your definition.

Well, again we are talking about the same thing. Moreover in Italian we don't have the word moiety, I cannot even translate in my mother tongue.

Anyway to me the word orb implies something circular, like when we talk about the orbit of the planet in astronomy. I meant this.
Then I would consider an half, i.e. the semidiameter. The picture I posted is clear.
The aspect is the intersection of two orbs.

I says this, and I believe this is what Bezza teaches at least from the picture taken from his book.

I believe that everybody agree about this point. Or not? I'm a little confused now,

p.s. obviously I agree with Eddy that sometimes we can consider planets in aspect by houses or by signs, it depends.
For example in temperament calculation I was taught to take planets in angular houses as in aspect with the Ascendant in whatever point of the house are.
Margherita

'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

Gjiada wrote:

johannes susato wrote: "Monographick Aspect" is in case of a conjunction a partial-one. But remember that Saunders speaks of aspects, you with Bezza of conjunctions only.

This is not true
If it seems like that its because surely i was not clear, but try to understand English is not exactly my mother tongue.
Deborah Houlding wrote better than me this in this same thread. And the same Bezza, he writes that different orbs for different aspect are a late addition, around 1700.

It is in the context of conjunctions, that Bezza speaks of diverging orbs and that a conjunction is partial, if only the semidiameter of the greater orb is reaching the center of the other planet.
In contrast to Bezza Saunders is obviously implying aspects too, as he writes of "Monographick Aspects".

But why am I wrong about this, Margherita?

As to your qoutation of Bezzas writing about "different orbs for different aspects" its quite a different thing, new around 1700(?) as he says. In contrast to that Saunders speaks of unchanged orbs of the planets, that is the planets don't change their orbs according to different aspects.

As to my knowledge the term of moiety was first defined by Dariot in the meaning of half the diameter: moiety = semidiameter = radius. Lilly adopted this term but changed its meaning into: moiety is half the orb, and the orb with Lilly is the planets force before and behind it. And this before and behind is already the half of your "whole planetary orb"!
So with Lilly the moiety is half the radius of a planets total of power = a quarter of the diameter of the total orb in your definition.

Gjiada wrote:Well, again we are talking about the same thing. Moreover in Italian we dont have the word moiety, I cannot even translate in my mother tongue.

Anyway to me the word orb implies something circular, like when we talk about the orbit of the planet in astronomy. I meant this.
Then I would consider an half, i.e. the semidiameter. The picture I posted is clear.
The aspect is the intersection of two orbs.

I says this, and I believe this is what Bezza teaches at least from the picture taken from his book.

I believe that everybody agree about this point. Or not? Im a little confused now,

Dariot spoke of la moiti?, meaning half the diameter, Lilly called it moiety, meaning half the orb as he understood it (anf that is half the radius), and nowadays some use moities thinking radius, and some thinking with Lilly half the radius of the orbis.

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

Johannes

Hello again,

johannes susato wrote: But why am I wrong about this, Margherita?

I'm afraid I don't understand you.

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 contrast to that Saunders speaks of unchanged orbs of the planets, that is the planets don't change their orbs according to different aspects

.

So what? We were talking about "menographick" aspect...

And now I'm proud to present your Italian moietiy (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.

It's just that we have not an astrological technical word, as we don't 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 it's 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, it's very strange for me.

Margherita

Johannes, idiomatic language use tends to be tricky - just because it seems like something should be the word for a concept in another language, that doesn't mean it is. Witness our recent Zoeller confusion. Or even Lilly's use of 'clown' and the modern use of 'clown' in English - not the same meaning at all even though it's the same word in the same language. Words like 'silly', 'nice', and so many others no longer mean the same things in English as they did even a few hundred years ago.

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!