Well spotted with the almanac Sue. Sometimes it seems like we don?t really get anywhere with these discussions, but perhaps their real value is that they keep us aware of certain points of controversy - so that we can keep checking and don?t overlook interesting references when we see them. If you don?t mind I?d be interested in the title of the Almanac.

Lilly was inconsistent with this concept when he allowed for out of sign aspects when considering VOC Moon. If he was truly consistent then he would consider the Moon VOC until it changes sign regardless of whether it is in orb of making an aspect to another planet. If the Moon is at say 27? Gemini and Jupiter is at 2? Scorpio we would not consider this an aspect even if it is within orb because it is out of sign. Yet, Lilly would not consider this to be VOC because it is within orb of aspecting Jupiter even though it has to change signs to do so. This, to me, is contradictory. Lilly is allowing for out of sign aspects in this case. If he was being consistent, he would consider the Moon to be VOC because it will not become an aspect until the Moon moves into Cancer.

Lilly is really quite consistent within his own definition of void and it makes genuine sense to me - the Moon?s role is to receive and transmit the influences of the other planets. It is only void (emptied of influence) if it is out of reach of the planetary influences. I don?t see that the Moon is rendered void simply by crossing a sign boundary ? if we have the Moon at 29 Scorpio and the Sun at 1 Gemini (so within 2 degrees of a full Moon) why should we assume that we have an empty, powerless Moon? Consider the effects of the Full Moon in nature ? the oceans and rivers still swell despite the fact that we?ve put a sign boundary between them. The Moon is the greatest operator upon the mundane, elemental world of which we, our bodies and our instinctive reactions are a part. To suggest that a full Moon could ever be an ?empty Moon? strikes me as nonsense, and many other historical astrologers beside Lilly have made this point.

Aspects are geometrical constructs. There is a very logical reason why aspects need to remain within sign in the same way that it is logical to stick to traditional rulerships. There is a logical structure in both that makes sense and falls apart if we start allowing for out of sign aspects or modern rulerships.

I accept that aspects express geometrical principles but I don?t accept that those principles must then be reliant upon or denied by sign boundaries. To do so would divorce astrology from its ability to reveal how planetary cycles affect earthly cycles. Again, the effects of the Moon moving in close to the square of the Sun are too obvious and too demonstrable for them to be denied because each might be, say, 1 degree on the wrong side of a sign-boundary. I don?t think I could be interested in an astrology that doesn?t remain fundamentally tied to the natural effects of the planets on nature, and that?s why I think Lilly has got his VOC issue completely right, but on the other hand I tend to agree with you on the combustion issue. Astrologers can of course incorporate the symbolic value of sign boundaries, but to say that they prevent the effects of conjunctions or aspects full stop would make astrology an entirely non-demonstrable study where philosophical constructs ignore or reject the principles expressed in the natural world rather than being used as a means of understanding them.

I would also see combustion as very much an integral part of planetary cycles and aspectual relationships, so I suppose that in a sense I do see it as part of the geometrical construct ? but I?m willing to consider that geometrical principles operate fundamentally within the context of the circle (or cycle) and shouldn?t necessarily be restrained by our divisions of the circle, which also try to express those principles but can only do so in a ?rough and ready? sense.


Tom wrote:

It is a philosophical position based on a particular understanding of the effects of planets in signs that is not entirely dependent on a visual basis. Combustion may well be, and probably is based on an earlier visual understanding, but it is not required that everything remain within that paradigm

The points I made above apply here too. Combustion describes the state of being hidden and rendered invisible / reduced in the power to express itself because it is overwhelmed by the Sun?s light. To suggest that this becomes irrelevant where the two planets stand either side of a sign boundary would call into question the whole basis of orientality / occidentality and the meaning of planetary phases as they operate around the Sun. So if we are talking about contradictions, I can?t see why it?s appropriate to accept the fundamental importance of this process within the circle as a whole, but to then suggest that the power of the circle is invalidated because of the divisions of the circle.


Deb

PS - I'm not sure if it died a while back or not, but yes this horse is certainly taking some flogging!

Hi Sue,

We are beating a dead horse here, but what the hell.

My only point really is that there is evidence to suggest that combustion has not always been considered to relate to within sign only. If I recall our earlier discussion, there was some debate on whether we could accept that the ancient authors simply did not mention that combustion had to be in the same sign because it was to be assumed.

I know. I was just feeling fiesty because I have my computer back. I didn't re-read the thread, but your recollection seems right and it also seems that what authors we can find tend to disagree with Lilly.

It may well have been that Lilly insisted that combustion remain in sign to be consistent with the concept of aspects always being in sign. However, even Lilly was inconsistent with this concept when he allowed for out of sign aspects when considering VOC Moon.

I didn't mean to imply that this example followed Lilly's thought process, but rather that the two ideas are consistent. Whether he ever thought about them at the same time is irrelevant to my point. You do make a good point with the MOC Moon, however. I've never been comofortable with his definition of that, either.

Why? Aspects are geometrical constructs.

Let me put this another way. We can, and probably do mix and match observation and philosophy from time to time. My problem is the insistance more than the practice. In this case the argument seems to be that the planet is obscured visually, therefore it is combust regardless of sign boundaries. At this point, it is a fair argument. But to then argue that sign boundaries are relevant in the case of aspects seems to be to be a glaring inconsistency, precisely because in modern astrology, aspects are geomerical constructs. That wasn't always strictly the case. Aspects took place in sign regardless of the number of degrees (yes this is geometry, too, but not in the sense that aspects are considered geometrical today. The geometry then was based on the number of signs than separated the two planets not the number of degrees).

Signs that are square to each other share a difficult relationship. Therefore planets in the signs will share a difficult relationship regardless of the number of degrees. Everyone seems to agree that the number of degrees that separate the planets is important and the closer the two planets are the greater the "strength (influence really)" of the aspect, but even if those planets are a scant 15 minutes of arc apart, but in different signs, the relationship between the signs no longer exists because the geometry does not cause the relationship, the signs do. Therefore, if two planets cannot be conjunct if they are in different signs, no matter how close they are, to argue that they can be combust, is switching gears entirely. Numbers matter signs don't. The argument is that signs are important, but not as important as being near the Sun. However if twoplanets are even close but in different signs, there is no relationship. I can't square that with reason or experience. Either the sign boundary is important or it is not. To try to counter this by saying, "well it is combust but the effects are different," to me is ajust a rationalization.

Surely you're not suggesting that Lilly was a 'modern', Tom.

Although I was having a little fun, surely I am. If we look at Lilly in his time, and ignore ours, he was no traditionalist. It is only from the vantage point of living in 2006 that we see him that way. Lilly was a Parliamentarian during the English Civil War, (a leftist if you will although the term had not yet been invented), and his astrology did not rigidly follow what came before. There are many references in CA where Lilly cites "the ancients" and then tells us he does not follow them.

In his day, he would have been a "modern," and in ours he seems quite tradtional. A less judgmental way of looking at him is that he was damn good at what he did.

Please enjoy whatever part of whatever day it is in Australia.

Tom

Lilly is really quite consistent within his own definition of void and it makes genuine sense to me - the Moon?s role is to receive and transmit the influences of the other planets. It is only void (emptied of influence) if it is out of reach of the planetary influences. I don?t see that the Moon is rendered void simply by crossing a sign boundary ? if we have the Moon at 29 Scorpio and the Sun at 1 Gemini (so within 2 degrees of a full Moon) why should we assume that we have an empty, powerless Moon? Consider the effects of the Full Moon in nature ? the oceans and rivers still swell despite the fact that we?ve put a sign boundary between them. The Moon is the greatest operator upon the mundane, elemental world of which we, our bodies and our instinctive reactions are a part. To suggest that a full Moon could ever be an ?empty Moon? strikes me as nonsense, and many other historical astrologers beside Lilly have made this point.

But this is my point. I obviously didn't explain it very well. I agree entirely with what you have said. I agree with Lilly's use of VOC Moon and use it in that way because it makes sense for the reasons you outlined. The inconsistency for me is with ignoring sign boundaries in VOC Moon but stressing them in combustion. What I can't understand is why he is saying that sign boundaries are enough to prevent the effects of combustion. This I disagree with strongly. But I guess I'll have to settle for agreeing to disagree and leave the poor horse alone.

In his day, he would have been a "modern," and in ours he seems quite tradtional.

Does this mean that today's 'moderns' are tomorrow's traditionalists? How scary is that?

Please enjoy whatever part of whatever day it is in Australia.

It's just after midnight on Saturday morning so I guess from your perspective I am enjoying tomorrow.

Tom:

That wasn't always strictly the case. Aspects took place in sign regardless of the number of degrees (yes this is geometry, too, but not in the sense that aspects are considered geometrical today. The geometry then was based on the number of signs than separated the two planets not the number of degrees).

This point is often made but it ignores the references we have ? even within the works of Valens and our earliest sources - which show that signs were used as a rough and ready means to measuring aspects but contact by degree was more correct, and that this might override the relationship of the signs:

Manilius, (2.305-340):
"And though a man compute a fourth sign from a fourth, the degrees in themselves will cause the wreck of a whole sign. It is therefore not enough to count trigons by signs or to expect a true square from signs at intervals at four".

This point is often made but it ignores the references we have ? even within the works of Valens and our earliest sources - which show that signs were used as a rough and ready means to measuring aspects but contact by degree was more correct, and that this might override the relationship of the signs:

So that there is no misunderstanding, I also wrote:

Therefore planets in the signs will share a difficult relationship regardless of the number of degrees. Everyone seems to agree that the number of degrees that separate the planets is important and the closer the two planets are the greater the "strength (influence really)" of the aspect,

I still have a hard time with the idea that a planet at 29 degrees Leo is square a planet at 1 degree Sagittarius. Those signs are harmonious and squares are not. If we believe that the above is a square we are giving primary consideration to the number of degrees that separate the planets and the functions of the signs are secondary and perhaps not relevant at all. A Mars-Saturn square from Leo to Taurus is no different from a Mars Saturn square From Leo to Sagittarius. Oh moderns give lip service to the idea that it is somehow "different" when out of sign, but the delineations rarely, if ever, show it. And if we allow out-of-sign aspects we are, in fact creating an entirely different set of aspects as the dignities of Mars in Leo are a whole lot different than Mars in Cancer or Mars in Virgo. To my way of thinking, out-of-sign aspects just toss the whole system into the blender, and for a classicist, that's not nice.

Tom

I still have a hard time with the idea that a planet at 29 degrees Leo is square a planet at 1 degree Sagittarius. Those signs are harmonious and squares are not

I?m not sure just how much the ancients were tied to the harmonious/inharmonious idea regarding aspects. I believe I?ve read that the emphasis was on the planets ?beholding? each other, having a relationship, and that squares weren?t always necessarily inharmonious. It depends on the planets involved. So if squares weren?t always inharmonious, then we can?t require them to always involve inharmonious signs.

If we believe that the above is a square we are giving primary consideration to the number of degrees that separate the planets and the functions of the signs are secondary and perhaps not relevant at all.

Well, the ?stars? of the show are the planets, not the signs. Astrology began as a study of the moving bodies. The signs served as fields of placement for those bodies. The fact that so many early astrologers were willing to overlook sign boundaries would seem to indicate that the primacy of the planets and their relationship to each other wasn?t easily ignored.

One criticism of modern astrology is that signs are given much more (too much?) emphasis now in comparison to early astrology. Your point of view seems to be a neo-traditional twist on that practice and a search for a ?purity? that may not have been so securely entrenched.

Your point of view seems to be a neo-traditional twist on that practice and a search for a ?purity? that may not have been so securely entrenched.

The following "neo tradtionalists" also share the same search for a purity that is not securely entrenched:

Al Biruni writing in the 11th century
Abu Mashar writing in the 9th century
Paulus Alexandrinus writing in the 4th century AD
Firmicus Maternus writing in the 4th century AD
Claudius Ptolemy writing in the 2nd century AD.

There are others and all calculate the aspects based on the signs. Couple that with the certainty that the those signs 60 and 120 degrees apart were considerd harmonious, and the signs 90 and 180 degrees apart were considered disharmonious, and we have the neo-tradtionalist purity mentioned above. Only one, Ibn Ezra disagreed.

Sorry I'm not going to bother writing out each quote. You can search for yourself.

Tom

There are others and all calculate the aspects based on the signs. Couple that with the certainty that the those signs 60 and 120 degrees apart were considerd harmonious, and the signs 90 and 180 degrees apart were considered disharmonious, and we have the neo-tradtionalist purity mentioned above. Only one, Ibn Ezra disagreed.

That?s too either/or, black/white for my taste. The following is from someone who excels at the subtle blending of chart factors.

The square, known as the quartile or quadrate, was not an altogether undesirable aspect. While unable to offer the easy agreement of the trine, the fact that the signs have a strong 'sight' of each other means there is recognition and a flow of power between them. Manilius explains that the trigon's power is greater than the quadrate's, but speaks favourably of them both when he says:

And whatever points joined in a series of four the angle favours, and whatever point the straight line marks in its threefold track . . . upon these has nature bestowed federation and common law, mutual goodwill and rights of friendship with each of her. [5]


The square was only taken as unquestionably damaging when a malefic or unfortunate planet was involved, though many texts speak of the need for reception or some other form of familiarity for there to be a positive influence.

Illustrations of the so-called 'bad' aspects being interpreted positively are found throughout the ancient text of Dorotheus of Sidon.[...]

Dorotheus reminds us that the nature of the aspectual relationship depends upon a number of factors, principally the strength, nature, and overall condition of the planets involved.[...]

D. Houlding, ?The Classical Origin and Traditional Use of Aspects?:
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aspects.html

Where is the iron grip of the signs? Ultimately, the power lies with the planets- with the signs as a secondary influence. The linkage of inharmonious signs and the square aspect is weakened by the planets themselves. Therefore, the power of the signs is weakened. The signs are limited in their power to contain and restrict the planets. The planets are more powerful than any construct of signs created for ease and certainty of interpretation. Maybe we can think of the planets as the free-spirited ones who are going about their business as dynamic points, and the signs as the localized limitations - positive and negative - placed on the planets in an attempt to understand and use them through giving them a focus. We limit ourselves, and harm our astrological knowledge and abilities, when we allow the tool of focus (the signs) to dominate the dynamic thrust (the planets). In so doing, we are placing qualifications above active essence.

I almost forgot...A silly little sign boundary is not going to prevent combustion.

One thing that has always puzzled me about Lilly's use of combustion is that in CA (p.113), where he explains combustion, he gives a couple of examples using Jupiter and the Sun. What he says is that he uses the moiety of the Sun and not of Jupiter. He explains that if he uses the moiety of Jupiter then it would not be combust until Jupiter reaches 4?30' away from the Sun, which he disagrees with. He seems to be suggesting that others do use the moiety of Jupiter or presumably the moiety of the other planet moving into combustion. But if he is using the moiety of the Sun then shouldn't combustion be at 7?30' and not 8?30'? Isn't the orb of the Sun 15??

When he says 'use which you find most verity in,' is he suggesting that it is possible to use the moiety of the planet moving into combustion?

Sue

"The side of the hexagon (sextile) is fomred from 3 zoidia (signs) on the one hand of 60 degrees multiplied by six results in 360 degrees of the zodiacal circle. The side of the square is formed from 4 zoidia of 90 degrees for 90 degrees multipiled by four results in the 360 degrees of the circle ..."

Paulus Alexandrinus.

He goes on and all the others I cited base their reasoning on signs - the distance the signs are apart not the silly little boundaries arbitrarily set by degrees and the reulting hysteria over orbs.

It isn't that the planets have no part in the scheme, no one said that and they do play an important role, it is that the separation by degrees without reference to the signs only adds superficialities to an otherwise logical scheme. Since modern astrologers think it is a big deal if someone is born with the Sun at 29 degrees 59' 59' of Aries and is therefore profoundly different than a person born with 0 degrees 0' 01' of Taurus, I should think the iron boundaries of the signs would make more sense, but then lack of consistency is something of a badge of honor amongst those types who shift from implying there is no basis for the understanding of the aspects through the signs, and then cite the influence of the planets as proof that separation by degrees is the most important factor.

Tom

Sue asks:

When he says 'use which you find most verity in,' is he suggesting that it is possible to use the moiety of the planet moving into combustion?

It sounds like it, although most of the authors I am aware of would have agreed with Lilly?s principle that it is the orb of the Sun that determines combustion. I think Lilly had learned to be diplomatic to avoid unnecessary contention, and this shows his overall approach to the use of orbs. Because he was aware of different ?limits? set down by historical authorities, he states the rules that he applied but throws the responsibility back to the reader to resolve any disputes over such issues for themselves. I guess nothing changes and we still have to make these decisions for ourselves.

But if he is using the moiety of the Sun then shouldn't combustion be at 7?30' and not 8?30'? Isn't the orb of the Sun 15??

On page 107 where he lists the traditional orbs of the planets, Lilly gives two sets of figures, confessing ?I sometimes use the one, and sometimes the other, as my memory best remembereth them, and this without error?.

Again, this is Lilly either reminding us that such issues as trying to determine exact limits are really trivialities, and not the sort of thing that is going to prevent a good overall judgement; or it is a great political manoeuvre that allows him to agree with both of the prevalent views of his era without offending anyone.

The list of wider orbs gives the Sun an orb of 17 degrees, hence the 8.30 limit for combustion ? this is also quite close to the distance of 9 degrees from the Sun suggested by Paulus Alexandrinus (with no reference to signs).

The controversies surrounding the degree of orb that can be applied to aspects go way back, and were very much a part of classical astrology. With reference to Tom?s comment which concludes:

There are others and all calculate the aspects based on the signs. Couple that with the certainty that the those signs 60 and 120 degrees apart were considerd harmonious, and the signs 90 and 180 degrees apart were considered disharmonious, and we have the neo-tradtionalist purity mentioned above. Only one, Ibn Ezra disagreed.

This seems to be the standard view taken by some leading authorities, although I don?t know why, given the references we have to dispute this. Yes, in the classical period most aspects were determined by the relationships of the signs but not all of them, and aspects were recognised that either broke the relationship of the signs (dissociate) or ignored them completely.

I sometimes think the Manilius quote I gave earlier has a mysterious power of invisibility, because it would be hard to find a clearer reminder that the signs alone do not have the power to determine the correct aspectual relationship of the planets ? and this in a text that has a heavy focus on the philosophical relationships of the signs.

We also have a reference in one of the charts from Vettius Valens, in one of the few examples where he mentions degree positions (which is why he is often used to defend the theory that aspects are determined solely by sign relationships). In his literary horoscope 61X (Greek Horoscopes, p.82), we are told that the native was expected to die when Saturn contacted Mars at 27 Taurus. Valens writes: ?He died (when Saturn was) in Virgo because it is in its square reckoned by degrees?. The annotators confess to not knowing what "reckoned by degree" means; failing to appreciate that if Saturn is at the beginning of Virgo it is closer to a square of Mars at the end of Taurus as calculated by degree than the trine as calculated by the signs.

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. Rob Hand?s footnote reads ?Any combination of the above has an effect, although it would seem that having more than one of these in effect at a given time is more powerful.?

Although Ptolemy describes the relationships of the signs by reference to the aspects they make to each other, he does not state that this is the only way to determine the aspects between the planets. His use of mundane aspects shows that he could not have considered this a critical factor. He did not include the reminder that Manilius did, but he says that the interval between them must not be great (I.24). He also talks about 17 degrees as a distance by which the Sun and Moon are united (IV.7) and mentions orbs of 12 degrees for Jupiter and 8 degrees for Venus (III.10). He also points out that there is no ?certainty? in the relationships of the signs; for example the sextile aspect can ?destroy? among the signs that ascend slowly or quickly (III.10)

Paulus Alexandrus (Introductory Matters, 10) makes a point of stating that each aspect can be determined on the one hand by sign or, on the other, by degree ? so you can say that two planets are in a trine aspect if they are 5 signs apart, or you can say that they are in a trine aspect if they are 120 degrees apart. Robert Schmidt?s study of the terminology concludes that these are alternative ways of determining aspects, not equivalent ones. This raises the question of what orbs were allowed for aspects calculated by degree? Paulus talks of various arcs (orbs) in which the effects of the aspect are active ? the most powerful being 3 degrees (agreed by Antiochus and Hephaistio). He does not say that a disassociate aspect is not allowed ? if it were necessary for all aspects to conform to the relationships of the signs one has to wonder why he so laboured the point that they can be determined either by sign or by degree.

Firmicus does describe aspects only by relation to sign but he doesn?t go into detail about how aspects are determined and makes no reference to arcs of influence, so his work could easily leave the wrong impression that only aspects by sign were permitted when we can see that this wasn?t the case.

The controversy stirs up with Abu Mashar who writes: ?But if their zodiacal signs are different, even if there are few degrees between them both, then they are not said to be ?in conjunction?? (chap. III) Because of this, the annotator has written ?Aspects in Greek and Arabic astrology are thus clearly derived from the aspectual relationship between the signs tenanted by the planets under consideration? ? leaving the impression that this was the only way they were determined. Ibn Ezra was outspoken in challenging this view, but he wasn?t the only one to do so. I haven?t made a detailed study of this but I do know that Claude Dariot in the 16th century recognised aspects that perfected over sign boundaries, and most (if not all) of the astrologers of the 17th century did so.

I have wondered whether Abu Mashar?s comment was based upon a clumsy translation of classical definitions which stated that for planets to be in ?conjunction? they must be in the same degree and the same sign - an obvious definition but one that can easily be inverted to suggest that they are not ?in conjunction? if in differing signs. For example, Paulus: ?The conjunction is whenever the Moon happens to be at the same degree of the same sign of the Sun? (16). This is speculation, I don?t really know. I think Lilly was very wise in telling his readers to make up their own minds. I wonder how many times these arguments have circulated amongst Lilly and his contemporaries, and Antiochus and his?

Deb