Skyscript Astrology Forum

I am curious when moiety orbs were first proposed in the tradition as opposed to fixed orbs?

I know William Lilly and most of his 17th century contemporaries were strongly influenced by the English translation of Claude Dariot's Introduction to the Astrological Judgement of the Starres (1598).

Was Dariot the originator of this approach to aspects or is the idea older?

Mark

https://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/moiety.html

Deborah suggests that "An early source of these values is Pophyry's Introduction to the Tetrabiblos, (CCAG, 5, part 4; p.228),"

Dariot called it 'vis luminis' or 'luminary strength', Placidus 'circular aura'

Giuseppe Bezza in 'Commento al primo libro della Tetrabiblos, Nuovi Orizzonti', Milano, 1990 suggests alongside the moiety to consider also the nature of each planet, its magnitude and speed.
An example from Rhetorius, Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum, VIII, 1,)
"The Moon void of course, deprived of configurations coming from the beneficent ones, makes the modest ones, which like silence, especially when her movement slows down: so she doesn't just do the modest, but also the fallen. Her condition is even worse when she is under the rays or in a cadent place. " (Free translation).
In this case, the 'vis luminis' is not very strong even if within the moiety orb.

Cheers,
Ouranos

Ouranos wrote:

Deborah suggests that "An early source of these values is Pophyry's Introduction to the Tetrabiblos, (CCAG, 5, part 4; p.228),"

Dariot called it 'vis luminis' or 'luminary strength', Placidus 'circular aura'

The concept of planets casting rays or 'orbs' is ancient. But I am not sure we can read into the above the use of the moiety orb which became the predominant use of orbs in the early modern period. The earliesat useage of the idea seems to have been to use fixed orbs for each planet rather than seeking to merge these together.

The Hellenistic astrologers seem to had fixed orbs of 3 degrees for the planets, 12 degrees for the Moon and 15 degrees for the Sun,

I confess I need obtain a copy of Abu'Mashar's Great Introduction to check out his outlook on this issue. However, certainly in the case of the Perso-Arabic astrologer ibn Bishr al-Israili (c. 786–c. 845) we see a system of fixed planetary orbs.

Ouranos quotes:

Giuseppe Bezza in 'Commento al primo libro della Tetrabiblos, Nuovi Orizzonti', Milano, 1990 suggests alongside the moiety to consider also the nature of each planet, its magnitude and speed.
An example from Rhetorius, Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum, VIII, 1,)
"The Moon void of course, deprived of configurations coming from the beneficent ones, makes the modest ones, which like silence, especially when her movement slows down: so she doesn't just do the modest, but also the fallen. Her condition is even worse when she is under the rays or in a cadent place. " (Free translation).

Can I clarify is the following statement yours of Bezza's? I am finding it difficult to find the relevance of the above quote specifically to the idea of moiety or mixed orbs.

In this case, the 'vis luminis' is not very strong even if within the moiety orb.

.

Although Rhetorius is a late figure in Hellenistic astrology (6th or 7th century AD) I see no reason to assume he had departed from the fixed orbs used in the early tradition.

Actually, there were still astrologers utilising the older tradition in 17th century England.

For example, the astrologer Richard Saunders who was a younger contemporary of William Lilly wrote the following:

Quote:

The Menographick Aspect is, when two planets do behold each other, and yet the distance between the Centre of both their Bodies doth not differ from a perfect Aspect above the Semidiameter of one of them, and yet it must exceed the Semidiameter of the other of them ... if Venus were in the 4th degree of Cancer, and the Moon in the 12th degree of Aries: here the difference from a perfect Aspect is 8 degrees, which is less than the Moon her Semidiameter, and more than the Semidiameter of Venus, so that the Moon by her beams toucheth Venus, but not Venus the Moon, and therefore in that respect, the configuration between them is not so perfect.

Mark

Albiruni (973-1048) as to the beginning of application in THE BOOK OF INSTRUCTION, 490:

"Beginning of application. [...] begins to show its movement towards conjunction, which increases till conjunction is completed. But there is much difference of opinion as to the amount and limits of completion. Some people say that it begins at 5 degrees [...]. Others say 6 degrees, [...]. Others 12 degrees, [...] still others 15 degrees, [...] while others say the average of the respective orbs of the planets in question."

Probably the first mention of Dariot's later teachings and of Lilly's "moiety of both their orbs".

According to Paul of Alexandria, (Corso d'Astrologia Classica, Milano, 2000) a very tight distance of 3 degrees between two planets refers to an event of childhood, from 3 to 7 degrees an event of middle age, from 7 to 15 degrees an event of old age, from 15 to 30 degrees an event of old age. Does the Moon come from an evil star? Is she heading towards a beneficial star? Or the opposite ?
Humanistic astrologers like Rudhyar or Ruperti would consider the phase cycle to be more important than the moiety orb and eventually the planets will progress in time to meet each other.
And technically, we measure Ptolemaic aspects in moiety but there is always an aspect between 2 planets (major or not) because there exist an angular distance between both. I always give my chart as an example. I have a applying trine of 7 degrees 40 minutes between my Moon and Jupiter, which is considered a trine but the exact distance is 112 degrees 40 minutes which is also 5/16 of the circle ( the semi-Octile family ) And it is true that in my life I have been overly optimistic at times, jumping in foolishly into situations and provoking Luck, not always showing up the laid back attitude of the trine.

Ouranos

johannes susato wrote:

Albiruni (973-1048) as to the beginning of application in THE BOOK OF INSTRUCTION, 490:

"Beginning of application. [...] begins to show its movement towards conjunction, which increases till conjunction is completed. But there is much difference of opinion as to the amount and limits of completion. Some people say that it begins at 5 degrees [...]. Others say 6 degrees, [...]. Others 12 degrees, [...] still others 15 degrees, [...] while others say the average of the respective orbs of the planets in question."

Probably the first mention of Dariot's later teachings and of Lilly's "moiety of both their orbs".

Thank you Johannes. Great find! The quote really, brings out the diversity of views on orbs in this period.

Fixed orbs does pose the interesting practical delineation issue that one planet can be in orb of another planet but the other planet is not yet reciprocating due to a smaller orb.

Mark

Ouranos wrote:

Humanistic astrologers like Rudhyar or Ruperti would consider the phase cycle to be more important than the moiety orb and eventually the planets will progress in time to meet each other.

We know nothing of such people here. The clock stopped in the 19th century on this forum.

Mark

Mark wrote:Ouranos wrote:

Humanistic astrologers like Rudhyar or Ruperti would consider the phase cycle to be more important than the moiety orb and eventually the planets will progress in time to meet each other.

We know nothing of such people here. The clock stopped in the 19th century on this forum.

Mark

Ironically, your traditional forum moderator *tries* to be ahead of his time.

Appreciate the discussion Mark and Michael!

‘Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.’ –Benjamin Franklin

Sometimes astrology can make us feel drowsy. That's when we should only take a moiety of the dosage.

Ouranos wrote:Appreciate the discussion Mark and Michael!

‘Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.’ –Benjamin Franklin

Sometimes astrology can make us feel drowsy. That's when we should only take a moiety of the dosage.

I appreciate your appreciation, Ouranos! And thanks Mark for starting up this interesting topic as well as to others for their valuable contributions.

Even though I don't agree with Rudhyar on all accounts, I like him for taking traditional astrological knowledge seriously, overall, while putting a modern philosophical spin on it.

However, even he was using predefined orbs (for all I know), even though I am not sure what type thereof.

Personally, I am using moiety with the traditional orbs suggested by some of the ancient authors.