Disconcerted by ultra wide orbs in Lilly

RohanMenon

Some context: When I left new age 'pop psychology' astrology behind, I focused on accurate prediction as a metric for successful astrology and adopted the Fagan school's methods of using partile aspects and angularity, in combination with Solar and Lunar returns to make some modest(ly successful) predictions with my friends' charts. (I am an amateur astrologer and not professional, fwiw). The orbs in such methods, whether relating to angularity or partililty, are quite small,which seem to enable accurate timing in prediction (at least it works that way for me)

Now that I'm reading through Lilly, I see has 15 degrees each side as an orb for the Sun. 14 degrees each side for the Moon This is a full sign's worth. So using this width, a chart's Mercury at 12 degrees Sagittarius is within orb of the Sun at 26 degrees Sagittarius. And if one uses classical aspects, more than half the chart is within the orb of the Sun's aspects.

Do classical astrologers really use such wide orbs? If so does it work in practice? I'm finding this a little disconcerting, the Sun and Moon by themselves, and just using the classical aspects, cover almost the complete chart. How does one begin to interpret such wide orbs?

Would any experienced astrologer like to comment?


Thanks in advance
 

Barleywine

As I understand it from my traditional studies, at one time all aspects were "by sign" rather than by degree of angular separation, with cross-sign aspects disallowed. So all planets in Fire signs that weren't conjunct were automatically trine to one another. That casts a different light on things. By Lilly's time it seems to have passed out of use, but 14 or 15 degrees of orb certainly encompasses that model.
 

RohanMenon

Thanks Barleywine

Or maybe the 15 degrees either side for the Sun is not applicable for all aspects it forms? if the square aspect were to be defined at say 3 degrees either side, that corrects the 'covers the whole chart' assumption.

as you say, Lilly was not using Whole Sign system, so I am not sure how relevant (or not) the 'cross sign' nature of aspects would be. I just started reading, so perhaps Lilly deals with this question later on.
 

Barleywine

Even some "psychological" astrologers back in the mid-20th century used what I at the time considered to be enormous orbs for the Sun and Moon. I don't do much natal astrology these days, preferring to focus on horary, but I do keep aspect orbs fairly tight even though I have no firm rules for it. I might be a bit more generous if there are very few aspects in a chart.
 

Minderwiz

Lilly, his contemporaries, and late medieval Astrologers didn't use orbs in the modern sense. They used moieties, which are planet specific.

These were first listed by All Biruni (c1000 CE)

Sun - 15 degrees
Moon - 12 degrees
Saturn - 9 degrees
Jupiter - 9 degrees
Mars - 8 degrees
Venus 7 degrees
Mercury - 7 degrees

For the Sun and Mars to be in aspect you need to add the two moieties:

15 + 8 = 23: And then divide by 2 = 11.5.

So to be in aspect Sun and Mars need to be 11.5 degrees or less in separation. This is known as using half moieties. For Venus and Mars the separation would be 7.5 degrees: (7+8)/2

Lilly gives some variation on these figures but say he uses what he can remember at the time.

Before All Biruni, the Hellenistic system was three stage. The aspect by Sign, referred to by Barleywine. A 15 degree aspect for conjunctions in the same sign and a 3 degree aspect for strong connections
 

Minderwiz

For Horary

Lilly's main area as a jobbing Astrologer was horary, though he did natal work and mundane work (see Book III for his natal work).

In horary what matters is application and eventual perfection. So establishing application and checking that the aspect will perfect without anything untoward happening.

When you get to his natal work you will.find he has an array of predictive methods that outstrip those of a modern Astrologer (as with Morin and indeed all the tradition) and simple transits are not enough to be a prediction on.
 

RohanMenon

Ah I see,

moeity vs orb.

I think I get it

The moeity seems to be about half the orb distance, an 'inner zone' of the planet's influence, as it were. When the planets moeities, so half the orb, zones intersect they may be considered to be in aspect.

But just to be sure,I'll work out an example.

Assume Jupiter at 0 sagittarius ( as it is in my chart) has an orb of 9 which means it has a 'zone of influence' that extends 9 degrees to either side, in other words the total 'zone of influence' would be 18 degrees end to end with the planet in the exact middle.

so from roughly Scorpio 21 to Sagittarius 9.
However the moeity zone is only half as much on either side so 4.5 degrees on each side.

Similarly the Sun has an orb of 15 degrees on each side, and an inner zone or 'moeity' of half that whic would be 7.5 degrees on each side.

But for the Sun to be in conjunction it should be 9 (Jupiter's Moiety) + 15 (Sun's Moeity) / 2 = 24/2 = 12 degrees away at most. This is where the inner zones touch (7.5 + 4.5 = 12)


so if the Sun were in 18 Scorpio to 12 Sagittarius, we'd consider the Sun and Jupiter to be conjunct.

correct?

Similarly, the exact opposition point for this Jupiter would be 0 Gemini

Moeity for an aspect of this jupiter with Mars would be (9 + 8) / 2 = 17/2 = 8.5 degrees


So if Mars is at 15 Taurus, it is not within 8.5 degrees of Jupiter's exact opposition point so it is not considered to be in opposition to Jupiter.

However if it were at say 23 Taurus, it would be, because it is less than 8.5 degrees from 0 Gemini. the exact opposition point of Jupiter


I think the classical/Hellenistic way of working this out, Mars, to form a strong opposition would need to be in the range 27 taurus to 3 gemini (a 6 degree range) to be , though, it would be considered in opposition *by sign* as long as it were anywhere in Gemini.

Correct?


Thanks a million Minderwiz. I think I understand this now. (assuming the above calculations are correct).
 

RohanMenon

Natal vs horary. Good point

"When you get to his natal work you will.find he has an array of predictive methods that outstrip those of a modern Astrologer (as with Morin and indeed all the tradition) and simple transits are not enough to be a prediction on. "

I look forward to this. I've almost finished a first reading of Morin's book 21,and will work through his earlier books, (13 thru 19) which deal with chart analysis, then turn to book 22+ which deal with prediction per se.

But I like the idea of interlocking tools of different resolutions. direction->profections->revolutions->transits in Morin's case. I'm sure Lilly has something similar.

Fagan's techniques seem to have Solar Return->Lunar Return-> Quotidians and/or transits, which also seem to work well enough (at least, at my level).
 

Minderwiz

You have the maths but you would also need to take account of application/separation. At 23 Taurus Mars would begin it's application, if it were simply a question of maths. But most medieval Astrologers and all Hellenistic Astrologers would say that there's no application because Taurus isn't the opposite sign to Sagittarius. The application would not begin till either Mars crossed into Gemini or got within 3 degrees of Jupiter (Hellenistic view), unless Jupiter turned retrograde and moved back into Scorpio. If Mars did not apply to and make another aspect before moving into Gemini it would have been seen as Void of Course by a lot of Astrologers. That's a concept that's fallen out of use, apart from the Moon.

Now Lilly defines VoC to mean that an application has begun before the planet changes signs, which seems to allow the out of sign aspect, or at least application involving a sign change. But as far as I can see all his examples in this section hold by Sign as well as degree, so I'm not certain he would count the Mars in Taurus and Jupiter in Sagittarius as true application.

From the time of Kepler aspects became more mathematical and less qualitative. Kepler (d 1630) just predated Lilly's work (1647) so you will find some of his influence, especially in Book III. So it could be that he would allow the Mars/Jupiter out of sign application. Without going through all his examples throughout the book, we can't settle it and even then Lilly is not 100℅ consistent.
 

RohanMenon

Great clarifications, Thank You. Very helpful to a beginner venturing into deep waters of classical/medieval astrology.