Could someone put me straight on the definition of Halb and Hayz?

In "The Horary Textbook" John Frawley says that if a diurnal planet is above the Earth in a daytime chart or below it in a night chart then it is in Halb. Likewise for a noctural planet that is above the Earth by night or below it by day. This is supported by Lee Lehman (quoted on this forum) who says in "Classical Astrology of Modern Living" that "a Halb planet is a diurnal planet above the horizon by day, or below the horizon by night".

Frawley goes on to say a planet is in Hayz if it is in Halb and in a sign of its own gender.

But then I noticed that Solar Fire was not calculating Hayz that way and did a bit more looking. The help file says that a planet is in Hayz if it's inherent nature concurs with the chart, placement and sign i.e.
1) a diurnal planet, in a daytime chart, in the same hemisphere as the sun and in a masculine sign, or
2) a nocturnal planet, in a night chart, in the opposite hemisphere to the sun and in a feminine sign.

It is possible this view comes from Robert Hand as it also mentions the term "ex conditione", but I don't have his "NIGHT & DAY: Planetary Sect in Astrology" to check.

So can a diurnal planet only be in Hayz (or Halb) in a daytime chart, and a nocturnal planet in a night chart?

There seems to be yet another school of thought (an article by Doug Noblehorse) that says a planet is in Hayz if it is in sect by chart, hemi-sphere and sign and is not in detriment or fall - debility cancelling Hayz.

Would love to know if there are some definative references on this.

Jenny

Hi Jenny,

Yesterday I got Rob Hand?s book out so I could check it for you. But now I have time to do so, I can?t find where I put it! Hopefully it will turn up later and I?ll check it out over the weekend.

In a sense all these definitions can claim to be right. There have been different descriptions of this term so I don?t know that any source can claim to be definitive. Most people see the term halb or hayz as representing a contented state for the planet because it is in sect, so operating within its ideal environment.

Guido Bonatus in Liber Astronomiae writes on this:

Alchabitius says that a planet is then said to be in its dustoria when it is in hayz or in its similitude, that is, so that a masculine planet is in a masculine sign, and a feminine planet in a feminine sign?

So far, so good, all authors agree on that. He goes on?

? and a diurnal planet in the daytime above the earth, and in the night under the earth, and a nocturnal planet in the night time above the earth, and in the daytime below the earth; and in the day it should be oriental of the Sun and in the night occidental of the Moon.

However, Lilly says on p.113 of CA:

Hayz is when a Masculine and Diurnal Planet is in the day time above the earth, and in a Masculine Sign, and so when a Feminine, nocturnal Planet in the night is in a Feminine Sign and under the earth: In Questions it usually shews the content of the Querent at time of the question, when his Significator is so found.

I used to think that I agree with Lilly more, in that he sees nocturnal planets more appropriately designated ?under the earth? in the night, because this is the nocturnal hemisphere and so reinforces the planet?s alignment with the nocturnal sect.

I have also wondered, that whilst I agree diurnal planets are more suitably disposed above the earth in day time charts, why should they be granted the same degree of ?dignity? or ?contentment? for being beneath the earth in night-time charts? How is this showing a planet in an environment where it expresses itself most contentedly? Especially considering the number of traditional aphorisms which see the Sun as weakened beneath the earth. This seems to be the view that Solar Fire is taking and it?s one that I think can be well argued.

But then I realised that there is a whole different basis to the definition given in the Bonatus quote and it really does hinge on the latter comment ? the need to consider orientality and occidentality and relationships to the Sun and Moon. It requires that the diurnal planets are moving with the Sun, so that if the Sun is above the horizon, so should they be; if the Sun is below it so should they be. It?s about whether they are ?in attendance? with the Sun or not. The nocturnal planets are not suited to the Sun?s bright radiance, so they are better when they escape it. (Again, this is aptly presented within the Solar Fire definition). Yet with a planet like Venus, which is nocturnal but always fairly close to the Sun, the odds of getting it in ?hayz? are much more limited by this definition.

Doug Noblehorse?s view is also a good one, because it shows we have to take a more reflective view, and not try to define planets in this way according to rigid rules or strict definitions (which vary according to our sources). If we think of ?hayz? as meaning ?well-placed within its environment? then obviously a sense of judgement comes into it, and one condition might make up for a lack of another, or counteract another?s benefit.

But if someone does feel they need to set strict criteria that is either ?in or out?, then my vote would go to the Solar Fire definition; which doesn?t allow the assessment to get too complicated, but does takes into account the fact that, say, a diurnal planet beneath the earth at night is not necessarily comfortable in its environment in the way that it would be above the earth by day.

There?s a lot of confusion about this term, which is why I tend to avoid using it. And I?ve noticed that although a lot of authors repeat the definitions, there is very little evidence of it being actively employed in practice. I get the impression that authors stick the definition into their books out of a sense of duty, and then see the matter as covered ? after which they can forget all about it.

Hope this helps
Deb

Thanks Deb for the quotes and your thoughts. I would love to know what Rob Hand says about Hayz if that book ever comes to light!

I find the Bonatus requirement of oriental of the sun/occidental of the moon quite interesting too.

Glad to know I am not the only one that is confused by the term. Of course there is the vicious circle that while we are uncertain then a technique does not get actively employed in practice and gets forgotten about etc. But I guess we have more than enough good tools in the box to master first.

Jenny

Jenny Rainbow wrote:Could someone put me straight on the definition of Halb and Hayz?

I have not heard the halb term before, but hayz (translated in 1994 during the Project Hindsight early translations) is a medieval definition of sect. Robert Schmidt has said that the 2 rejoicing conditions (being in one's own light and in a masculine or feminine sign) are not part of the sect concept. Schmidt says that the concept of being in one's own light is really part of the "winds" concept (the lowest wind that is confined to the geographic realm, not the planetary or zodiacal realms). The winds got replaced by the elements later on in the tradition. It appears that Valens was the first to introduce the elements to the signs.

Schmidt says that the way to think of sect, is one of party affiliation, where there are 2 parties. There are references that state that the planets are in the service of heimarmene, and are supposed to deliberate and give the native his/her "due". Because the planets are of different opinion as to how or what the native's heimarmene (fate) is, they have to deliberate, form alliances, make concessions, etc. The planets of the sect in favor get to set the agenda, whereas the planets not of the sect are the "loyal opposition".

Sect becomes a major factor in eminence considerations through the trigon lords of the sect. If the trigon lords are well positioned, then a strong agenda is established. Three is the first stable structure. If the trigons can stand, the "support" is strong and the pedistal will not crumble in the face of opposition. But if the trigon lords are not supportive, then the loyal opposition may take over and the main agenda for the life is overturned and the native may not get his/her due...

Robert Schmidt has spoken about these issues at length and will soon be publishing all of this:

http://www.projecthindsight.com

Hi Curtis,

In the nocturnal/diurnal thread you write:

medieval astrologers lost the concept of sect by reconstituting it into something else (Bonatti)

And in this you say:

Robert Schmidt has said that the 2 rejoicing conditions (being in one's own light and in a masculine or feminine sign) are not part of the sect concept.

I?m having a hard time reconciling these comments with what Valens wrote in the Anthology, Bk III, Chap.5:

Concerning the sect of the Stars
It is necessary to consider the sect of the stars, for the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn rejoice when they are above the earth during the day, below the earth at night. But the Moon, Mars and Venus rejoice when they are above the earth at night, and below the earth during the day

Bonatti?s reference (reproduced above) makes the same essential point, but I don?t think you are correct in referring to ?hayz? as ?a medieval definition of sect? since it is only a condition whereby issues of sect are considered and found to be supportive for the planet in question. Sect is merely the association with diurnal or nocturnal qualities, the word itself representing division (as in ?section?) and also unification within a division through affiliation and common interest (as in a religious sect).

I can see how what you write here relates closely to what Valens has written at the start of his second book, but it seems to me that this again points to a use of sect and an incorporation of its principles, rather than something we should consider a definition as to what sect is. I do agree that sect was a more notable principle, put to fuller effect within classical astrology than it was in the medieval and renaissance periods, but from a range of classical sources it seems clear that the '2 rejoicing conditions' you say were not a part of the sect concept were important principles through which matters of sect were reinforced and expressed. Perhaps I have misunderstood your point?

Deb

The word in Greek is heiresis, which is division, (sect) as in school or political party. Robert Hand has a book out on the subject that combines the 3 components of sect (masculine or feminine sign, being in one's own light and diurnal or nocturnal) but Schmidt says the former 2 are rejoicing conditions, and it is not possible to define being in one's own light without defining the sect. Hand also translated Bonatti, so this was my interpretation of what the medieval doctrine was. In any case, the sect comes first. Section 5 comes immediately after the winds which is in the context of interpreting the time lord sequences, for if of the successive time lords, a period change comes from planets where the winds are not congenial to eachother, it will be judged malefic (creating a whilrwind). One of the themes of this book couched a nautical metaphor (sailing). It is desirable to have the wind to one's back so that one can progress in life. Since being in one's own light defines the lowest level wind, that is the reason for section 5 appearing after the winds. (There are 3 levels of wind - zodiacal (exaltation degrees) - planetary nodes, and being in one's own light).

By coincidence, I am currently writing the routines for calculating the planetary level winds (planetary nodes) for the CMSwephInt component in Delphic Oracle...