Hi everyone,

I have a question about applying aspects. What orbs are used? If the significators are applying in aspect but won?t perfect for 10 or 11 degrees, would you say they are in aspect or not? What if the applying planet will not perfect until after it changes signs?

I notice, for instance, that Ivy Goldstein-Jacobson says the Moon must perfect the aspect before changing its sign, but March-McEvers doesn?t care if it changes signs first. What does Lilly say? And is there a different rule for the Moon than other significators?

The different approaches are confusing to someone new to horary.

Thanks again,
Kren

Hi Kren,
It depends on the planets involved. It's hard to give a quick answer to this as you really need to understand the way traditional orbs are defined and calculated. Though it's not very helpful in the short term I will be uploading an article on traditional orbs as part of the Leo updates on 23rd July which includes a full explanation and reference tables.

Hi Deb,

Ok, I've found part of my answer on Maurice McCann's site and see that all the orbs are different and have some understanding of how they are calculated.

As for changing signs, it seems some astrologers think it matters and some don't, while other think it indicates a change in circumstance that will occur before the perfection takes place.

And now I'm reading what Anthony Louis says about different methods of horary, and trying not to become completely confused, lol.

SO, Deb, I'm really looking forward to your article! Your site remains my main source of information and inspiration!

Thanks,
Kren

Hi there, this is the second attempt to post this I too look forward to Deb's article - her writings are always worth the wait. In the meantime, this might help.

The orbs of the planets as presented by William Lilly are 15? - 17? degrees for the Sun, 12? - 12?30? for the Moon, 7? for Mercury and 7? - 8? for Venus. Mars was defined at 7? ? 7?30? while Jupiter lay between 9? and 12 ?. Saturn was defined at 9? - 10?. Moiety is derived from half the orb, the idea being that the planets ?meet? at the outer perimeter of their orb, thus contributing half the orb to the contact. Thus the Moiety of the Sun is half of 17? which is 8?30?.

Lilly does not seem insistent on whether to use Orb or Moiety and also used both methods in the charts, defining aspects sometimes by Orb and others by Moiety. This may seem inconsistent if we are to follow the ?rules? as laid down by Lilly, but we also need to remember he was a working astrologer and also that many of his commentaries come from other sources. We need to find a system that will give us result.

Planet Orb Moiety ( half orb)
S 17? 8?30?
M 12?30? 6?15?
My 7? 3?30?
V 8? 4?
M 7? 30? 3? 45?
J 10? 5?
S 12? 6?

In addition to the moieties as outlined, Lilly sometimes combined the Moieties according to the planets involved. Even then he varied in which method he used.?I sometimes use the one and sometimes the other, as my memory best remembereth them, and this is without error? CA 107 In Lilly?s second method, he would find specific Orbs and Moieties according to the planets involved by adding the relevant orbs and dividing by two. For example if he wanted to get the combined Moiety of Sun and Saturn, he took the Sun at 15 - 17? and added Saturn at 9 - 10? and added then to get 24 - 27?, then halved that amount to reach 12 - 13?30?. This gave different results for each planetary combination so in my opinion is rather cumbersome when setting up a chart on a computer. It might have been easier in hand calculated charts.

I use orbs of 10 degrees on the conjunction, opposition and trine. For the square I use 8 degrees and the sextile 6 in horary work and the charts in the course are aspected accordingly. You may like to experiment with Lilly?s Orbs or Moieties.

As seen, Lilly applied orbs to the planets, not the geometric aspects. The orb belonged to the planet, not the aspect as it does today. Although in practice this makes little difference.

In brief, planets were supposed to emit rays which carried the ?virtue? or 'influence' of that planet. These rays, which extended to its orb of influence, can be likened to an aura and the size of that aura or orb varied according to the planet. When the ?aura? or orb comes into contact with that of another planet application begins. This is when the planet is applying in aspect to the other planet. Similarly when the planet moves out of orb, or the aura?s no longer contact, then the effect is separation.

As we have seen, Lilly?s orbs are approximate and he applied a range to his working methods. Perhaps he was less concerned with absolute precision than we are, given that he would be calculating charts by hand and may well have used a ?rule of thumb?. Certainly Lilly exhorted his students to use art and discretion.

The Application happeneth when as the Circles or beames of the Planettes come to joyne togeather by a corporall Coniunction, or by aspecte of the one halfe of their Deamiters? Claudius Dariot.

Linda,

Thanks for taking the time to post all that information and for the quotes from Lilly. "I sometimes use the one and sometimes the other..." I guess lots of practice is the key to discretion in judgment.

Thanks so much,

Kren

My question applies to my interest in natal astrology. I will assume that it also applies to horary. It will possibly be answered in the upcoming article, but I am feeling impatient- which is a sin I am prone to.

Kevin Burk in his book Astrology: Understanding the Birth Chart states that the mathematically calculated points, such as the Asc., MC, Moon?s nodes and Part of Fortune, have no orbs (and therefore no moiety). He says that only the actual planets have orbs and can make aspects. The points can only receive aspects.

This bothers me. It would mean, for example, that the north node 2 degrees from the Asc. could not be in conjunction because both points are receivers of aspects. Likewise, it seems that it must be significant if the MC were 2 or 3 degrees from squaring the nodal axis. But according to this reasoning aspect relationships between these points would be impossible.

Is what he says accurate and/or widely accepted?

For those who are not familiar with him, Burk has Level IV NCGR certification and is a former student of Lee Lehman?s.

Hi Kirk,

I'm very interested in your question. My Ascendant is Taurus 3' 8" and my North Node is Taurus 4' 56. Does your own natal chart share a similar conjunction?

I've given a lot of thought to my Ascendant and to my N. Node in the 1st house, but haven't really considered the meaning of their conjunction. If there is one.

Thanks for the interesting observation/question. Food for thought.

Kren

Hello Kren,

My North Node is 07 Sag 14 and my Asc. is 12 Sag 01. With an orb of nearly 5 degrees I have long been frustrated over whether it is a 12th or 1st house node. With Scorpio on the 12th house cusp, I get a sense of the node leading me into Sagittarius and on toward the fire sign expression, a major step for someone who is pickled in the water signs!

I would for sure say that you have a Node-Asc. conjunction. Even if they both only receive aspects, their near vicinity must mean something.

I have been using the True Node here. My Mean Node is around 5 Sag 30. The True and Mean Node issue isn't really appropriate for this aspect topic, but is something I was considering posting in the future.

Hi Kirk,
In one sense an ?orb? is taken as an aura of highly charged energy that surrounds the planet, and in this sense orbs are only attributed to the planets and not the points. In another, more general application, the term is used to suggest an ?allowance?. Most points are attributed a standard 5 degree allowance, which is also the orb that was allocated to the outer planets upon their discovery. I think it would be appropriate to consider the node as conjunct the ascendant if they are within 5 degrees of each other. But bear in mind that the significance of the conjunction will be brought out through planetary contact.

Deb,
Thanks for the helpful information. Knowing that his nodes are conjunct his horizontal axis makes a man feel different somehow.
Kirk

Hello,

For a slightly different take on orbs see The Astrologer's Apprentice No. 20 page 36, where John Frawley opines:

"Orbs - what are they good for? Absolutley nuttin"! And I'll say it again"

.

The moiety + moiety = aspect is the traditional method unless you go back to the Hellenists at which point any planets in the same sign, opposite signs, square signs, trines or sextile are in aspect regardless of degree. The point is that any planets in signs that aspect each other are in aspect, but the closer they are in degree the the more influential they are. The probem with orbs, argues Frawley, is that they assume that at some point there is no more influence between planets that are in the signs that are in aspect to each other.

So what do we do then? John's answer is three degrees apart is important, maybe four when necessary. Remember it isn't that 5 or 6 degrees has no effect, it is just that there are other ways to get information from the chart that are at least as important as aspects. Modern astrology is aspect happy. Aspects are the nuts and bolts of John Addey's astrology (harmonics), but when we use the traditional tools, they take on less importance.

Tom