31
Thanks for your post Elka.
I have been intrigued with the terminology of the Yod and The Finger of Fate for some time, so I did some research a couple of years ago and came upon some of the names quoted above, especially that of Carl Leipert.

I originally came across reference to him in Karen Hamaker-Zondag's book Aspects And Personality

"The Yod is in the shape of an isosceles triangle with the planet at its vertex inconjunct two other planets sextile to one another at either end of its base. The Yod has been called the finger of God, a name introduced by *Carl Leipert* following study of this pattern. He came to the conclusion that the Yod is like a finger pointing out our destiny in a very unmistakable manner.."

I couldn't find much else on him at the time but internet consensus stated he was a German astrologer born around the turn of the 20th century. He seemed to have influenced American astrologer, Thyrza Escobar , born around the same time and who was part of an inner circle of "First Temple of Astrology". Escobar's book "Side-Lights of Astrology" [among others] influenced Bil Tierney when he wrote "Dynamics of Aspect Analysis" which includes a section on the "Double Quincunx" [or the Yod] which discusses, in good detail, the particular challenges of this pattern.
Thanks that all helps in taking our collective research forward.
I have, since, bought Thyrza Escobar's book '144 Doors to the Zodiac' in which she stated that Leipert, her mentor, was a devoted student of Jung; delved into the sources of religion, and was well versed in Qabalah.. "His interpretations were metaphysical.....but he included the psychological with the physical and the spiritual with the material"
Yes I picked this up from web discussions on Thyrza Escobar myself too. Very useful to have the book reference though.

Elka wrote:
Back then I collected some views of Noel Tyl on his forum, who attributes the term Yod to Morinus:

"The question of the YOD arises perpetually everywhere ... because of its magical name. The naming was a marketing device ......, and it worked! The YOD is named from the Tetragrammaton, the secret holy name of God for the Hebrews. --The astrologer to Louis XIII and XIV, Morin de VilleFranche?aka MORINUS, gave the top-secret Hebrew name to the simple midpoint picture, before astrologers were seeing or working with midpoints easily. All astrologers back then were self-promotion experts, and Morinus? ?the Finger of God? certainly captured fears and imaginations well, turning curiosity into business. --If the midpoint picture had been named "the scissors formation", no one would pay much attention to it. It is simply a midpoint configuration like any other: X=Y/Z, and orbs are usually 2.5 degrees for any Midpoint picture. But back then, without the outer planets, orbs were based upon mystical numerology considerations, sometimes going out to 14 degrees to get things tied together! The YOD is still an exciting item among intermediate-level astrologers. I don?t mention it in my Master?s Course".
I dont think anyone would deny the Hebrew origin to the word Yod. The real question is who first used it in an astrological context?

Can I just clarify are you suggesting Noel Tyl made the explicit link between Morin and the first description of the Yod himself or was it just a post on his forum? Do you have a link you could give for this idea?

If the comment on Noel Tyl's site is right about Morin being the first source to use the term for this formation it would be a very remarkable explanation for the the origin of the Yod.

I perceive a few difficulties with this theory though.

1 The notion of a midpoint doesn't exist in the 17th century so its difficult to see how an astrologer like Morin could conceive of it.

2 I am not authority on Morin. But I do know that he sought to reform elements of medieval astrology. For example he dropped minor dignities such as term and face and proposed his own system of triplicity rulerships. He also dropped what he saw as corrupted or purely symbolic techniques that couldn't be related to astronomical reality such as lots/parts, profections and secondary progressions. Instead he made primary directions, and solar and lunar returns his key predictive tools.

However, I am not aware that Morin adopted any of Kepler's proposed new aspects including the quincunx. Astrologers in this period did describe the inconjunct but in terms of a 150 degrees this was more a description of a non-aspect rather than a different type of aspect. If I am correct on that point its difficult to see how Noel Tyl's theory could be correct. Still, as I said this is not really my area. I will clarify this point out with our traditional moderator Tom Callanan as he is a specialist in Morin's approach to astrology.

3 While the odd astrologer adopted some of Kepler's new proposed aspects they were certainly not widely adopted before the general decline of astrology in continental Europe in the 17th century and Great Britain the 18th century.

A noteable exception appears to be Placidus de Titus (1603?1668). He did adopt Kepler's 'new' aspects of 72? (quintile), 135? (Sesquiquadrate) and 144? (bi-quintile). However, he seems to have rejected a later thesis by Kepler which included 30? (semi-sextile) and 45? (semi-square) and 150? (quincunx). Placido's objection to these later aspects proposed by Kepler seems to be due to their lack of connection to the ratios found in prominent musical resonances of his time.

Overall though the move towards wider astrological use of minor aspects seems to be a later 19th century development associated with the revival of astrology and attempts to 'modernize' it. Hence in this period nothing less than a reformation in aspect theory took place which replaced aspects based on planetary orbs in favour of aspects derived from purely numerical relationships. In large part this was an attempt to incorporate the outer planets into aspect theory and to 'moderize' astrology in light of the new astronomical discoveries of Uranus and Neptune. Historical research by the late Maurice McCann suggested the first native born American astrologer William Chaney was an early pioneer in this area who influenced others such as Alan Leo.

http://www.solsticepoint.com/astrologer ... haney.html

Elka wrote:
Also in trying to uncover the dynamic picture of the stand alone Quincunx 'aspect', I looked briefly at the sacred geometry of the Pythagoreans. Who, to put it succinctly, stated that all right triangles [which show up in various astrological triangular patterns] operate on the level of "Nous". The triad or trinity aspect in some religions, for example, shows a triangular relationship pattern of the god-head or ultimate causal pattern.

The Pythagorean Tetraktys [and its Tetragrammaton equivalent ] depicts numerically the spheres or levels of creation. Inherent in that ten-fold structure is *the number five* said to represent the Quintessence or the philosopher's stone of the alchemists.

This number is central within the pyramid structure and was called the Quincunx by the ancients, who saw patterns or units of five in various structures or forms - Rachael Wilson in her article on Geometries of Perception in Sir Thomas Browne's Hydriotaphia and The Garden of Cyrus [available for download in PDF] discusses the quincunx and the encoded number five in depth.

However when Kepler introduced the study of *150 degree angle* between planets in the 17th century, he called this angle the Quincunx, which does not have quite the same meaning as the original description of the word.
Its certainly fascinating to study the Pythagorean theory behind these ideas. Although I would rather get Kepler's ideas from the source. I really must buy a copy of the The Harmony of the World, as its no doubt an important text in the philosophy of astrology and movement away from Ptolemy that underpins so much of modern astronomy and astrology.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

32
The astrologer to Louis XIII and XIV, Morin de VilleFranche?aka MORINUS, gave the top-secret Hebrew name to the simple midpoint picture, before astrologers were seeing or working with midpoints easily.

Not really. Noel has on occasion mentioned that Morin was astrologer to Louis XIII and Louis XIV. This is not true. Louis XIV was born in 1638 and was not yet King When Morin died in 1656. It is true officially he assumed the throne at age 5 upon the death of his father, it wasn't until after Morin's death that he took the reins of government for real.

However Morin was present at the birth of Louis XIV. He was sneaked into the birth chamber in order to take an accurate measurement of the sky at the time of birth. If astrology meant much of anything to Louis XIII they would not have have had to hide Morin. Louis the XIV didn't think much of astrology, either.

Furthermore, France didn't have a court astrologer during Morin's lifetime. He apparently did a great deal of work for Cardinal Richelieu, whom he hated, but wisely kept silent about that until Richelieu's death - which he claimed he predicted.

As for the Yod, if Morin created it, it would be in Astrologia Gallica which was not printed until 5 years after Morin's death. Morin did use what are today considered "minor aspects," in particular the quincunx and semi sextile and semi square. Midpoints came long after his death and so did aspect configurations.

For example, in Book XXIII on Revolutions, Morin goes into great detail discussing the chart of King Gustav Adolphus of Sweden (1594 - 1632). The major portion of the discussion is the effects of directions and a solar return on the King's Saturn - Jupiter opposition both square Mars. Yet not once does Morin use the term "T-square" nor did he treat the aspect configuration and anything other than an opposition and two squares. But Mars would be at the midpoint of the opposition. The point is that these things were unknown to him.

If there is a reference in AG to a yod, please let me know where it appears in AG, and I'll confirm it. I have all the books in English translation that are available. I can check it.

33
Tom wrote:
Morin did use what are today considered "minor aspects," in particular the quincunx and semi sextile and semi square.
Thanks Tom. That in itself is very interesting. I didn't know that.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

34
Mark wrote: Elka wrote:
Back then I collected some views of Noel Tyl on his forum, who attributes the term Yod to Morinus (snip)
I dont think anyone would deny the Hebrew origin to the word Yod. The real question is who first used it in an astrological context?

Can I just clarify are you suggesting Noel Tyl made the explicit link between Morin and the first description of the Yod himself or was it just a post on his forum? Do you have a link you could give for this idea? .
I did suspect, at the time of my research, that attributing the Yod/Finger of god 'aspect' to Morin by Tyl (on his Forum) a bit suspect, almost a throw away view - so thank you Tom for highlighting that any reference to it should be in the Astrologia Gallica . Without further sources to go on, apart from those already mentioned, I am inclined to go with attributing this to Leipert (and his occult and esoteric imagination) ...hence, in my view, this emotionally loaded term should be replaced with what the aspect really represents i.e 'a double inconjunct' or a mid-point picture if you like.
Mark wrote: Elka wrote:
Also in trying to uncover the dynamic picture of the stand alone Quincunx 'aspect', I looked briefly at the sacred geometry of the Pythagoreans. Who, to put it succinctly, stated that all right triangles [which show up in various astrological triangular patterns] operate on the level of "Nous". The triad or trinity aspect in some religions, for example, shows a triangular relationship pattern of the god-head or ultimate causal pattern. (snip)
Its certainly fascinating to study the Pythagorean theory behind these ideas. Although I would rather get Kepler's ideas from the source. I really must buy a copy of the The Harmony of the World, as its no doubt an important text in the philosophy of astrology and movement away from Ptolemy that underpins so much of modern astronomy and astrology.
Yes, I agree about finding the source of Kepler's ideas [esp. about naming the 150 deg angle 'the quincunx' and adopting and naming the 'new aspect' the quintile] and necessary of course if I went down the route of publishing a paper on this. But for now I'm just suggesting that behind these 'discoveries and namings' lies an occult or esoteric lineage that some astronomers/astrologers may have been be privy to at the time.
Thank you Mark

35
Mark wrote:Tom wrote:
Morin did use what are today considered "minor aspects," in particular the quincunx and semi sextile and semi square.
Thanks Tom. That in itself is very interesting. I didn't know that.

Mark
Yes, interesting. Did Morin adopt a harmonic view of aspects - ie the 12th harmonic of 360/12 x 5 being 150 degs ?

36
elka wrote: Yes, I agree about finding the source of Kepler's ideas [esp. about naming the 150 deg angle 'the quincunx' and adopting and naming the 'new aspect' the quintile] and necessary of course if I went down the route of publishing a paper on this. But for now I'm just suggesting that behind these 'discoveries and namings' lies an occult or esoteric lineage that some astronomers/astrologers may have been be privy to at the time.
Thank you Mark
hi elka - the quintile is in reference to the 72 degree aspect - division of the 360 by 5... kepler apparently used this aspect and some of the extensions of it as i understand it. i think morin did too.. it has also been adopted by different astrologers since the 1970's as i read about it in books written back then. i think even lilly used it, but then he used a lot of aspects too. lilly and morin seemed to like the minor aspects.. the use of the 4 letters 'quin' seem to connect with 5.. quincunx has always struck me as a confusion of sorts, as opposed to the inconjunct..

37
James_M wrote:
lilly and morin seemed to like the minor aspects
I will leave Tom to pick up the issue of Morin. On Lilly though I think your comment is quite misleading. In regards horary at least (which Lilly is best known for) there is hardly any evidence to support your assumption.

This online article has an interesting discussion of traditional aspect theory and minor aspects.

http://magnumopusastrology.com/the-aspe ... -astrology

I have extracted this particular section which discusses William Lilly's use (or non-use!) of minor aspects specifically.
William Lilly has been derided for being an early adopter of Kepler?s aspects. He introduces them early in Christian Astrology and includes not only Kepler?s quintile, biquintile and sesquiquadrate but also, against Kepler?s design, even the semisextile, semiquintile, semisquare and sesquiquintile. Later, in the section on ?Effects of Directions?, Lilly gives further guidelines for finding and interpreting these aspects and then puts them to practical use in his lengthy delineation of the chart of ?an English merchant?. David Plant remarks that Lilly?s delineations would emerge as ?the standard textbook interpretation of the ?minor aspects?? through the present day. He too is disappointed in Lilly.

Has Lilly?s incorporation of this new material really led him outside the tradition? A careful review of the facts leads me to think not. Context is important. When we first meet the minor aspects in Christian Astrology, it is in the section dealing with how to read the annually published ephemerides in his popular almanac Merlini Anglici:

??we seldom use more aspects than the conjunction, sextile, square, trine, opposition: to these of late one Kepler, a learned man, has added some new ones? I only acquaint you with these, that finding them any where you may apprehend their meaning.?[Christian Astrology page p32]

Lilly is telling the truth here. We have already seen that in the entire horary portion of Christian Astrology he factors in only one minor aspect, the semisextile. None of the ?new ones? put in an appearance. That counts as seldom use in my book. For that reason, I do not think that there any reason to doubt him when he goes on to say that he has included a list of Kepler?s aspects for the sake of completeness. Lilly was after all in the almanac business and would probably have felt some pressure to remain au courant so as not to limit his customer base. Evidently nobody else much cared for them, either. By 1651 Lilly had dropped the minor aspects from Merlini Anglici and never revived them.

As for their rather prominent place in the natal portion of Christian Astrology, it may be significant that he involves them only in the delineation of primary directions. Never does he consider them in connection with the geniture, revolutions or profections. What is going on here, I believe, is that Lilly perfectly understands the link between the zodiacal signs and the Ptolemaic aspects. However, primary directions are formed not through the secondary motion of the ecliptic but rather through the primary motion of the equatorial, measured in right ascension. Perhaps, then, Lilly permitted these minor aspects in relation to primary directions because, in this context, they simply do not refer to the twelve-fold zodiac. They are appropriate on their level, given that the rapt motion of the sky supersedes the secondary motion of the planets. This would also help explain why Lilly quickly dropped the minor aspects from his almanac. Why waste the time on the tedious calculations if they cannot be used?
Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

38
james_m wrote: hi elka - the quintile is in reference to the 72 degree aspect - division of the 360 by 5... kepler apparently used this aspect and some of the extensions of it as i understand it. i think morin did too.. it has also been adopted by different astrologers since the 1970's as i read about it in books written back then. i think even lilly used it, but then he used a lot of aspects too. lilly and morin seemed to like the minor aspects.. the use of the 4 letters 'quin' seem to connect with 5.. quincunx has always struck me as a confusion of sorts, as opposed to the inconjunct..
Hi James, yes as I said above the division of the circle by five, named by Kepler the Quintile - 72 deg - a number that represents 72 names of god/elohim within the Tetragrammaton scheme. The number five is central to Pythagorean and Kabbalistic doctrine and represents the Quintessence of ancient thought. For this reason, although not a Ptolemaic aspect, I wouldn't class the 72 degree aspect as minor. Practically, probably not used so much as it is not that obvious to find in a hand written chart.

'Quin'* does mean five [parts], quite apt for the Quintile aspect but I do question* Kepler's naming the 150 deg angle as the Quincunx*, whose real meaning relates to a pattern of five, esp in the Tetraktys pyramid. The term Inconjunct fits better imv.

Edit
*I've done a bit more research- see post further down for clarification
Last edited by elka on Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

39
Yes, interesting. Did Morin adopt a harmonic view of aspects - ie the 12th harmonic of 360/12 x 5 being 150 degs ?
I seriously doubt it. I would love to answer this question by referring to the AG book on aspects, but I'm travelling on business and I won't be home until Friday night (EDT). Going by memory, always risky, I think Morin just picked up the minor aspects from Kepler's writings. Morin was a very well educated man (physician, philosopher, mathematician etc), he would have read Kepler. Morin even adopted Tycho Brahe's idea of the planets orbiting the Sun and the Sun, with satellites in tow, orbiting the Earth. Although I've always had a hunch that he used this to avoid difficulty with the Church having seen, as an adult, what happened to Galileo. I offer nothing but my gut feelings to support this. On the other hand he did go so far as to write a letter to Galileo explaining why Galileo was wrong about the planets orbiting the Sun. We know Galileo received it, since he commented on it in a correspondence, but if he ever replied to Morin, it hasn't been found.

We also know that Morin had a few run-ins with Church authorities in France (he never hit the big time, like Galileo, and had the Pope keep tabs on his disagreements) regarding his astrology.

Despite the protests of some contemporary traditionalists, Morin was very much a traditional astrologer. His non-traditional activities included being frequently critical of Ptolemy, which was not done in the 17th century. But nowhere does it say that Ptolemy was above criticism then or now. After 15 centuries taking a critical look at Ptolemy was long overdue. In fact by the 17th century it might be fair to say that the Bible had more critical commentary written and spoken about it than Ptolemy over the same period.

In my reading I've only come across a few instances where he used the minor aspects in delineation, and they didn't play a major role, although (memory again) he didn't seem to distinguish major (Ptolemaic) aspects from minor (Kepler's additions.

40
Hi Elka,

Thanks for your fascinating posts. I agree with James that it would be great to hear from you more often in the future!

Elka wrote: Tue May 27, 2014 9:03 pm
Also in trying to uncover the dynamic picture of the stand alone Quincunx 'aspect', I looked briefly at the sacred geometry of the Pythagoreans. Who, to put it succinctly, stated that all right triangles [which show up in various astrological triangular patterns] operate on the level of "Nous". The triad or trinity aspect in some religions, for example, shows a triangular relationship pattern of the god-head or ultimate causal pattern.
Well, the only right triangle formed by any aspect pattern is part of the T-square ? generally not seen as the most "noetic" of constellations! I guess what you mean is simply triangles, in general. Of course, the grand trine could be thought of as representing the Trinity most clearly, but (conceivably) this quality would be conveyed to the other triangular patterns as well. Am I reading you right here?


Mark: re yours Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:20 pm
Overall though the move towards wider astrological use of minor aspects seems to be a later 19th century development associated with the revival of astrology and attempts to 'modernize' it. Hence in this period nothing less than a reformation in aspect theory took place which replaced aspects based on planetary orbs in favour of aspects derived from purely numerical relationships. In large part this was an attempt to incorporate the outer planets into aspect theory and to 'moderize' astrology in light of the new astronomical discoveries of Uranus and Neptune. Historical research by the late Maurice McCann suggested the first native born American astrologer William Chaney was an early pioneer in this area who influenced others such as Alan Leo.
Mark, I am not sure what the revision of aspect theory would have to do with the outers? Could you elaborate, please?
I really must buy a copy of the The Harmony of the World, as its no doubt an important text in the philosophy of astrology and movement away from Ptolemy that underpins so much of modern astronomy and astrology.
Furthermore, that book is a wonderful portrayal of the universe of classical astrology and hermeticism, notwithstanding Kepler's own innovations. Absolutely, you've got to buy a copy ? you certainly won't regret it.

41
Historical research by the late Maurice McCann suggested the first native born American astrologer William Chaney was an early pioneer in this area who influenced others such as Alan Leo.
I have a copy of Chaney's Primer of Astrology and he is credited with writing another 52 page work titled The Astrologer's Vade Mecum, about which I know nothing. Chaney was a student of English born Luke Broughton, the man who more than any other brought astrology to the US. However Chaney wasn't his only pupil. Among others Broughton taught American born John Hazelrigg and Susan Thompson. Hazelrigg taught Llewellyn George, if I recall correctly, and Susan Thompson was one of Evangeline Adams' teachers.

I'll have to check to see what Chaney might have written about the outers and/or aspect theory. Chaney might be better described as the "Johnny Appleseed" of American astrology. He met Broughton in New York, took lessons, got tossed in jail with Broughton because of astrology and probably for Chaney's penchant for street brawling. Chaney had a falling out with Broughton (and everyone else he ever knew), and travelled across the US probably teaching astrology, as well as teaching mathematics and practicing law. The multi talented Professor Chaney spent enough time in San Francisco to father famed Adventure writer Jack London (1876-1916), whom he denied. Chaney would go so far as to cite the date of his leaving London's mother Flora Wellman as June 3 1875, thereby making it biologically impossible for him to be London's father as London was born, full term, in January 1876. However Chaney also said he married Flora and no documentation of that marriage exists. But there was a major earthquake in San Francisco in 1906 destroying many records. The point being Chaney was not above telling a fib now and then particularly if it served to protect him from a paternity suit.

Chaney moved to Chicago in 1895 where he listed his profession as "astrologer." It was here that he most likely wrote his pamphlets and ultimately published his book. By that time Alan Leo was making a good living off astrology in London, England. Frankly, I don't see how Chaney could have influenced Leo, since Chaney didn't write anything except some narrowly circulated pamphlets later sewn together to make up a book first seeing the light of day after Leo established his own reputation.

However Leo would live until 1917, and it is possible that somehow, he came across Chaney's work and was subsequently influenced by it. I wish I was home to catch up on all this.

42
Chaney wrote The Astrologers Vade Mecum in 1902 - one year before his death. There is another book with the identical title that was published in England in 1851. Since Chaney didn't meet Broughton until 1866, this book would have nothing to do with him. Chaney was 30 years old in 1851, but as far as we know, he never lived in England and he wasn't introduced to astrology until he met Broughton.

Unfortunately I can't find anything online that reveals the substance of Chaney's book. Kessinger has a reprint, but I'm not yet curious enough to buy it. This book is edited by one J. Lawson Hall. I don't know anything about him.

When I'm stumped I go to my favorite authority on astrology books, Phillip Graves. I'll report back.