skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Serapio passage and Out-of-Sign aspects

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Larxene



Joined: 22 Sep 2012
Posts: 312

Posted: Sat May 23, 2015 1:08 am    Post subject: Serapio passage and Out-of-Sign aspects Reply with quote

Regarding this Serapio passage (obtained from Robert Schmidt's "Definitions and Foundations"):

"That if one of the stars chances to be in the first three portions of an image, it has its power (dunamis) in reference to the image behind, just as again if one of the stars chances to be in the last three portions of an image, it has the power of its renderings (apotelesma) in relation to the next image."

Schmidt presented a hypothesis that this passage may have been made to resolve the issue of out-of-sign figures/aspects. There are several problems with out-of-sign figures, for example, if the sign of one of the planets changes, the planet's dignities and house position also changes. This leads to a difference in the testimony between when a planet starts to form an aspect and when it actually completes that aspect.

For instance, the Moon in 29 degrees Aries is diametrical to Mars in 1 degree Scorpio, by degrees (this is within the 3-degrees-limit proposed by some of the sources quoted by Schmidt). However, the two signs themselves are not diametrical to each other. Thus, this constitutes an out-of-sign opposition.

Now, when the testimony is completed by degree, the Moon will be positioned at around 1 or 2 degrees Taurus, while Mars would remain in 1 or 2 degrees Scorpio. However, when the Moon begins to apply to Mars, she was in Aries. One of the main questions, then, is whether the Moon takes on the dignities she has when she was in Aries (where she is peregrine) or do we consider her to be in Taurus (where she is exalted and in her trigon), when the aspect completes.



Serapio's passage seems capable of resolving this. The issue is the ambiguity in that passage. By "if a star chances to be....", did Serapio mean when the aspect began, or when the figure completes?

I'd like to know your opinion and experiences on this matter.



Larxene Xenohart
_________________
Interested in Hellenistic astrology? Visit my blog.

The appearance changes, but the essence remains.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mjacob



Joined: 17 Nov 2011
Posts: 412
Location: Kent - England

Posted: Sat May 23, 2015 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can't speak on Hellenic but ibn Ezra says somewhere that a planet occupies three degrees so a planet in the 30th degree is also in the 1st degree of the next sign. This is contrary to modern doctrine
Matthew
_________________
Matthew Goulding
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4954
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sat May 23, 2015 8:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As Matthew said there are medieval sources supporting the idea that planets are under influence of the previous/next sign at the beginning/end of a sign.

For example Sahl (15th Judgement),

To quote some sources:

Bonatti:

Quote:
The 30th Consideration is, to observe when a planet that is significator, or the Moon, shall have past the 29th degree of the sign wherein it is, and touches the 30th, and especially if it have passed one minute of that degree; for then it shall have no strength in that sign, but in the next; so that if in the first it signified any evil, it shall hurt the person or thing threatened no more than the fall of a house shall one that is just got out of it, or being with one foot upon the threashold, has one behind him that throws him out, and then the building falls. And if it signified any good, it shall profit no more than he that hath spread a net for birds, and just touches the feathers of their tails, but never catches their bodies; and therefore Zael says, “If a planet or the Moon be in the 29th degree of any sign, its virtue is yet in that sign wherein he is; because he has not yet wholly past the 30th degree.”


And Ibn Ezra:
Quote:
If the planet is at the end of the sign, its force will be lost for the first sign, and all its force will pass to the sign into which it is to enter. If the planet is in the 29th degree of the sign, its force stays in the sign where it is, because the planet exerts force in 3 degrees: in the degree in which it is, in the preceding degree, and in the subsequent degree.


Mark
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Larxene



Joined: 22 Sep 2012
Posts: 312

Posted: Sun May 24, 2015 12:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for your responses.

Indeed, there are traces of this idea in other parts of astrology. However, my main concern is about -when- we take the planet's position into consideration.

Using the example I gave above, the Moon begins to form an opposition/diametrical relationship with Mars when it is in 28 degrees Aries (following the 3-degrees-rule). In this situation, it is in the last 3 degrees of the sign. Applying Serapio's guideline, we would consider the Moon to be in Taurus.

However, when it actually perfects that opposition aspect, the Moon would be in 1 degree Taurus. Here, it would be in the first 3 degrees of the sign. Applying the guideline, we would consider the Moon to be in Aries instead.



So the question becomes, do we consider the Moon's position:

i) when it begins to form the aspect, or
ii) when it actually perfects that aspect?

The results are completely different depending on when we consider the Moon's position.



Larxene Xenohart
_________________
Interested in Hellenistic astrology? Visit my blog.

The appearance changes, but the essence remains.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3464
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2015 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Regarding Ibn Ezra and out-of-sign aspects: Page 117 of the Beginning of Wisdom

Quote:
If the two planets are [found] in two separate signs, yet each one is within the influence (i.e. orb or more precisely moiety - tc) of the other, they are not said to be joined because they are in different signs, and that is the opinion of the ancients. But I, Abraham the scribe of this book, differ with them as I shall explain in The Book of Nativities ...


In a footnote Rob Hand writes:

Quote:
Ibn Ezra is one of the first authors to unambiguously approve of out-of-sign aspects.


First I checked in The Book of Nativities and I cannot find any reference for this. It might be in The Book of Reasons. I'll look later

Secondly the heading under which the Ibn Ezra quote is made is Conjunctions. Like all old authors Ibn Ezra distinguishes between aspects and conjunctions and with all due respect to Mr. Hand, I wonder if he didn't jump the gun a bit here and attribute to aspects that the author only meant to apply to conjunctions. The text reads like he is only referring to conjunctions, but it is not unreasonable to believe he included aspects in this thinking as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3464
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2015 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The following quote from The Book of Wisdom is what leads me to believe Ibn Ezra is referring to conjunctions only when he permits out-of-sign influence:

Quote:
The Aspect ... Let me give an example: When there are 54 degrees between one planet and another, it is the force of the sextile aspect, and when the distance between them is 60 [degrees], then it is in complete aspect and will indicate the perfection of any matter that it signifies. And so it is for the rest of the aspects.


An applying aspect cannot be out of sign when it is perfected. Since he is using the platic aspect as a promise of some kind indicated in the chart, and it will be fulfilled when the aspect perfects, presumably by primary direction, this promise becomes far more complex when one of the planets is out-of-sign but within orb. He makes no allowance for the difference in delineation. I suspect that is because he didn't permit out-of-sign aspects, but I admit that I cannot read his mind.

One might argue that the out of sign conjunction presents the same problem, and to a certain extent it does, but note that his discussion of conjunctions, in or out of sign, seem to have less to do with promise and more to do with some kind of description of the native or his circumstances. I believe this is the case because his description of applying and separating conjunctions has to do with relative power (separating is weaker) rather than a promise fulfilled.

When he discusses separation or separating aspects he confuses me. He spends time discussing a "co-mixture," i.e. when a separating planet from a slower moving one also aspects a third by application then all three are delineated. In a footnote Hand notes:


Quote:
Now this is an interesting bit. Separating aspects have more impact (than what? Applying aspects? - tc)according to this text, if no other application has begun on the part of the swifter planet.


I'm not sure I get that. There can be no perfection of a separating aspect without retrograde motion, which then makes it an applying aspect, so what is a separating aspect doing that makes it stronger?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mjacob



Joined: 17 Nov 2011
Posts: 412
Location: Kent - England

Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Reading " Astrology of the World II " * one finds a chart from Masha'allah where VOC moon in the 29 Aquarius 22' 'pushing her management into the next sign, to Jupiter (and he receives her)' doubtless by domicile. Not explicitly about aspects but it looks that way.

in the notes it states that once the Moon enters the ninth house it aspects Jupiter by sextile. In the chart Pisces is the ninth WSH and Jupiter is in Sagittarius a square surely? Or both a trine and sextile ?

Confused

Matthew

*AoW II Cazimi Press 2014 p. 200
_________________
Matthew Goulding
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 2883
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

matthew,

that is obviously a typo in the footnote.. the whole concept of 'pushing management' is a key concept in this book 'astrology of the world volume 2) but discussed very little in ben dykes book 'introduction to traditional astrology'.. i would like to start a thread on this topic in the hope of gaining more understanding on the concept..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mjacob



Joined: 17 Nov 2011
Posts: 412
Location: Kent - England

Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do go ahead James - I am rusty on these subjects myself as they are mainly used in horary but as you state they are important in Mundane too
Regards
Matthew
_________________
Matthew Goulding
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated