106
Yes,
it's in Lilly and other notable contemporary astrologers refer to that dexter vs sinister ray distinction as well:
Anthony Louis in here:
https://tonylouis.wordpress.com/2020/07 ... -astrology
Andrew Bevan in here:
https://www.astronor.com/sinister.htm
Deb Houlding as we've already established.

Maybe lilly based his logic on Ptolemy who states in 'Chapter II: Peculiarities observable throughout every entire climate', that:
"the natives of those countries which lie towards the east excel in courage, acting boldly and openly under all circumstances; for in all their characteristics they are principally conformed to the Sun’s nature, which is oriental, diurnal, masculine and dexter:—(and it is plainly apparent that the dexter parts of all animals are much stronger than others):—hence results the greater courage of the inhabitants of the East. And as the Moon, on her first appearance after conjunction, is always seen in the West, the western parts are therefore lunar,
and consequently feminine and sinister; whence it follows that the inhabitants of the west are milder, more effeminate and reserved"
[pages 75-76 in J. M. Ashmand's e-book translation of the Tetrabiblos]

Regardless, the actual idea of a dexter aspect being stronger, seems logical and well thought out to me. Since the planet looks forward to his direction of travel vs. the sinister backward look against his direction of travel (diurnal motion, that is).
https://www.gurastro.com

107
I think this is one of the concepts that Lilly didn't quite grasp, and I won't fault contemporary astrologers for trustingly following his lead. But I do think it's a misunderstanding to say that the dexter aspect (proceeding towards the right) is stronger. As far as I know, the ancient sources all agree that it is the dexter planet (whose aspect proceeds from the right) that is stronger.
Dima Gur wrote:Maybe lilly based his logic on Ptolemy [...]
The passage in question (which, incidentally, isn't taken from the Tetrabiblos itself, but rather from Proclus' paraphrase) states that the parts located to the right are stronger, so its argument is actually in line with the standard ancient viewpoint. Anyway, I don't think Lilly set out to give his personal opinion on this; I just think he misunderstood the earlier doctrine -- unless the misunderstanding had already taken place at some earlier stage and Lilly simply copied it.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

108
Actually, after re-reading Lilly, I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. He does say that 'the dexter aspect is more forcible then the Sinister', but I am not absolutely certain that he means that the planet sending the dexter aspect (that is, the planet on the left) is stronger. It could be a question of unclear phrasing. I haven't yet found an example in Lilly that demonstrates the matter clearly one way or the other.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

109
Dima Gur wrote:This thread is quite old, but some of the insights in it have helped me put together an interesting article.

In it, I try to reconcile between the seemingly contradictory notions of a dexter aspect being forceful and strong and the dominating planet being in the stronger position. We must take into account that any planet which casts a dexter ray would automatically be dominated by a planet earlier in the direction of diurnal motion. Also, any planet which casts a sinister ray would automatically be placed in the dominant position over a slower and heavier planet.

I've tried to address those contradictions in my article and propose a solution:
https://www.gurastro.com/2021/12/dexter ... anets.html

Feel free to share your insights on it,
Dima.
Hi Dima

Nice article, thanks for sharing it here. :) I think your understanding of this somewhat intricate topic is basically correct.

The following is a summary of how I laid it out myself over time.

There is so much confusion about traditional aspect theory, it's best we start out with some definitions.

Dexter and sinister

'Dexter' and 'sinister' mean as much as 'on the right-hand side' and 'on the left-hand side'. But when one planet is to the right side of another, the latter will be to the left side of the former (that's a no-brainer, right?). So in order to know which of the two categories a given aspect belongs to, we must first decide which of the two planets is supposed to determine the nature of the aspect overall.

But before we carry on, it should be clearly understood that 'dexter' and 'sinister' presuppose that we are looking at the chart with our point of departure on top, which in practice need not be the case at all. When in doubt, don't hesitate to rotate the chart in front of you accordingly, though (at least in your mind's eye, if it's a bit unpractical to turn your PC's 49-inch screen upside down)!

Since aspects are based on a circle, it would be best to talk about 'anti-clockwise' (in the order of the signs) and 'clockwise' (against the order of the signs) aspects, really.

Let's now discuss what seems to be a major source of confusion regarding this topic, namely:

The dominating planet ????

Well, in the present context, this is simply the slower one of the two.

This whole aspect business has been modelled after the relationship between the Sun and the Moon (those being the only two 'planets' that never change directions, obviously). The 'dominating' planet assumes the role of the Sun, whereas the 'submissive' planet plays the role of the Moon. So you could think of dexter and sinister aspects simply as waxing and waning aspects!

Now a relatively involved theory has been introduced according to which the swifter planet casts its ray on the slower planet, and depending on direction, this will make the aspect either a 'dexter' or a 'sinister' one.

Honestly, this is counter-intuitive. Keeping the prototype of the Sun and the Moon in mind, one would naturally attribute the casting part to the slower planet, just like the Sun illuminates the Moon.

Delving deeper, actually each of the planets involved in an aspect simultaneously casts and receives a ray to/from the other, and that's where the concept of moiety orbs has its roots - but we don't need to go into that right now. Suffice it to remember: If the 'dominating' (aka slower) planet is on the right, this will make the aspect a dexter one overall - and vice versa. You get the picture! :D

The strength of an aspect

is not to be confused with the strength of any of the planets that are part of it. Dexter aspects seem to be stronger overall - simply because they are analogous to the waxing Moon, thus to light increasing!

I say "seem to be stronger", because in truth, they are just more effective in regard to external and manifest reality (where their influence is easy to observe). Whereas sinister aspects are actually stronger in the field of internal (psychospiritual) reality.

And this leads us right to what I see as the problem of traditional astrology anyway: It quantifies and mixes different kinds of strength attempting to determine the influence of a celestial body overall, when in truth those strengths are each of a different and specific qualitative nature.

Such is IMO the case also with the concept of

The overpowering planet

which has nothing to do with aforementioned soli-lunar cycle but only with the diurnal movement of the celestial bodies around the Earth. Therefore, it does not alter the dynamics of an aspect in any essential way, although it may influence the degree to which a planet in an aspect should be weighted.

Last but not least, let's take a look at:

Applying and separating aspects

which in my view refers to planets either approaching or departing from the degree of aspect exactness, while already/still within each other's orb. This has nothing to do with an aspect being waxing or waning, except in the case of the conjunction and of the opposition, where the two concepts happen to coincide.

Participants in this thread are welcome to either agree or disagree with any of my statements, of course. Most of all, if you care to back up your claims with references to classical texts! :D

Michael
_________________

Visit my blog:
https://michaelsternbach.wordpress.com/

110
Michael Sternbach wrote:Participants in this thread are welcome to either agree or disagree with any of my statements, of course. Most of all, if you care to back up your claims with references to classical texts! :D
I think that's a very good suggestion, Michael. And I'd like to ask if you know of any classical source that supports this view:
The strength of an aspect

is not to be confused with the strength of any of the planets that are part of it. Dexter aspects seem to be stronger overall - simply because they are analogous to the waxing Moon, thus to light increasing!
-- because I don't. As far as I know, the distinction between dexter and sinister in classical texts is all about determining, when two planets are configured, which of them has the upper hand.

For instance, if we look to the Introduction attributed (rightly or wrongly: opinions differ, and I haven't studied the matter deeply) to Porphyry, we find this in chapter 9 (Holden's translation):
They say that it is a dexter trine or square or sextile from which the star departs, but a sinister one to which it comes. For example, with the Sun in Leo, the trine of Aries and Leo is dexter, but the one to Sagittarius is sinister. And the dexter square is that of Taurus and Leo, but the one to Scorpio is sinister. And the dexter sextile is that of Gemini and Leo, but the one to Libra is sinister.

For each star sends forth seven rays, three upwards and three downwards, and one to the opposite, of which the upward ones are dexter and the downward ones are sinister.
The upward/downward distinction is made (as Dima correctly suggests) by imagining the planet casting the aspect to be located at the ascendant. The dexter/sinixter distinction thus exists only for the trine, square and sextile.

The next time the author mentions this distinction is in chapter 21:
Every star prevails when it is posited in a dexter trine or square or sextile to one on its left, for that one goes toward it. For example, one that is in Capricorn prevails over one in trine aspect in Taurus and one in square in Aries and one in sextile in Pisces; and it is itself prevailed over by one in Libra and by one in Virgo and by one in Scorpio. They say that prevailing is more powerful when [the planets] are in trine or square.
Note the phrasing 'posited in a dexter [aspect]', meaning that the prevailing or dominating planet is at the right-hand (dexter) end of the aspect. The aspect cast by the dominating planet from that position would naturally be a sinister one, but that is not what interests the author: the dexter or sinister position is what determines which planet will have the greater say in the outcome of the aspect.

So I would suggest that there is no such thing as an aspect being dexter/sinister overall, or an aspect as such being strong or weak (except that the sextile was clearly considered less effective than the other figures). But I am ready to change my mind if anyone can produce classical sources to refute that.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

111
Hello Martin,

Thank you for making the clear distinction between dextrous/sinister aspect and dextrous/sinister position. If the ancients did really mean that the more "forceful" is referred to the planet at the dextrous end giving sinister aspect (and not to the aspect itself), this is then aligned with the concept of domination/overcoming as the dominating/overcoming planet is always the one at the dextrous position.

Thanx!

112
thanks for the conversation here...

i have personally found the terms 'dexter' and 'sinister' confusing... it appears others have as well.. and then there is the issue of what it is referring to specifically - aspects verses positions and on and on it goes! no wonder others get confused by all this as well..

if i can just add or subtract from the confusion, here is my viewpoint which may or may not fit into all this, so apologies in advance for anything i say that doesn't work in the traditional context..

the use of the word 'dominating' is how i mostly think of planets in a 9th or 10th house position to the planet in the 1st house position... it can be a slower or a faster moving planet in this position.. it doesn't really matter on one level as the planet in the 9th or 10th position to the one in the 1st dominates as i see it.. now if it is a superior planet in the 9/10th that would be even more so...

maybe someone in the deep past was trying to articulate this concept and they resorted to these words to define this observation i have made.. i don't know.. for me the planet in the 9/10 position to the planet in house 1 position is stronger... same deal with the aspect from 9/10 to 1.. it is stronger then the same type of aspect - trine or square projected to the 4/5 position from position 1..

i often find concrete examples more easy to grasp.... for the sake of clarity, using my above examples with numbers, substitute the numbers for the signs - 9/10 could be sag/cap to position 1 - aries, or as a different example - pisces/aries to cancer... that is what i mean by 9/10 position to 1 position...

113
Your understanding seems to be very much in line with the ancient definitions that I have seen, James. (As I said before, I think the notion of an aspect being dexter or sinister in itself, rather than with respect to a particular planet, is a red herring.)

With one planet in Aries and another in Sagittarius or Capricorn (the 9th or 10th sign), the latter would be at the dexter end of the aspect configuration, and being at the dexter end is exactly what is meant by 'dominating' or 'prevailing' (kathuperterēsis). This is exactly what Porphyry (?) says in the passage I quoted already:
Every star prevails when it is posited in a dexter trine or square or sextile to one on its left [...] For example, one that is in Capricorn prevails over [...] one in square in Aries
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

114
Martin,

In that case, the understanding of "dexter" and "sinister" aspects must have changed over time. The way these terms are commonly applied nowadays constantly refers to a scenario in which the slower planet dominates the aspect overall.

https://www.astronor.com/sinister.htm
https://www.astrologysoftware.com/commu ... exter.html

This view is consistent with the concept of planetary cycles, which are certainly not a modern consideration per se.

If, however, it isn't linked to the terms "dexter" and "sinister" in the aspect theory of the ancients, I wonder when and by whom was that change in their application introduced? - If anyone knows some pertinent reference to the literature, it would be much appreciated! :)

On the other hand, the idea of the most elevated planet in a chart being in a particularly strong position is something that has definitely found its way into modern astrological lore. However, it is not linked to aspect theory necessarily here.
_________________

Visit my blog:
https://michaelsternbach.wordpress.com/

115
Michael Sternbach wrote:In that case, the understanding of "dexter" and "sinister" aspects must have changed over time. The way these terms are commonly applied nowadays constantly refers to a scenario in which the slower planet dominates the aspect overall.
I know rather little of western astrological conventions over the past century or so, but I am fairly sure that I have never seen dexter/sinister used in such a sense in a pre-1900 work. My assumption would be that this is not a matter of a gradual change over time, but rather of a fairly recent misunderstanding. But as you say, it would be interesting to see if there are any statements in older literature disproving that assumption.

The traditional idea (as found in the Porphyry passage I quoted) is that of a planet casting 'aspect rays' both in the right-hand/superior direction (= contrary to zodiacal order) and in the left-hand/inferior direction (= according to zodiacal order), whether there were any planets there to receive those aspects or not. This idea seems to have disappeared from modern astrology, where an aspect is always formed between two or more planets/points. One might speculate that, with the disappearance of the 'ray' notion, the direction of an aspect began to be conceived as the direction of application (from faster to slower), which led to a mis-/reinterpretation of the dexter/sinister typology. But so far this is just speculation on my part.
This view is consistent with the concept of planetary cycles, which are certainly not a modern consideration per se.
Planetary cycles formed with the sun are definitely a very old concept, if that's what you're thinking of. But those were never connected with the dexter/sinister typology, but rather with the oriental/occidental or matutine/vespertine one.
On the other hand, the idea of the most elevated planet in a chart being in a particularly strong position is something that has definitely found its way into modern astrological lore. However, it is not linked to aspect theory necessarily here.
Which, on the other hand, it definitely is in the older sources. Well, I'll be very interested to see if anyone comes up with a pre-1900 source for dexter/sinister being related to the velocity of the planets involved. (The Lilly passages referred to in the article by Andrew Bevan actually use the traditional language of casting rays to the right or left. Bevan does say that Mercury is stationary and Mars would not form a dexter square to Mercury if he were not slow, but that is his interpretation: Lilly actually says no such thing.)
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

116
Martin Gansten wrote:
Michael Sternbach wrote:In that case, the understanding of "dexter" and "sinister" aspects must have changed over time. The way these terms are commonly applied nowadays constantly refers to a scenario in which the slower planet dominates the aspect overall.
I know rather little of western astrological conventions over the past century or so, but I am fairly sure that I have never seen dexter/sinister used in such a sense in a pre-1900 work. My assumption would be that this is not a matter of a gradual change over time, but rather of a fairly recent misunderstanding. But as you say, it would be interesting to see if there are any statements in older literature disproving that assumption.

The traditional idea (as found in the Porphyry passage I quoted) is that of a planet casting 'aspect rays' both in the right-hand/superior direction (= contrary to zodiacal order) and in the left-hand/inferior direction (= according to zodiacal order), whether there were any planets there to receive those aspects or not.
An important consideration for truly understanding aspect theory! For example, as I mentioned before, the concept of „moiety orbs“ hardly makes sense if we don't suppose the casting of an aspect between two celestial bodies to be mutual.

I just wonder then where the idea of the planet in the sinister position (one-sidedly) hurling its ray at the „dexter planet“ has its origin.
This idea seems to have disappeared from modern astrology, where an aspect is always formed between two or more planets/points. One might speculate that, with the disappearance of the 'ray' notion, the direction of an aspect began to be conceived as the direction of application (from faster to slower), which led to a mis-/reinterpretation of the dexter/sinister typology. But so far this is just speculation on my part.
Whether this is to be considered a misunderstanding is more a matter of personal perspective, I would say. If the seemingly more modern approach is indeed nowhere to be found in the older literature, I would rather think of it as an innovative extension on the important concept of planetary cycles, building on preexisting terminology. Even though it is regrettable that the earlier method, along with so much of traditional astrology, fell by the wayside – the two methods being so similar (on the surface anyway) that keeping them apart would probably have been asking too much from the astrological community. :lol:

The relevance of planetary cycles in regards not only to mundane, but also to personal astrology was greatly popularized by Dane Rudhyar and more recently by his student Alexander Ruperti, but is definitely of very ancient origin as such, as I will elaborate on next.
This view is consistent with the concept of planetary cycles, which are certainly not a modern consideration per se.
Planetary cycles formed with the sun are definitely a very old concept, if that's what you're thinking of. But those were never connected with the dexter/sinister typology, but rather with the oriental/occidental or matutine/vespertine one.
Actually, I was mostly thinking of the Jupiter/Saturn cycle, surely one of the pillars of traditional mundane astrology. Quoting University of Rochester historian Laura Ackerman Smoller:
Successive conjunctions form a roughly triangular pattern plotted against a diagram of the zodiac, meaning that three successive conjunctions will appear in the three zodiacal signs that form one of the trigons or triplicities—that is, the fiery signs, watery signs, earthy signs, or airy signs. Then, after approximately 12 conjunctions, the pattern will move into a new triplicity or trigon. This shift—which appears around every 240 years—was considered to be of great importance, bringing about changes in kingdoms, or in what medieval astrologers called “laws and sects???—that is, religions. After approximately 960 years, the pattern will return to the initial starting point in the zodiac, and this “greatest conjunction??? was said to have the most important effects of all.
https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/ju ... pe-465032/

According to the article, Professor Smoller is preparing a book on this topic for publication which I don't intend to miss out on. :)
On the other hand, the idea of the most elevated planet in a chart being in a particularly strong position is something that has definitely found its way into modern astrological lore. However, it is not linked to aspect theory necessarily here.
Which, on the other hand, it definitely is in the older sources. Well, I'll be very interested to see if anyone comes up with a pre-1900 source for dexter/sinister being related to the velocity of the planets involved.
Me too! Let's hope that one of the readers of this thread is in a position to cast light on the issue. ;)
(The Lilly passages referred to in the article by Andrew Bevan actually use the traditional language of casting rays to the right or left. Bevan does say that Mercury is stationary and Mars would not form a dexter square to Mercury if he were not slow, but that is his interpretation: Lilly actually says no such thing.)
_________________

Visit my blog:
https://michaelsternbach.wordpress.com/

117
I see that perhaps I was unclear in my previous post. I didn't mean that mutual aspects between planets don't exist in ancient sources (they certainly do), only that every planet always casts these seven rays, whether they 'hit' any other planet or not. But the dexter/sinister distinction seems to have been used most prominently when two planets were configured with each other, to determine which would influence the other more.

In the example I mentioned earlier with Jupiter and the Sun, we can see a blending of their respective natures and significations (and the nature of the square) in both cases, but the variant with Jupiter on top is decidedly more positive.
For example, as I mentioned before, the concept of „moiety orbs“ hardly makes sense if we don't suppose the casting of an aspect between two celestial bodies to be mutual.
Absolutely, although I'm not sure how old that idea actually is. (Perhaps late medieval? Someone must have written about it.) But when two planets are configured, e.g. by a square, one is on the sinister side casting a dexter aspect to the other, and vice versa.
Whether this is to be considered a misunderstanding is more a matter of personal perspective, I would say.
Creative misunderstandings, that is, ones that lead to new discoveries or useful new concepts, do happen in all sorts of fields, so it isn't necessarily a condemnation to say that an idea arose in such a way.* I was just trying to figure out the historical process that led to our present discussion. If it was by someone reading a text and putting a different construction on it than the author intended, then it was a misunderstanding.

*(As an aside, the Sanskrit poet K??lid??sa wrote, some 1600 years ago: प???राणमित???येव न साध??? सर???वम??? pur??ṇam ity eva na s??dhu sarvam, 'Not everything is good simply because it is old.') ;)
Actually, I was mostly thinking of the Jupiter/Saturn cycle, surely one of the pillars of traditional mundane astrology.
Since medieval times, yes. But not connected with the dexter/sinister typology, and not (I think) applied to nativities. Thanks for alerting us to Smoller's forthcoming work -- and Happy New Year!
https://astrology.martingansten.com/