Orbs and Aspects in Traditional Astrology

[Todd Carnes]

Orbs, or as I like to call them, orbits of influence, are a way of
indicating the relative strength of a planet. You can think of it as a
circle surrounding each planet or the "spread" of the planet's beam/
ray as
it reaches across the chart to form the various aspects. Anything
inside the
circle can be touched by the planet's beams/rays and be seen/
influenced by
the planet. Anything outside the circle cannot. The semi-diameter is
simply
half of the orb - i.e. the radius of the circle.

Different authors give slightly different values for the semi-diameter
of
the planets (Lilly himself gives 2 slightly different sets of
numbers). For
this discussion, I will use Richard Saunders' numbers, which only vary
ever
so slightly from our dear Mr. Lilly.

Saunders gives us the following values for the semi-diameters of the
planets:

- Saturn = 9°
- Jupiter = 9°
- Mars = 8°
- Venus = 7°
- Mercury = 6°
- Moon = 12°
- Sun = 15°

In traditional astrology (i.e. 17th century astrology) we use 5 basic
aspects - conjunctions, sextiles, squares (or quartiles), trines and
oppositions. (Technically, conjunctions are not truly aspects, but
everyone
treats them as such for simplicity's sake.) These aspects are 0°, 60°,
90°,
120° and 180° of separation between planets respectively. The aspects
are *
EXACTLY* these numbers - not more, not less. (We'll return to this
point in
a little bit.)

The nature of the aspects are as follows:

- conjunction = good with the good, and evil with the evil
- sextile = imperfect friendship
- square = imperfect enmity
- trine = perfect friendship
- opposition = perfect hostility / open defiance

There are basically two methods of dealing with aspects in traditional
astrology. The first (*I'll call it the Saunders method*) is very good
for
medical astrology, but can become a real pain, if the planets are
involved
in any kind of retrograde motion or stationing.

Now, what a lot of people don't know. According to Saunders, there are
four
different types of each of the above aspects - seven, if you include
the
conditions of applying and seperating.

From most "perfect" to least, they are...

1) *Aspectus Corporalis* - this is when two planets respect, or
behold, each
other to the exact degree and minute. For example, if the Moon was at
15Ari00 and Mars was at 15Can00, they would be involved in a corporal
square. This is the most perfect aspect, because it happens when two
planets
behold each other bodily (corporally) without respect to their beams.
It's
affects are the strongest and are felt immediately.

2) *Partile Aspects* - This is when both planets are seperated from
each
other so that, while not exact, each planet lies inside the semi-
diameter of
the other. For example, with Moon at 07Ari00 and Mars at 15Can00, they
would
be in a partile square. Mars would be well within the Moon's semi-
diameter
of 12°, but the Moon will have only just moved into Mars' semi-
diameter of
8°. In this case, both planets can see and affect each other. A
partile
aspect is considered to be just as strong as a corporal aspect, but
since
the aspect is not exact, it takes time for its effects to be felt. In
this
case, the Moon needs to travel 8 more degrees before the aspect
perfects.
So, we would judge that the effects of the square will take 8 units of
time,
before they are felt by the native. (How we choose those units of time
is
beyond the scope of the current discussion.)

3) *Monographic Aspects* - This is when only one planet is bodily
within the
semi-diameter of the other. In this case, the beams of both planets
are
intermingled, thus they are aware of each other and behold each other,
but
only one planet has the power to act. This type of aspect is not as
strong/forceful as the first two. For example, with the Moon at
03Ari00 and
Mars at 15Can00, the Moon can behold (and begin to affect) Mars,
because
Mars is just at the Moon's semi-diameter of 12°, but Mars' semi-
diameter is
only 8°, so Mars cannot see or affect the Moon yet. In other words,
it's
like the Moon is sneaking up on Mars. Mars has that tingling feeling
you get
in the middle of your back when you sense someone is staring at you
from
afar. Yet, when he turns to see who's there, he doesn't see anyone.

4) *Platick Aspects* - These are the weakest aspects. In this case,
neither
planet lies withing the semi-diameter of the other, yet their beams
still
touch each other. Each knows the other is near, but neither can really
do
much to affect the other. For example, Moon at 25Pis00 and Mars at
15Can00
will result in the very outer reaches of each planet's semi-diameter
just
barely touching each other. This is the weakest of the aspects.

In summary, the sequence of events for an "Saunders" aspect (barring
any
retrograde motion) would be as follows:

1. Applying Platick
2. Applying Monographic
3. Applying Partile
4. Corporal
5. Separating Partile
6. Separating Monographic
7. Separating Platick

While I've had good success with this method on medical charts, it
really is
too involved for general use. That's where the second method, moiety,
comes
in. I believe the erroneous practice by modern astrologers to assign
"orbs"
to the aspects, instead to the planets where they rightfully belong,
derives
from a lack of understanding of moiety. Using moiety is much easier.
You
simply average the semi-diameter of the two planets together and use
the
average, or moiety, to determine if they are in aspect. When using
moiety,
an aspect is either an exact (corporal) aspect or it's a partial
aspect.

It should be noted that we do have partile and platick aspects when
using
moiety too. However, they're defined differently.

Lilly tells us...

There is also a Partill [partile] and Platick aspect: Partill aspect is
when two Planets are exactly so many degrees from each other as to make a
perfect aspect: as if Venus be in nine degrees of Aries, and Jupiter be in
nine degrees of Leo, this is a Partill trine aspect...

So, what Lilly would call a partile aspect, Saunders calls a corporal
aspect.

Lilly also goes on to say...

A Platick aspect is that which admits of the Orbs or Rayes of two Planets
that signifie any matter: As if Venus be in the tenth degree of Taurus, and
Saturn in eighteen degrees of Virgo, here Venus hath a Platick trine, or is
in a Platick trine to Saturn, because she is within the moity of both their
Orbs...

To continue our example...

The Moon's semi-diameter is 12° and Mars has a semi-diameter of 8°. So
the
moiety of any Moon/Mars aspect will be 10°. Moiety has the advantage
of
still taking into account the varying strengths of different planets,
while
being a lot easier to work with. For example, while the Moon & Mars
may be
in a platick aspect when they're 20° apart, the affect is liable to be
so
subtle so as to go unnoticed. However, by the time they are within
moiety,
they're guaranteed to be close enough to notice each other and be
felt. In
fact, if within moiety, they have to be in at least a monographic
aspect.

So, when using moiety, you end up with the following series of
aspects...

1. Applying Platick aspect
2. Partile aspect
3. Separating Platick aspect

This post has grown quite long, so I'll close hoping that anyone who
has
read this far now understands why it's wrong to assign "orbs" to
aspects.
Doing so treats all squares the same, all trines the same, etc. and
totally
ignores the strengths and weaknesses of the individual planets.

Todd

P.S.

For the record, I was originally going to leave out Lilly's version of
partile & platick aspects because I thought it would confuse the issue
-
Lilly basically takes partile, monographic & platick aspects and lumps
them
all together under the label "platick".

Since moiety basically guarantees you'll never have a real platick
aspect, I
guess this is ok. Though I think he should have kept corporal aspects
"corporal" and he should not have re-assigned the term partile to
them.

Todd
http://carnesoft.net

[[e-mail]]

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:19:16 -0600, Todd Carnes
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

Good post! Your example...

Post by Todd Carnes
Orbs, or as I like to call them, orbits of influence, are a way of
indicating the relative strength of a planet. You can think of it as a
circle surrounding each planet or the "spread" of the planet's beam/
ray as
it reaches across the chart to form the various aspects. Anything
inside the
circle can be touched by the planet's beams/rays and be seen/
influenced by
the planet. Anything outside the circle cannot. The semi-diameter is
simply
half of the orb - i.e. the radius of the circle.
Different authors give slightly different values for the semi-diameter
of
the planets (Lilly himself gives 2 slightly different sets of
numbers). For
this discussion, I will use Richard Saunders' numbers, which only vary
ever
so slightly from our dear Mr. Lilly.
Saunders gives us the following values for the semi-diameters of the
- Saturn = 9°
- Jupiter = 9°
- Mars = 8°
- Venus = 7°
- Mercury = 6°
- Moon = 12°
- Sun = 15°
In traditional astrology (i.e. 17th century astrology) we use 5 basic
aspects - conjunctions, sextiles, squares (or quartiles), trines and
oppositions. (Technically, conjunctions are not truly aspects, but
everyone
treats them as such for simplicity's sake.) These aspects are 0°, 60°,
90°,
120° and 180° of separation between planets respectively. The aspects
are *
EXACTLY* these numbers - not more, not less. (We'll return to this
point in
a little bit.)
- conjunction = good with the good, and evil with the evil
- sextile = imperfect friendship
- square = imperfect enmity
- trine = perfect friendship
- opposition = perfect hostility / open defiance
There are basically two methods of dealing with aspects in traditional
astrology. The first (*I'll call it the Saunders method*) is very good
for
medical astrology, but can become a real pain, if the planets are
involved
in any kind of retrograde motion or stationing.
Now, what a lot of people don't know. According to Saunders, there are
four
different types of each of the above aspects - seven, if you include
the
conditions of applying and seperating.

From most "perfect" to least, they are...

1) *Aspectus Corporalis* - this is when two planets respect, or
behold, each
other to the exact degree and minute. For example, if the Moon was at
15Ari00 and Mars was at 15Can00, they would be involved in a corporal
square. This is the most perfect aspect, because it happens when two
planets
behold each other bodily (corporally) without respect to their beams.
It's
affects are the strongest and are felt immediately.

Yes. As an aside, I noticed, because I thought it would happen
but it didn't, that when two planets were either in detriment or
fall, but in eact other's domicile or exaltation, in a lengthy
transiting aspect, that they would return each other's virtue.

They didn't. But I still like your post. Lilly used more
adjectives for aspects than you list (as you know), but they
probably don't apply to the gist of your post (and comparison).

I haven't done any medical astrology, so I have no argument. But
I entirely agree with the point that orbs belong to planets and
not to aspects.

I think I have read a different variant on, or explanation of,
the concept of beholding, but it was too long ago and I can't
remember it.

G.

Post by Todd Carnes
2) *Partile Aspects* - This is when both planets are seperated from
each
other so that, while not exact, each planet lies inside the semi-
diameter of
the other. For example, with Moon at 07Ari00 and Mars at 15Can00, they
would
be in a partile square. Mars would be well within the Moon's semi-
diameter
of 12°, but the Moon will have only just moved into Mars' semi-
diameter of
8°. In this case, both planets can see and affect each other. A
partile
aspect is considered to be just as strong as a corporal aspect, but
since
the aspect is not exact, it takes time for its effects to be felt. In
this
case, the Moon needs to travel 8 more degrees before the aspect
perfects.
So, we would judge that the effects of the square will take 8 units of
time,
before they are felt by the native. (How we choose those units of time
is
beyond the scope of the current discussion.)
3) *Monographic Aspects* - This is when only one planet is bodily
within the
semi-diameter of the other. In this case, the beams of both planets
are
intermingled, thus they are aware of each other and behold each other,
but
only one planet has the power to act. This type of aspect is not as
strong/forceful as the first two. For example, with the Moon at
03Ari00 and
Mars at 15Can00, the Moon can behold (and begin to affect) Mars,
because
Mars is just at the Moon's semi-diameter of 12°, but Mars' semi-
diameter is
only 8°, so Mars cannot see or affect the Moon yet. In other words,
it's
like the Moon is sneaking up on Mars. Mars has that tingling feeling
you get
in the middle of your back when you sense someone is staring at you
from
afar. Yet, when he turns to see who's there, he doesn't see anyone.
4) *Platick Aspects* - These are the weakest aspects. In this case,
neither
planet lies withing the semi-diameter of the other, yet their beams
still
touch each other. Each knows the other is near, but neither can really
do
much to affect the other. For example, Moon at 25Pis00 and Mars at
15Can00
will result in the very outer reaches of each planet's semi-diameter
just
barely touching each other. This is the weakest of the aspects.
In summary, the sequence of events for an "Saunders" aspect (barring
any
1. Applying Platick
2. Applying Monographic
3. Applying Partile
4. Corporal
5. Separating Partile
6. Separating Monographic
7. Separating Platick
While I've had good success with this method on medical charts, it
really is
too involved for general use. That's where the second method, moiety,
comes
in. I believe the erroneous practice by modern astrologers to assign
"orbs"
to the aspects, instead to the planets where they rightfully belong,
derives
from a lack of understanding of moiety. Using moiety is much easier.
You
simply average the semi-diameter of the two planets together and use
the
average, or moiety, to determine if they are in aspect. When using
moiety,
an aspect is either an exact (corporal) aspect or it's a partial
aspect.
It should be noted that we do have partile and platick aspects when
using
moiety too. However, they're defined differently.
Lilly tells us...

There is also a Partill [partile] and Platick aspect: Partill aspect is
when two Planets are exactly so many degrees from each other as to make a
perfect aspect: as if Venus be in nine degrees of Aries, and Jupiter be in
nine degrees of Leo, this is a Partill trine aspect...

So, what Lilly would call a partile aspect, Saunders calls a corporal
aspect.
Lilly also goes on to say...

A Platick aspect is that which admits of the Orbs or Rayes of two Planets
that signifie any matter: As if Venus be in the tenth degree of Taurus, and
Saturn in eighteen degrees of Virgo, here Venus hath a Platick trine, or is
in a Platick trine to Saturn, because she is within the moity of both their
Orbs...

To continue our example...
The Moon's semi-diameter is 12° and Mars has a semi-diameter of 8°. So
the
moiety of any Moon/Mars aspect will be 10°. Moiety has the advantage
of
still taking into account the varying strengths of different planets,
while
being a lot easier to work with. For example, while the Moon & Mars
may be
in a platick aspect when they're 20° apart, the affect is liable to be
so
subtle so as to go unnoticed. However, by the time they are within
moiety,
they're guaranteed to be close enough to notice each other and be
felt. In
fact, if within moiety, they have to be in at least a monographic
aspect.
So, when using moiety, you end up with the following series of
aspects...
1. Applying Platick aspect
2. Partile aspect
3. Separating Platick aspect
This post has grown quite long, so I'll close hoping that anyone who
has
read this far now understands why it's wrong to assign "orbs" to
aspects.
Doing so treats all squares the same, all trines the same, etc. and
totally
ignores the strengths and weaknesses of the individual planets.
Todd
P.S.
For the record, I was originally going to leave out Lilly's version of
partile & platick aspects because I thought it would confuse the issue
-
Lilly basically takes partile, monographic & platick aspects and lumps
them
all together under the label "platick".
Since moiety basically guarantees you'll never have a real platick
aspect, I
guess this is ok. Though I think he should have kept corporal aspects
"corporal" and he should not have re-assigned the term partile to
them.
Todd
http://carnesoft.net