.jpg)
2. Omnes nativitates diurnae confortantur per Solem, quando item configuratur benevolis. Nocturnae vero per Lunam, quando ipsa aspicitur a benevolis, & si hoc non fuerit, si tamen fuerint boni planetae in angulis, sic nativitas est fortunata.
"All diurnal nativities are improved by the Sun when it is configured with benefic planets. But nocturnal [nativities are improved] by the Moon when it is aspected by benefic planets; and if this is not the case, if nevertheless there are good planets in the angles, the nativity is thereby made fortunate."
Our consideration of this aphorism must begin with a discussion of which planetary configurations are counted as aspects, and which are excluded. There are three legitimate approaches to this problem.
The first of these is based on configuration by whole signs. In Hellenistic practice, such configurations by sign define the relationship known as "testimony" (attestatio). Any planet in Gemini is regarded as square to any planet in Pisces or Virgo because of the square configuration of their signs. Attestatio is one of the conditions we have had to consider in applying Ptolemy's algorithm, which specifies syschematismos (configuratio); as we shall see, attestatio is also entailed in this second aphorism, where the verb configuratur is used in relation to the Sun.
Second, the Hellenistic astrologers made use of a further restriction to define a closer aspectual relationship known as applicatio (in the case of aspectual figures by sextile, square, trine, or opposition), and as conjunctio (in the case of bodily conjunction). Applicatio occurs only when the figure will perfect within the next 13º (in the case of the Moon, corresponding to its average daily motion) or the next 3º (all other planets). Conjunctio occurs only when two planets in the same sign are separated by no more than 15º and by no less than 4º, while a bodily conjunction separated by 3º or less defines a still closer relationship known as glutinatio ("adherence"). In keeping with the Hellenistic understanding of the integrity of individual degrees (discussed below), we count the number of whole degrees intervening between the two planets or their rays, rather than measuring the precise distance between them. Thus, in the present example, the Moon is at 4º43'54" of Scorpio. Instead of counting a 13º orb (which would extend from 4º43'54" to 17º43'54") as the range of the Moon's application, we instead count the 13 succeeding whole degrees (6th - 18th degrees, ending at 17º59'59"). For the Sun at 2º5'50" of Virgo, we count the three succeeding whole degrees (4th - 6th degrees). For Venus at 28º11'56" of Cancer, we count only the 30th degree, since no aspect can extend across the boundary of two signs. A further important restriction, as noted previously, is the exclusion of separating aspects (where the faster planet is already in the next degree, as in the case of Mercury (30th degree of Virgo), which has separated from Venus (29th degree of Cancer) in our present example; and the exclusion of aspects which will not perfect before one or both planets leave their current signs(s), like the Moon's trine to Venus in the present example (Venus will enter the sign of Leo before the Moon reaches the end of Scorpio).
The third approach to identifying aspects involves the use of planetary orbs. This appears to be an innovation of the Arabs. Each planet has its own orb (Sun 15º, Moon 12º, Saturn 9º, Jupiter 9º, Mars 8º, Venus 7º, Mercury 7º, according to Al-Biruni, Kitab al-Tafhim (436-37); points on the ecliptic such as the Ascendant, Pars Fortunae, or syzygia ante nativitatem have no orb). To determine whether or not two planets are in aspect, one takes the "moiety of their orbs." In the present example, we have the Moon at 4 Scorpio 43'54" and Jupiter (retrograde) at 20 Aquarius 43'22". Since the Moon's orb is 12º, we add half of that (6º) to 4º30' (half of Jupiter's orb of 9º). Thus, to be in a square aspect, the Moon and Jupiter can be no more than 10º30' apart in their respective signs. Since the Moon is the faster planet, we add 10º30' to the Moon's position, yielding an outer range of 15º13'54". Since Jupiter lies outside this range (in the 21st degree), the square aspect is discarded. In the case of the Sun at 2º5'50" of Virgo and the pars fortunae at 7º18' of Gemini, we take half the Sun's orb of 15º, or 7º30' (adding nothing for pars fortunae, since a point on the ecliptic has no orb), and add this to the Sun's position: 2º5'50" + 7º30' = 9º35'50". So the Sun is square to the pars fortunae, since 7º18' falls between 2º5'50" and 9º35'50". Notice that here we do measure from the planet's precise ecliptic position in degrees, minutes, and seconds. This approach, like the other two, excludes separating and dissociate aspects.
You will not often find these concepts clearly explained in the astrological literature, especially since the 19th century when it was posited (by Alan Leo et al.) that the aspects themselves had orbs of some kind. This misguided idea has given rise to much confusion.
Several books of astrological definitions have come down to us from antiquity, and the study of these is absolutely fundamental to the questions we are addressing here. These include the Thesaurus of Antiochus (late 2nd century), the Isagoga in Ptolemaeum of Porphyry (late 3rd century), the Compendium of Rhetorius (6th or 7th century), and the Definitiones of Serapio (1st or 2nd century B.C.). All these texts are to be found in the Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum (12 vols., 1898-1953). Useful modern editions (with commentary) include Robert Schmidt and Robert Hand's edition of Antiochus (Berkeley Springs, WV: Golden Hind Press, 1993), James H. Holden's Rhetorius the Egyptian (Tempe, AZ: American Federation of Astrologers, 2009), and Robert Schmidt's recently-published Definitions and Foundations (Cumberland, MD: Golden Hind Press, 2009), which includes all four of these texts.
There is still another important feature of Hellenistic astrological practice which must be understood in order to make sense of my procedure for identifying the aspects between planets (and points). That is the concept of the Integrity of the zodiacal signs and degrees. The Greeks saw the signs and degrees as discrete units, not as arcs or segments admitting of graduated and infinitessimal subdivision. In other words, a planet in any degree of Aries is trine to a planet in any degree of Leo, since the signs of Aries and Leo are trine in their configuration. So in our example, the Sun is sextile to Mars, even though the Sun is in the 3rd degree of Virgo and Mars is in the 30th degree of Gemini (27º apart). At the same time, the Moon is not trine to Mars because although the two planets are just 5º from a perfect 120º aspect, the signs they are in are Inconjunct (five signs apart, not four as required for a trine). Similarly, an aspect is considered partile, or exact, from the moment when the applying planet enters the degree of the aspect. In our example, Mercury (at 29º22'23" of Virgo) forms a partile square to Mars (at 29º38'37" of Gemini), since both are in the 30th degree of their respective signs. However, Mercury is no longer partile sextile to Venus (at 28º11'56" of Cancer), since Mercury (in the 30th degree) has already left the 29th degree (which contains Venus). One consequence of the doctrine of the Integrity of signs and degrees is that there can be no "dissociate aspects," a term used by modern astrologers for aspects extending across the boundary of two signs.
To illustrate this, let us lay out all the interplanetary aspects to be found in the present chart, according to all three of these methods:
Configured by Sign Applicatio/Conjunctio Within Moiety of Orbs
1. Moon sextile Mercury (25º apart, will not perfect) (no)
2. Moon trine Venus (24º apart, will not perfect) (no)
3. Moon sextile Sun (separating) (yes, within 13º30')
4. Moon square Jupiter (applying, but 16º apart) (no)
5. Moon sextile Saturn (applying, but 18º apart) (no)
6. Mercury sextile Venus (separating) (yes, within 7º00')
7. Mercury conjunct Sun (separating) (no)
8. Mercury square Mars applicatio [same degree] (yes, within 7º30')
9. Mercury conjunct Saturn (separating) (yes, within 8º00')
10. Venus sextile Sun (separating) (no)
11. Venus sextile Saturn (separating) (no)
12. Sun square Mars (separating) (no)
13. Sun conjunct Saturn (applying, but 20º apart) (no)
14. Mars trine Jupiter (separating) (no: orb extends to 29º13', but Mars is at 29º39')
15. Mars square Saturn (separating) (yes, within 8º30')
It will be seen that of these 15 possible aspects, nine are separating and two will not perfect. The remaining four (nos. 4, 5, 8, 13) count as attestationes. Of these, only one (no. 8) fulfills the Hellenistic conditions for an applicatio. No. 8 is also the only one of the 15 to fulfill these conditions when moiety of orbs is considered. Let us now return to the aphorism itself, applying it to our Inception Chart.
The first phrase states that "all diurnal nativities are improved by the Sun when it is configured with (configuratur) the benefics," so in all diurnal charts, we are to examine the aspectual relationships between the Sun and the benefics (Jupiter and Venus). Specifically, we must determine whether the Sun "is configured with" (configuratur) either of the benefics--this term clearly refers to the Hellenistic relationship of "testimony" (attestatio, martyria), which we have already discussed. Thus, we will simply note whether the sign occupied by the Sun is configured (by sextile, square, trine, opposition, or conjunction) to the signs occupied by either Jupiter or Venus. It is not necessary to count the degrees separating them. Since the present chart is nocturnal, this part of the aphorism does not apply; but let's do it anyway, just as an exercise: we find that the Sun and Jupiter are inconjunct (five signs apart), so no aspect exists between the two. As for the Sun and Venus, the configuration of their signs (Virgo and Cancer) is sextile; however, Venus is about to leave Cancer, so this aspect will never perfect and must be discarded.
Let us now turn our attention to the second phrase of the aphorism, which does apply since this is a nocturnal chart. For nocturnal charts, the aphorism instructs us to examine the aspectual relationship between the Moon and the benefics (Jupiter and Venus). However, in this case a different verb is used: while the Sun "is configured with the benefics" (configuratur benevolis), the Moon "is aspected by the benefics" (aspicitur a benevolis). This means that in the case of the Moon, an actual applying aspect (within 13º of perfection) is required, not just a relationship of testimony. This makes sense because of the rapid passage of the Moon through the zodiac (13º per day, as compared to the Sun which advances only 1º per day). In the case of the Moon and Jupiter, the Moon is applying to a square to Jupiter which will indeed perfect; however, the Moon and Jupiter are separated by 16º, which exceeds the maximum of 13º stipulated for an applicatio, so this aspect must be discarded. In the case of the Moon and Venus, the two planets are separated by 24º, again well outside the (13º) range for an application. In addition, although it is an applying aspect, Venus is in "late degrees" of Cancer and will leave that sign before the aspect perfects; so that aspect, too, is invalid. Even if aspect no. 4 were within 13º of perfection, the negative nature of a square aspect would cancel any benefit that Jupiter might confer (note that the same would be true of the Moon's sextile to Saturn (no. 5), where the positive nature of the sextile aspect would similarly cancel the negative influence of the malefic planet). Consequently, the Moon is found to be without the required aspects to the benefics.
It may be asked whether the final condition of the aphorism (good planets in the angles) is meant to apply only to nocturnal nativities, or whether it applies to both diurnal and nocturnal charts. I believe it applies to both situations. In any case, it certainly applies to the present (nocturnal) chart, so we must now examine the chart to ascertain whether either of the benefics (Jupiter and Venus) is angular. This means they must either be in the rising sign itself (Aries), or in the fourth, seventh, or tenth signs (counting clockwise from the rising sign, these are Cancer, Libra, and Capricornus). Jupiter is in Aquarius, which is not angular. However, Venus (at 28 Cancer 12) is still (barely) within the subterraneous angle. Therefore, although the chart does not fulfill the aphorism's first condition (the Moon is not properly configured with the benefics), it does at least partially fulfill the second condition, since one, at least, of the two benefics is angular (I say "partially" because the plural (boni planetae) is used). From this analysis, we see that our Inception Chart meets scarcely any of the conditions laid down by the second aphorism, so it can hardly be called "fortunate."
Note that I am here following Hellenistic practice in my use of "whole-sign houses." What this means is that, instead of using one of the several systems of house-division, we simply note which of the twelve signs contains the ascendant degree. Regardless of whether the ascendant falls in early, middle, or late degrees of that sign, the rising sign is the first house of the chart. In the present example, since the ascendant is in the 5th degree of Aries, Aries is counted as the first house, Taurus as the second house, and so on. If we examine the chart, which was erected using the Placidean system of house-division, we see that Venus actually lies beyond the cusp of the (Placidean) fifth house; however, according to the Hellenistic understanding Venus is still in the fourth house (and hence angular), as long as it remains in the sign of Cancer.
BELTRANO
"What am I doing in this place? Why does the doctor have no face?" (Rolling Stones, "Sister Morphine," 1971)
DISCUSSION QUESTION: In your opinion, is the aphorism's third condition (benefics in the angles) intended to apply only to nocturnal charts, or does it apply to both nocturnal and diurnal charts? Give reasons in support of your opinion.
NOTES
[1] Engraving from J.D.Mylius, Philosophia reformata (1622).
No comments:
Post a Comment