On Orbs and Stuff
Morin notes (1st half of 17th century) that “...how great this orb is for the individual planets has hitherto remained uncertain among astrologers, on account of the unknown fundamental of that quantity; whence, some attribute a greater orb to a particular planet and others a lesser orb, although they do not seem to differ much in turn.”
Morin then addresses the problem of establishing the semi-diameter of planetary orbs thus: The Sun, as is recognized even today by all astronomers, has a “semi-diameter of illumination” of 18°. Astronomical Twilight begins and ends when the Sun is 18° below the horizon; total darkness occurs only then. Morin then notes the Sun’s distance below the horizon when each of the planets becomes visible (or fades from visibility.) He gives 11°30’for Mars, 11° for Saturn, 10° for Jupiter and Mercury, and 5° for Venus. He then subtracts these values from 18° and so establishes the orb for each of the planets according to the strength of its brightness (at maximum.) Therefore the semi-diameters of the orbs of influence for each of the five planets is:
Venus, 13°; Jupiter and Mercury, 8°; for Saturn 7° and Mars, 6°30’.
The Moon is given 12°. The Sun, of course, receives 18°.
(Note that the sky in the times before the Industrial Revolution was crystalline, not dirty as it is today. Also note, Kepler had only recently published the meticulous naked-eye observations of Tycho Brahe and himself; these were available to Morin.)
According to this view the orbs of influence are variable, depending on whether a planet is elongated, at perigee or apogee. Assuming greatest elongation (actually, maximum brightness) and perigee, the smallest orb is between Mercury and Saturn, and is 6°45’. Major aspects between Venus and Jupiter are allowed an orb of 10°30’. These orbs are representative of those in use in the early modern period of astrology. Following this method to determine orb results in no orb at all for the modern trans-Saturnian planets.
The semi-diameters can be used to determine strength of aspect. Assume Moon at 15 Gemini, Mars at 5 Gemini. The combined semi-diameters add up to 18°30’; the half-sum is 9°15’. Mars is within the sphere of influence of the Moon (she is allowed 12°), but Moon is not within the sphere of Mars because 10° separate the two planets and he is only allowed 6°30’. This is therefore an incomplete platic conjunction. Had the Moon been within the orb of Mars, it would have been a complete platic conjunction, and a good deal stronger. A partile conjunction exists only when the two planets occupy the same degree, e.g., both are in 15 Gemini. Ptolemy and the Arabs considered that planets in conjunction or aspect were united or glued together when their orb of aspect was 1° or 3° -- the exact distance varies with the authority – but it can be said that any major aspect with an orb of 3° or less can be considered exact, that is, extremely powerful with the two planets acting in unison.
Suppose that instead of Gemini the conjunction took place in Aries, in the degrees given above. Would Moon, even with this incomplete platic conjunction, be under the direct influence of Mars? It is not while in Gemini. I answer yes. Planets rule signs; signs do not rule planets. The Moon in Aries is under the dominion of Mars and subject to his conditions and determination, regardless of his sign position. Therefore, if Mars is in Aries by body, his influence over this Moon is greatly increased, and in effect Mars’ orb of influence extends throughout the sign. Mars is in his domicile (his dominion, his kingdom) and reigns supreme. Moon is highly inflamed under such a circumstance. Naturally, the extent of Mars’ power here will vary according to actual strength of aspect and other conditions that allow us to gauge his influence, its strength and nature.
A comment on orbs. I personally use much wider and more flexible orbs than is common among today’s astrologers. By flexible I mean that I consider things other than the longitudinal distance between two planets in deciding if a wider-than-normal orb should be accepted.
As an example there is Luis Donaldo Colosio, the assassinated Mexican presidential candidate. (I use a chart for him with an earlier time of birth (2245) than the chart given in astrodatabank; I got his birth data from an excellent Mexican astrologer whose practice deals largely with ranking politicians in that country.) Mars, who rules the horoscope, is stationary at birth and separating [actually, because Mars is on his retrograde station, the aspect should be considered as in mutual application -- but if you just look at the chart itself without consulting the ephemeris you might miss this important fact] from a square, with 10-degree orb, with Uranus. Uranus is quite prominent and powerful in the chart because he rules the Sun and is singleton in the West and is the cutting planet of a Locomotive pattern (exceptionally powerful in this chart. I take Uranus as lord of Aquarius because of this exceptional power in the chart, which is not granted to Saturn. What happens to Uranus affects Sun, the Vitality.) When I first looked at his chart I discounted this square as too wide to be important, and separating. However, the day following birth Mars turns retrograde and right around the 44th day following birth perfects the square to Uranus by secondary progression, in the Eighth. Colosio was assassinated at the age of 44; the events that led to his assassination happened somewhat earlier. This experience (a high-ranking Mexican politician had asked me about Colosio before he was assassinated – his removal from the political scene was at least conjectured in the Palacio Nacional, and was brought about by the rebellion in Chiapas.) was one among several that led me to begin examining wide aspects more closely, ultimately resulting in my present method. [My “earlier” chart places Mars right on the 12th Placidus cusp, Pluto in the Tenth (with the partile opposition to Jupiter) and Uranus in the Eighth. All of these are assassination aspects/positions.]
Mars is lord of the horoscope (and posited in 12th, also on the South Node); Uranus is in 8th and powerful by being solitaire...so both planets are empowered, emphasized in this chart. And the retrogradation with perfection by progression pulls this wide separating square into effect. Mars is in exile, and Uranus is in the fall of Mars. I nowadays look at these kinds of things in evaluating the strength of an aspect; I do not rely on orb alone, nor do I fix rigid limits for orbs.
I offer this as my experience only. I really don’t care if you like tight rigid orbs, or wide and flexible ones. No argument is needed. I can give many instances where very wide-orbed aspects have proven to be the principal indicator of life-forming events, and recognizing this fact was what led me to adopt my present view of orbs.
Regardless of the orbs you choose to employ in your practice of astrology, whether you use tight and rigid orbs or wide and flexible ones, these same sorts of considerations will affect any conjunction or aspect. Besides the orb, there is also the hospitality of the sign, the condition or state of its lord, whether the aspect separates or applies, retrogradation considered both temporally and spatially, the latitudinal proximity of the aspecting planets, whether the aspecting planets are natural friends or enemies, and of course the house(s) occupied. Is one of the planets more emphasized or favored than the other and therefore likely to predominate in the relationship? Is the aspect the one in the chart that has the closest orb, or is it far down the list? What sort of formations or complexes does the aspect participate in? What other things are notable about one or both planets?
The magic of astrology takes place in the mind of the astrologer. If we consider the horoscope to be a “charting of the psyche [character, nature, spiritual quality] of the native” rather than an “astrological chart”, and therefore view the chart as descriptive of the person rather than as an accumulation of astrological symbols and formulas, it may be that our insights will blossom – will be infused with life.
Not all conjunctions of Moon and Mars are the same, and this applies to all aspects between any two planets. The orb of the aspect is certainly a very important consideration, but it is not the only thing to be put into the balance when weighing the power and assessing the mode of action of an aspect. Each of the various factors exercises an influence on both power and mode of action in any aspectual relationship. That is, each and every modifying or conditioning factor affecting our conjunction of Moon and Mars describes it in ever more refined detail.
The sign or signs involved are of first importance because they are essential in nature. A planet does not change its own essential nature, but that nature – the way and degree in which it can act – is deeply affected by sign. A young man who is by nature a bookworm will not function nearly so well in a foundry as he might in a library. In either circumstance his essentially studious and quiet nature will characterize him, but his environment will strongly influence his ability to act according to his nature, to feel at ease and be effective or not.
In any evaluation of sign position it is imperative to understand the state and determinations of the lord of the sign. In the example with Moon and Mars in Gemini, the conditioning of Mercury determines whether Gemini and the planets in it will be favored or disadvantaged. Planets rule signs. It is not so much the sign itself which determines the behavior of a planet in it as the condition of the lord of the sign.
Because the condition of the lord of a sign is different in each horoscope, it is clear that not all conjunctions of Moon and Mars, even in the same sign and with the same orb, etc., are the same. If we are interested in an astrology that provides depth of insight, it is necessary to examine the chart – the planets are the active and dynamic factor – in depth. Astrology is as superficial or as profound as our approach to it.
Morin notes (1st half of 17th century) that “...how great this orb is for the individual planets has hitherto remained uncertain among astrologers, on account of the unknown fundamental of that quantity; whence, some attribute a greater orb to a particular planet and others a lesser orb, although they do not seem to differ much in turn.”
Morin then addresses the problem of establishing the semi-diameter of planetary orbs thus: The Sun, as is recognized even today by all astronomers, has a “semi-diameter of illumination” of 18°. Astronomical Twilight begins and ends when the Sun is 18° below the horizon; total darkness occurs only then. Morin then notes the Sun’s distance below the horizon when each of the planets becomes visible (or fades from visibility.) He gives 11°30’for Mars, 11° for Saturn, 10° for Jupiter and Mercury, and 5° for Venus. He then subtracts these values from 18° and so establishes the orb for each of the planets according to the strength of its brightness (at maximum.) Therefore the semi-diameters of the orbs of influence for each of the five planets is:
Venus, 13°; Jupiter and Mercury, 8°; for Saturn 7° and Mars, 6°30’.
The Moon is given 12°. The Sun, of course, receives 18°.
(Note that the sky in the times before the Industrial Revolution was crystalline, not dirty as it is today. Also note, Kepler had only recently published the meticulous naked-eye observations of Tycho Brahe and himself; these were available to Morin.)
According to this view the orbs of influence are variable, depending on whether a planet is elongated, at perigee or apogee. Assuming greatest elongation (actually, maximum brightness) and perigee, the smallest orb is between Mercury and Saturn, and is 6°45’. Major aspects between Venus and Jupiter are allowed an orb of 10°30’. These orbs are representative of those in use in the early modern period of astrology. Following this method to determine orb results in no orb at all for the modern trans-Saturnian planets.
The semi-diameters can be used to determine strength of aspect. Assume Moon at 15 Gemini, Mars at 5 Gemini. The combined semi-diameters add up to 18°30’; the half-sum is 9°15’. Mars is within the sphere of influence of the Moon (she is allowed 12°), but Moon is not within the sphere of Mars because 10° separate the two planets and he is only allowed 6°30’. This is therefore an incomplete platic conjunction. Had the Moon been within the orb of Mars, it would have been a complete platic conjunction, and a good deal stronger. A partile conjunction exists only when the two planets occupy the same degree, e.g., both are in 15 Gemini. Ptolemy and the Arabs considered that planets in conjunction or aspect were united or glued together when their orb of aspect was 1° or 3° -- the exact distance varies with the authority – but it can be said that any major aspect with an orb of 3° or less can be considered exact, that is, extremely powerful with the two planets acting in unison.
Suppose that instead of Gemini the conjunction took place in Aries, in the degrees given above. Would Moon, even with this incomplete platic conjunction, be under the direct influence of Mars? It is not while in Gemini. I answer yes. Planets rule signs; signs do not rule planets. The Moon in Aries is under the dominion of Mars and subject to his conditions and determination, regardless of his sign position. Therefore, if Mars is in Aries by body, his influence over this Moon is greatly increased, and in effect Mars’ orb of influence extends throughout the sign. Mars is in his domicile (his dominion, his kingdom) and reigns supreme. Moon is highly inflamed under such a circumstance. Naturally, the extent of Mars’ power here will vary according to actual strength of aspect and other conditions that allow us to gauge his influence, its strength and nature.
A comment on orbs. I personally use much wider and more flexible orbs than is common among today’s astrologers. By flexible I mean that I consider things other than the longitudinal distance between two planets in deciding if a wider-than-normal orb should be accepted.
As an example there is Luis Donaldo Colosio, the assassinated Mexican presidential candidate. (I use a chart for him with an earlier time of birth (2245) than the chart given in astrodatabank; I got his birth data from an excellent Mexican astrologer whose practice deals largely with ranking politicians in that country.) Mars, who rules the horoscope, is stationary at birth and separating [actually, because Mars is on his retrograde station, the aspect should be considered as in mutual application -- but if you just look at the chart itself without consulting the ephemeris you might miss this important fact] from a square, with 10-degree orb, with Uranus. Uranus is quite prominent and powerful in the chart because he rules the Sun and is singleton in the West and is the cutting planet of a Locomotive pattern (exceptionally powerful in this chart. I take Uranus as lord of Aquarius because of this exceptional power in the chart, which is not granted to Saturn. What happens to Uranus affects Sun, the Vitality.) When I first looked at his chart I discounted this square as too wide to be important, and separating. However, the day following birth Mars turns retrograde and right around the 44th day following birth perfects the square to Uranus by secondary progression, in the Eighth. Colosio was assassinated at the age of 44; the events that led to his assassination happened somewhat earlier. This experience (a high-ranking Mexican politician had asked me about Colosio before he was assassinated – his removal from the political scene was at least conjectured in the Palacio Nacional, and was brought about by the rebellion in Chiapas.) was one among several that led me to begin examining wide aspects more closely, ultimately resulting in my present method. [My “earlier” chart places Mars right on the 12th Placidus cusp, Pluto in the Tenth (with the partile opposition to Jupiter) and Uranus in the Eighth. All of these are assassination aspects/positions.]
Mars is lord of the horoscope (and posited in 12th, also on the South Node); Uranus is in 8th and powerful by being solitaire...so both planets are empowered, emphasized in this chart. And the retrogradation with perfection by progression pulls this wide separating square into effect. Mars is in exile, and Uranus is in the fall of Mars. I nowadays look at these kinds of things in evaluating the strength of an aspect; I do not rely on orb alone, nor do I fix rigid limits for orbs.
I offer this as my experience only. I really don’t care if you like tight rigid orbs, or wide and flexible ones. No argument is needed. I can give many instances where very wide-orbed aspects have proven to be the principal indicator of life-forming events, and recognizing this fact was what led me to adopt my present view of orbs.
Regardless of the orbs you choose to employ in your practice of astrology, whether you use tight and rigid orbs or wide and flexible ones, these same sorts of considerations will affect any conjunction or aspect. Besides the orb, there is also the hospitality of the sign, the condition or state of its lord, whether the aspect separates or applies, retrogradation considered both temporally and spatially, the latitudinal proximity of the aspecting planets, whether the aspecting planets are natural friends or enemies, and of course the house(s) occupied. Is one of the planets more emphasized or favored than the other and therefore likely to predominate in the relationship? Is the aspect the one in the chart that has the closest orb, or is it far down the list? What sort of formations or complexes does the aspect participate in? What other things are notable about one or both planets?
The magic of astrology takes place in the mind of the astrologer. If we consider the horoscope to be a “charting of the psyche [character, nature, spiritual quality] of the native” rather than an “astrological chart”, and therefore view the chart as descriptive of the person rather than as an accumulation of astrological symbols and formulas, it may be that our insights will blossom – will be infused with life.
Not all conjunctions of Moon and Mars are the same, and this applies to all aspects between any two planets. The orb of the aspect is certainly a very important consideration, but it is not the only thing to be put into the balance when weighing the power and assessing the mode of action of an aspect. Each of the various factors exercises an influence on both power and mode of action in any aspectual relationship. That is, each and every modifying or conditioning factor affecting our conjunction of Moon and Mars describes it in ever more refined detail.
The sign or signs involved are of first importance because they are essential in nature. A planet does not change its own essential nature, but that nature – the way and degree in which it can act – is deeply affected by sign. A young man who is by nature a bookworm will not function nearly so well in a foundry as he might in a library. In either circumstance his essentially studious and quiet nature will characterize him, but his environment will strongly influence his ability to act according to his nature, to feel at ease and be effective or not.
In any evaluation of sign position it is imperative to understand the state and determinations of the lord of the sign. In the example with Moon and Mars in Gemini, the conditioning of Mercury determines whether Gemini and the planets in it will be favored or disadvantaged. Planets rule signs. It is not so much the sign itself which determines the behavior of a planet in it as the condition of the lord of the sign.
Because the condition of the lord of a sign is different in each horoscope, it is clear that not all conjunctions of Moon and Mars, even in the same sign and with the same orb, etc., are the same. If we are interested in an astrology that provides depth of insight, it is necessary to examine the chart – the planets are the active and dynamic factor – in depth. Astrology is as superficial or as profound as our approach to it.
Last edited:
