What's the maximum orb requirement for each of the major aspects?

Claire19

Well-known member
If I'm being honest with myself, some of the wider aspects don't feel right for me. But a few (like my 9 degree conjunction of Mercury and Pluto, and my wide trines from Venus to Neptune/Uranus) do feel right for me.

Thanks everyone for your input, I guess it varies from person to person.
9 degrees for a conjunct is way too wide. There must be something else that you are feeling and everyone wants to have trines but again
no more than 5 degrees. Without your chart I cant comment further on what other influences may be operating, that you are feeling.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Weeeelllll, not quite. Aspects based on signs were an important consideration, called regard, or witnessing. But ancient aspect theory had a couple of different levels. First there are as you say aspects by sign (regard,) but then there is another level for adherence, striking and engagement that required a very tight orb of only 3* applying, 1* exact and 3* separating. These aspects were particularly important. And when we consider out of sign aspects, it was mucho importante to keep to the 3* rule
Ancient aspect theory is most important :smile:
Oh boy.....Here comes Virgo waltzing down the road.... Feel free to make mistakes. The world will keep on spinning....
With reference to the Moon, in natal work, I allow her an orb equal to her daily motion at the time of birth. No one taught me this. It seemed logical to me, so I use it as my starting point and then adjust according to the horoscope.
This is a very interesting idea, and a good example of the critical thinking you were speaking of earlier. I think mostly we want to give the Moon 13*, but I want to try this one out too.T
Very interesting - my natal Moon speed of 14[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT] 53” 35' is not far off 15[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT] and is close to maximum speed

QUOTE sourced from: http://cseligman.com/text/sky/moonmotion.htm

“Angular speed of Moon approaching perigee apparently increases by 12% of its average speed, half of that change due to its lesser distance, half due to actual increase in speed: angular speed of Moon approaching apogee will appear to decrease by 12% of average speed, half of that change due to its greater distance, half due to actual decrease in speed. Since 12% of 13.2[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT] per day is 1.6 per day, daily motion of the Moon to the east can vary from as little as 11.6[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT] per day near apogee, to as much as 14.8[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT] degrees per day, near perigee”
 
Last edited:

greybeard

Well-known member
Pluto is not a planet? Oh.

Just a thought....Look up any ten wild plants by their botanical names. My bet is that six of them will say "used to be classified as Cosmocarpis, reclassified as Gynospermum...." or something to that effect. Botanists and other scientists, including astronomers, are constantly revising, updating, changing classifications. What we call something, how we categorize it, how we conceive of it...does not change the thing itself in the least.

You apparently don't read my posts. I am constantly preaching about "reading the whole chart." What makes you think I fixate on Pluto at the Ascendant? I am answering the "generational" classification, which is misguided. I once chatted with an astrologer who had Uranus and Neptune, or maybe it was Pluto, in the Twelfth House. Aspects and other things brought the pair to prominence. He told me they couldn't be important because they were generational. And missed the most important feature of his own horoscope. Meanwhile everyone leaves flowers at the altar of Chiron.

What the astronomers did in Prague is clean house. Their little astronomical edifice was very messy.

A rose is a rose is a rose by any other name.
 

gen6k

Well-known member
Pluto is not a planet? Oh.

Just a thought....Look up any ten wild plants by their botanical names. My bet is that six of them will say "used to be classified as Cosmocarpis, reclassified as Gynospermum...." or something to that effect. Botanists and other scientists, including astronomers, are constantly revising, updating, changing classifications. What we call something, how we categorize it, how we conceive of it...does not change the thing itself in the least.

You apparently don't read my posts. I am constantly preaching about "reading the whole chart." What makes you think I fixate on Pluto at the Ascendant? I am answering the "generational" classification, which is misguided. I once chatted with an astrologer who had Uranus and Neptune, or maybe it was Pluto, in the Twelfth House. Aspects and other things brought the pair to prominence. He told me they couldn't be important because they were generational. And missed the most important feature of his own horoscope. Meanwhile everyone leaves flowers at the altar of Chiron.

What the astronomers did in Prague is clean house. Their little astronomical edifice was very messy.

A rose is a rose is a rose by any other name.

there is some withdrawal and suspension between the mode of "symbolic" language or "form" as emanating in itself and modern "phonetic" language.

even perceptual "form" is not primary qualities (decartes).
 

tsmall

Premium Member
Re: Pluto, and friends, to graybeard

I once chatted with an astrologer who had Uranus and Neptune, or maybe it was Pluto, in the Twelfth House. Aspects and other things brought the pair to prominence. He told me they couldn't be important because they were generational. And missed the most important feature of his own horoscope. Meanwhile everyone leaves flowers at the altar of Chiron.

What the astronomers did in Prague is clean house. Their little astronomical edifice was very messy.

A rose is a rose is a rose by any other name.

graybeard, I find this interesting. How do you personally determine if these planets are important in an individual horoscope? What I, a student of traditional/Hellenistic methods have discovered is that anything that these so-called generational, or trans-Saturnian planets could signify in a natal chart can be show in other ways without them. I even remember one of your earlier posts (sorry, I didn't go back to source it) said that you also thought that seven planets were enough to read a chart.

Personally, I think too often these days we want to search out Pluto, Neptune, Uranus and even the alter holding flower receiving Chiron and leave out or not worry about the ancestral seven, or consider that their meaning could not possibly be as significant.

I use whole signs. I have Pluto in 12 opposed my Moon within two degrees. I have Uranus conjunct my Sun by two degrees, and parallel in both latitude and declination. I have Neptune in 2 trine my Moon in 6 within a degree. My chart is built on a grand trine and a tsquare. And yet everything that I have read, learned and understood about the aspects the outers make to my personal planets does nothing to show why I am the way I am, and can be seen better without them. What does show is that I have Venus in her fall, as ruler of my ASC, trine both malefics, and Mars strikes my fallen Sun in a superior square within minutes. That this is made better by my Jupiter, making a phasis into the beams, as the ruler of my chart and adhering to my ASC. Mercury too stations in my chart, so though retrograde and combust quite sufficiently explains in concert with my Moon why I am the way I am.

So of course I am curious. When do you use Pluto, and why?
 

greybeard

Well-known member
I made a "startling" and highly specific and accurate prediction from a 13 degree aspect.... Are you sure we should only allow 4 or 5 degrees?

The old astrologers considered 3 degrees "exact", 5 degrees (or so) very strong, and then it tapered off....Most astrologers, up until mid-20th century allowed around 10 degrees for any planet.

If you read a lot of the commentary published about cross-sign aspects, many say "they are weaker because they are operating in different [qualities or elements.] Any astrologer who has carefully observed cross-sign aspects knows this is not so. Very often cross-sign aspects are more powerful than "in-sign" aspects. Their "special nature" fits the horoscope and brings special attributes to the native. Yet most books deny this. So....personal experience is the only certified teacher; books are guides.

What happens with books is that astrologer A says "thus and so", and then subsequent authors repeat the statement without finding out on their own if it is true or not. There are many, many examples of this, and not just in astrology.

If you think orbs should be held to 5 degrees....observe transits. Very commonly effects of transits can be seen 7 or 8 degrees distant, and the conditons were forming before they became visible (therefore, the effect demands even wider orb).

I use wide orbs in my preliminary evaluation of a chart. I don't want to overlook something that might be important. Then, as the chart analysis becomes ever more refined, I narrow the orbs down (dependent on what the horoscope guides me to do.)
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
If you read a lot of the commentary published about cross-sign aspects, many say "they are weaker because they are operating in different [qualities or elements.] Any astrologer who has carefully observed cross-sign aspects knows this is not so. Very often cross-sign aspects are more powerful than "in-sign" aspects. Their "special nature" fits the horoscope and brings special attributes to the native. Yet most books deny this. So....personal experience is the only certified teacher; books are guides.
Cross-sign Tropical aspects are often revealed as same-sign aspects when viewed as a Sidereal chart :smile:
 

tsmall

Premium Member
I made a "startling" and highly specific and accurate prediction from a 13 degree aspect.... Are you sure we should only allow 4 or 5 degrees?

The old astrologers considered 3 degrees "exact", 5 degrees (or so) very strong, and then it tapered off....Most astrologers, up until mid-20th century allowed around 10 degrees for any planet.

If you read a lot of the commentary published about cross-sign aspects, many say "they are weaker because they are operating in different [qualities or elements.] Any astrologer who has carefully observed cross-sign aspects knows this is not so. Very often cross-sign aspects are more powerful than "in-sign" aspects. Their "special nature" fits the horoscope and brings special attributes to the native. Yet most books deny this. So....personal experience is the only certified teacher; books are guides.

What happens with books is that astrologer A says "thus and so", and then subsequent authors repeat the statement without finding out on their own if it is true or not. There are many, many examples of this, and not just in astrology.

If you think orbs should be held to 5 degrees....observe transits. Very commonly effects of transits can be seen 7 or 8 degrees distant, and the conditons were forming before they became visible (therefore, the effect demands even wider orb).

I use wide orbs in my preliminary evaluation of a chart. I don't want to overlook something that might be important. Then, as the chart analysis becomes ever more refined, I narrow the orbs down (dependent on what the horoscope guides me to do.)

There is an interpretive difference between the by-sign aspects, and those that are within the 7* (allowance for approaching and separating) that has less to do with defining the native's personality and/or overall character, than it does in doing predictive work.

I appreciate that you use wide orbs in your preliminary evaluation. Because if a planet can "see" (regard) another planet then there is significance there, despite how many degrees separate them. This ties back into what I posted above, about the difference between witnessing (also known as testifying) and scrutinizing (which is where the orb factor comes into play.)

With transits, well. Anyone who has had a Saturn transit (so, anyone who is alive?) knows that as you say, most transits build, crescendo, and taper off. Which of course will all start and stop outside the boundaries of the tight orbs. The thing is that it isn't just transits that we need to worry about. We have other methods of prediction in which the orbs will be increasingly important. And yet, if we want to predict an actual event? We need as close an aspect orb as possible.

And yes, I agree. Out of sign aspects do carry their own significance, which is different from in sign aspects. Not just because the planets involved are "in orb of aspect" but because usually they will denote something different about the arrangement. Perhaps they are in aspect but cannot "see" each other by sign, or perhaps because of the elemental differences based on their placement in the chart. But oos aspects present their own challenges in delineations.
 
Last edited:

Claire19

Well-known member
That's understandable. But what if it goes over that? For example, I have Mercury square Saturn with an orb of 8°15 so it's over 8. Would you consider it if it was over like that?
8 degrees is very weak but if a planet is the ruling one for the chart I would give it more orb. I have Mercury conjunct Saturn within 5 degrees and I feel it but it is not strong.
 

tautomer

Well-known member
8 degrees is very weak but if a planet is the ruling one for the chart I would give it more orb. I have Mercury conjunct Saturn within 5 degrees and I feel it but it is not strong.

There could be other things that over-ride it's effect in your chart that causes you to feel it less. It could also be due to having grown past the issues it presents, so it's still there but it's effect is minimized.

It can go the other way too. I have mercury conjunct jupiter at just under 9 orb, but I definitely feel that aspect a lot. Why? In my case it's because mercury is in gemini, and both are part of a stellium (with venus in between these two), so their effects get mixed together.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
That's understandable. But what if it goes over that? For example, I have Mercury square Saturn with an orb of 8°15 so it's over 8. Would you consider it if it was over like that?
8°15' as a sign-to-sign aspect is one to consider because:
1. Ancient astrologers used sign-to-sign aspects.... ....Their astrology worked.

....Aspects based on signs were an important consideration, called regard, or witnessing
tsmall then highlights the fact that ancient aspect theory had several different levels i.e....
But ancient aspect theory had a couple of different levels. First there are as you say aspects by sign (regard,) but then there is another level for adherence, striking and engagement that required a very tight orb of only 3* applying, 1* exact and 3* separating. These aspects were particularly important. And when we consider out of sign aspects, it was mucho importante to keep to the 3* rule.
Therefore the 'maximum orb' is dependent on whether the aspect is in-sign or out-of-sign ALTHOUGH:
3. The tight and variably-sized orbs popular today didn't come into use at all until around the middle of the 20th century. They are a new development coming out of the dumb New Age fuzzy-minded "astrologers".

Use your own judgment. Test things.

You haven't even thought about the difference between an applying and a separating aspect.

Astrology is a system of thought. This means that it is an aid to thought, not a substitute for it.

Feel free to make mistakes. The world will keep on spinning
 

Frisiangal

Well-known member
A horoscope is not about "discovering yourself" or "feeling it".

As I wrote, Greybeard:
Opinions in astrology are readily given yet too often differ with each other, according to the school of thought followed

There will always be a difference between the traditional-destiny defined approach and that taken by those astrologers schooled from an alternative perspective. From my own, it doesn't make one right and the other wrong.

The horoscope is what it is, and an astrologer should be able to "see what it says" independently. In a counseling situation you naturally get a litte more into the "what it feels like at this moment" and deal with that, adjusting your interpretation.

I am 70 years old. I have lived out most of my horoscope. The horoscope is a map of your destiny. It doesn't ask you how you feel about it. My life has unfolded as my horoscope indicated it should; I was not consulted in the matter.

You have an 18 month start on me.:smile:
I am in agreement that the horoscope map is a chart of life. E.g. a 9th house Sun in Leo square Jupiter will not undergo the same conditions as an 11th house Sun in Libra trine Mars. Yet my own thoughts remain that one can choose a path to take within the many configurations in order to 'make' a life. Cause will breed and take an effect. Life isn't necessarily 'fated' in the manner I believe to which you may be referring.

By 'what it feels like to you', I think MJ82 may have been implying how any said aspect works...or does not.. to the individual. From the traditional viewpoint the original poster will not even have a Venus trine Uranus-Neptune, will she?


Progressions and directions do not change the natal chart and its indications. They describe the timing and form of manifestation.

I disagree.
Progressions bring along 'life-changing' events through their manifestation. As an astrologer once said, directions show 'the direction' one is currently taking.

My Venus and Mercury are both retrograde in the natal chart. At around age 16 they both turned direct by progression. But their influence on me and my life will always be as retrograde, not direct. Period. Because my progressed Sun is now in Aries does not magically turn me into an Aries; I will always be an Aquarius.

I would hope that an Aquarius Sun also found that the realm of Pisces influenced his way of life so that, through Aries, the true Godly Spirit could express itself.
My son is also an AQ. Sun....in his 1st house. In recent years I have seen and said that it was necessary for him to give up and lose everything he thought of importance to him in order to find what he truly wanted from life. In a couple of years he will enter the Aries period. He's always been a 'team player' who has recently found his nitch in a Pisces organisation of First Aid help, yet has already said that this is not his final station. He has dreams of 'branching out on my own'. I give him 5 years.:smile:


An acorn contains within it the tree it will become. The tree will pass through critical storms and droughts, be struck by lightning, perhaps one day become the giant of the forest. But it will always be what is contained in the acorn, nothing more and nothing less. The storms and droughts and all the rest are "foretold" by the time and place of the acorn's germination.

The acorn doesn't remain an acorn, though, does it????? It grows, it becomes stronger, otherwise it would not be able to tackle the storms and drought, would it? That's also progression, surely.

"Generational" planets act far more personally that that school of thought would like to believe. If you think Pluto is only "generational", ask someone with that planet on the Ascendant how "generational" it feels. "Generational" is nonsense. It is true, but misunderstood and misused, and misguides a lot of astrologers into thinking that those planets are less than personal.

I did not say that generational planets did not act personally. Everyone knows what it is like to go through an Uranus, Neptune and Pluto period. Yet e.g. the Pluto Libra generation are going to experience its effects in an entirely different fashion than the Pluto Leo or Virgo do/did.

No one has ever said that astrologers have to agree. It always makes for interesting discussions. :smile:
 

greybeard

Well-known member
This has become a lively discussion. I am having trouble keeping up.

I want you all to understand one thing. There is your way, the Army way, and my way. And only one of those ways is Right. It should be crystal clear by now that anyone who doesn't agree with me is Wrong, and should be sent straight to Hell without collecting $200. So there.
 
Last edited:

Frisiangal

Well-known member
This has become a lively discussion. I am having trouble keeping up.

I want you all to understand one thing. There is your way, the Army way, and my way. And only one of those ways is Right. It should be crystal clear by now that anyone who doesn't agree with me is Wrong, and should be sent straight to Hell without collecting $200. So there.

:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:.
That's surely a my way Aquarius, with a touch of Pisces religion added, followed by the fire of h--- and/or Aries, speaking.
Got a feeling that the fire and brimstone of Saturn might be somewhere in the mix as well.:wink:

Bless you, Greybeard. You proved an astrological point in your very denial of it.:kissing:
 

VENUSINBLACK

New member
With Uranus and Neptune both at 18 Cap 26 & 21...and Venus at 27 Vir 34, the longitudinal distance is sligtly OVER 9 degrees, so that should be considered a 10 degree aspect. With such a tight conjunction of the two heavy bodies, they acquire additional power as they are yoked or in union. They carry more weight than they would singly...and this particular conjunction is a rare one -- it occurs only about every 170 years or so. In your chart the conjunction is partile (to 05 minutes of arc), so exceptionally powerful. Venus is in her fall.

In addition to the bare-bones evaluation of these planets relative positions, you should also check the conditioning of both Saturn (ruler of Capricorn) and Mercury (ruler of Virgo). Are either of these planets in aspect to the trine?

Also, is the trine brought to perfection by translation of light? The Moon would be the most likely planet to perform that function here (assuming the motion of Venus is around her normal mean velocity) although Mercury or Sun could also do that.

A third consideration in evaluating this trine is whether or not there are other, closer aspects that would overshadow the trine. Also, are either of the two planets on or very near an angle? If so, the orb can be extended as they acquire power and influence (therefore "reach") for that reason.

Are Uranus and Neptune retrograde, and therefore in mutual separation from Venus, thus weakening their contact?

Now.....Those are the questions I would consider in assigning a proper orb to this trine.
Now....I have just cast an approximate chart for 13 October 1993 (the chart is accurate for time, but not for location), so here are some answers to those questions:

Whether the pattern of planetary distribution for the whole chart is considered to be a Bundle or a Bowl (up to the judgment of the astrologer), Venus is the Leading Planet. She is raised to superlative power in this horoscope for that reason. And for the same reason, I would allow her some extra latitude in any aspect -- she is very powerful and in fact is the predominant planet in this chart. Venus beholds a close but separating sextile to Pluto, and she is conjunct the Moon, who has just passed over the sign line into Libra, which is ruled by Venus; Venus rules both Sun and Moon, and is awarded even more power as directly controlling the Lights. The position of both Lights in Libra re-emphasizes the power of Venus and particularly her role in relationships and dealings with the not-self, with efforts at harmonization and balance.

I would, without any reservations, consider the trine to be effective....and even in the face of the two 4 degree conjunctions and the close separating square of Sun to the two planets (which energizes them, gives them more power), would award this trine a good deal of power in the chart. The ruler of Venus, Mercury, is energized by conjunction to Mars (who is strong in his own domicile) and Saturn, ruler of the Capricorn pair, is also in domicile (Aquarius) and trine the Sun although square Pluto (who is also empowered by domicile).

I wonder which sign is rising? Does that directly affect the evaluation? If birth occurred between 88 and 107 degrees west longitude, the Ascendant is most likely Taurus, which makes Venus not only the leading planet but also lord of the horoscope, increasing her power over the life greatly.

To study the question of orb of aspect, it would be best to observe the effects of transits over natal positions and determine for yourself what you consider to be effective orb -- rather than learning by rote from a book. We should keep in mind that the ancient astrologers did not use orb of aspect at all, but considered a planet in 1 degree of Virgo to be in trine with a planet in 30 degrees of Capricorn. When someone says "traditional orbs", just which tradition are they referring to? Marc Edmund Jones, one of America's greatest astrologers, allowed orbs of 10 degrees for all planets; the narrower orbs in use by many astrologers today did not come into fashion until around the middle of the 20th century.

You are brilliant. I just came across this post looking for information on sign to sign aspects. Your thoughts make so much sense to me. Are you still active on the board? Please be...
 
Top