Antiscia and contrantiscia refer to planets shadow points, my understanding is that this has the effect of bringing together two signs, in the example im going to give this would be the case of Virgo and Libra, two signs that would not usually see each other/in aversion.
So mars @25 virgo and venus @ 4 libra puts them in aversion, but with the contratiscia this connects them, my question is would this then be taken as a conjunction between the two planets or not ?
If anybody needs me to post the chart in question, let me know.
I recommend reading this article by Deborah Houlding -
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/antiscia.html
However, Manilius's description differs from that of Firmicus because he uses the centre of Cancer and Capricorn as his reference points, linking the sign of Gemini to Leo, Taurus to Virgo, Aries to Libra, Pisces to Scorpio, and Aquarius to Sagittarius.
Firmicus, in moving the reference point for antiscion reflection from 15° of the tropical signs, to 0°, was merely correcting the error which had accumulated with the movement of the vernal point - a problem which the establishment of the tropical zodiac eradicated.
''Error''.
Tropical antiscia involves signs in aversion or square. Any zodiac that does not begin with the first degree of the sign, such as in Manilius, Thrasyllus etc. the signs of equal daylight (at the time) are:
Gemini - Leo - Sextile
Taurus - Virgo - Trine
Pisces - Scorpio - Trine
Aquarius - Sagittarius - Sextile
Aries and Libra as well, but Hephaistio (Book 2:11 and 2:23) cites the opinion of Thrasyllus that those signs do not hear each other (despite widespread assumption that is the case). What other reason for this can there be, if not that those signs are in opposition (an inharmonious aspect). If this is Thrasyllus' reason (which I presume), there are no antiscia with a tropical zodiac.
Now, one might be thinking, are they mistaken to use those seeing and hearing configurations with Aries 8 and Aries 10 zodiacs as Deborah Houlding claims in her article.
I do not think so, as Firmicus and the medieval
(which could have been influenced by Firmicus as his text was one of the few available at the time and he ascribes this doctrine to Saint Ptolemy) authors use degree approaches that do not appear to be the case with the Hellenistic astrologers who focused more on whole sign configurations and relationships. If the equinox is at the 15th, 10th, or 8th, or 3rd, it will allow for ancient antiscia, as 30 degrees later and before the equinox will coincide with equal daylight and that is enough to build this scheme. No scheme is perfect, but having planets in aversion - ''seeing each other'' is atrocious.
Hellenistic astrology developed with Aries 8 and Aries 10 zodiacs and I find it extremely unlikely the ancients did not notice that the months from the solstices do not coincide with the signs. They most likely understood that they did not use an Aries 15 zodiac or Aries 1, as Thrasyllus rejects such.
''Correcting the error''. Sure.
''sextile, upon the signs called "hearing" or "seeing'' - Ptolemy 3.11.
Now this is the error.
One does not have this problem with any sidereal zodiac (or ''tropical'' that is not 1 Aries, but rather Aries 8, 10, 15). Placing the equinoxes and solstices at the
interstice is the dumbest idea to use with antiscia. Thus if one wants to use a tropical zodiac with different solstice degree, use the scheme by Manilius I showed above, or with the sidereal zodiac, this one:
Gemini and Sagittarius are tropical (and inverted in daylight symbolism for the respective hemisphere), while Virgo and Pisces are equinoctial. The following signs see and hear each other:
Cancer and Taurus - Sextile
Leo and Aries - Trine
Libra and Aquarius - Trine
Scorpio and Capricorn - Sextile
They actually fall nice with the exaltations, so they already have some relationships.
Use whole-sign antiscia, not degree approaches. Think about how every degree of a sign is nearer to the middle than to the two interstices. This is not mitigation of aversion, but reinforcement of hexagons and trigons, for they gain additional affinity.
Now, there is one concept to mitigate aversion known as ''like-engirding''. Libra and Taurus, Scorpio and Aries, Capricorn and Aquarius are like-engirding as they share the same domicile lord. I do not see this as an affinity, but rather an extension of what a domicile is - which is the domain of a planet, and those domains are of one planet (thus they gain relationship to a similar topic). Thus, it may be somewhat redundant. I believe signs in aversion only have indirect relationship in the classical aspect doctrine, so schemes such as Firmicus' have to be rejected in favor of the more ancient doctrine.
It is quite fascinating how sextiles and trines are of similar ratios compared to aversions, squares and oppositions (exception being the equinoctial signs). Again, as a further proof that the Hellenistic astrologers were not in error - Thrasyllus uses Aries 8 zodiac and says that Aries and Libra are equinoctial, although obviously late Pisces is more equinoctial than late Aries. It is just nearer to the middle than to the interstices. And sign boundaries are real - out-of-sign configurations are rejected for similar reasons. This is also the origin of fixed signs in middle = blunted sextiles in Firmicus, who did not understand that he contradicts himself like Ptolemy and Hephaistio with using an interstice tropical zodiac, but harmonious antiscia.