Orbs

This has probably been discussed before as it is an important issue.

There is a movement in American astrology to enlarge the orbs allowed but I believe the orbs should be cut back severely. The trine, square and opposition are traditionally eight degrees. They should be cut to seven. The sextile should be kept to no more than five. The quincunx should be no more than two degrees, and the sesquiquadrate, a much misunderstood aspect I think, should be maxed at three. All other aspects, quintiles and so on should be no more that one degree.

The fewer aspects you can find, the better. Again this is just a personal opinion

I do believe there is a difference between applying and separating aspects. Applying seem to be more energetic and feisty if you will, while separating aspects are slower, plodding, bored.

Anyway, I would be interested in what othes think of my orb tolerances. By the way I have examples to back up my opinions which I haven't posted because I try not to bore people (I don't always succeed though).

Hello Wayne, I agree with you. Personally I never allowed more than max. 6 degrees for a conjunction ,square, trine and I used 5° max. for sextiles. Oppositions 7° but for Sun and Moon I take up to 10°, other planets 8°.
When planets fall in the 12th, applying to the Ascendant I might take a bit more, especially when Sun or Moon for the conjunctions. So I would go to 10° for the Lights and up to 8° for other planets.
For inconjuncts 2°, applying 2.5° and all other minor one's 1°, applying 1.5°
Maybe I take a bit too small, but when I am in doubt I ask the client how she feels about ......(the expression of that particular aspect) and when they say. OH YES, then I take a bigger orb. I think planets ruling Sun, Moon and Ascendant could be taken as more expressive energy and maybe the orbs a bit bigger, accordingly. Cheers, Star.

Hi there,
I think it needs to be pointed out that in William Lilly's day, much larger orbs were used.Any so-called *modern trend* to enlarge the orbs is in a fact a return to older procedures. Like everything else, orbs need to be looked at in the context of the chart. For example if a stellium is involved, it would make sense to *allow* a wider orb...I assess *orb allowance* in terms of what else is happening in the chart, and whether an aspect is applying or separating. My astrology program uses a 10 deg orb, with a toggle for reducing it.
In terms of *the fewer aspects you can find the better*, Wayne, I totally disagree with you here..(assuming we are talking about natal here, not horary, where orbs serve a different purpose altogether)...To me it is the lesser used aspects that provide the colour/light and shade in a chart. these aspects are like *the fine print*.
Again, let me give you an example:
A moon square mercury aspect may play out very differently if there's a quintile attached to each end of the square...or a number of lesser aspects contacting the midpoints etc etc etc. See what I mean? It's too easy to generalise, even about orbs. Cheers Lillyjgc

Luminary to luminary is extended as far as 10 degrees by some.
I feel that by the time we get to 10 degrees orb it would be difficult for most people the notice the aspect.
I am inclined to feel that it tails off after 7 degress.

But it varies . If you have a large stellium then some say they influence each other out to a wide orb. I am dubious tho.
Plus if there are other strong aspects to the planet/s like squares or oppositions it can concentrate the energy.

All being well I am inclined to feel about 7 degrees for a cojunction square & opposition. Trine is less - the energy is just too easy to take the distance.
Sextile I would go for about 4 degrees - 5 degreees tops.

I dont get into using minor aspects like semi sextiles or semi squares etc in natal charts.
But I definately use the quincunx also known as inconjunct. But wouldnt give it an orb of more than 2 degrees

In transits of outers like PLuto or Neptune I will look at semi squares if nothing else was going on. But I remember when I was studying astology how some students got bogged down in sequiquadrates when major oppositions were also occuring.

Consultation helps to indicate what is going on also.

Lilly, yes you are right, it is important not to overlook minor aspects, but I only do so if they are totally exact. An exact semi-sextile for instance I have seen as really working out, especially when I look at progressed planets touching natal one's, like for a wedding. Often you dont find a trine or sextile but several semi-sextiles, but they have to be exact. The minor aspects to non-personal planets, like Pluto, Neptune, Uranus I dont take serious, but to the luminaries or the other personal one's I do, as well as to the Ascendant and Asc. ruler, Sun and Moon rulers. I must confess, I hardly ever look at Quintiles and bi-quintiles. cheers, Star.

Luminary to luminary is extended as far as 10 degrees by some.
I feel that by the time we get to 10 degrees orb it would be difficult for most people the notice the aspect.
I am inclined to feel that it tails off after 7 degress.

Click to expand...

I feel the same way, especially if the Moon is in its Balsamic phase because the New Moon has not occured until the Sun and the Moon are exactly conjunct, no matter how close they may be.

Yet if the Moon is ahead of the Sun in the zodiac (i.e. in the New Moon phase), I think I would consider a 10 degree orb because the person would feel the effects of the moon phase under which he or she is born, and the conjunction aspect corresponds with the New Moon.

I personally prefer tighter orbs for all aspects, however.

Arian Maverick

starlink said:

Personally I never allowed more than max. 6 degrees for a conjunction ,square, trine and I used 5° max. for sextiles. Oppositions 7° but for Sun and Moon I take up to 10°, other planets 8°.

Click to expand...

Starlink, here is the problem I see with orbs.

If you only deal with aspects that align by sign and degree (conjunction, semi-sextile, sextile, square, trine, inconjunct), it's rather simple.

However, if you pay any attention at all to quintiles and biquintiles and to septile-like aspects (1/7, 2/7, 3/7, septile, biseptile, triseptile), you begin to run into aspects that can be analyzed two different ways unless orbs are kept very small.

An example:

Inconjunct=150 degrees
Triseptile=154 degrees 17 minutes.

If you give both an orb of 2 degrees, an aspect of around 152 degrees becomes a problem.

150=7/12
Triseptile=3/7

On one hand, semi-sextiles and inconjuncts are breaking up the circle into smaller divisions, since the denominator is 12.

A triseptile, with a denominator of 7, has a lower denominator.

So which aspect is more important?

I THINK most of us would immediately say that the inconjunct is more important, perhaps because of the resonance with 12, so important in Western astrology.

The most reasonable answer for orbs might be to set them a bit wide, then examine them carefully. Most of our programs will instantly list all of them, showing which are applying or separating and giving a read-out of the orbs according to distance.

In this way, for instance, you could specify 10 or 9 or 8 degrees for oppositions, then ignore any shown that seem too large. You might mentally cut them down to 6 degrees, 5, or less.

For transits I set to very small orbs, since the possible number of aspects explodes.

Now, a question to you and others here: which would you consider more important?

An inconjunct that is applying at one degree (approximately) or a square that is separating at 5 or 5 degrees? I'm not asking for a definite answer here, just posing a "balance" problem.

This is where I think intuition or at least "synthesizing" comes into play, looking at the whole chart and getting a feel for groupings, patterns, etc.

g

lillyjgc said:

I think it needs to be pointed out that in William Lilly's day, much larger orbs were used.

Click to expand...

I think what you're referencing here is actually the moety (I hope I spelled that right) of the planets. The Greater Malefic and Benefic enjoy a 9° orb, while their lesser counterparts (including Mercury) are reduced to a 7° influence, Luna enjoys 12°, while Sol takes a whopping 15°, that's half a Sign.

I, personally, don't use the minor aspects. Interestingly enough, the tighest aspect in my chart is a Venus/Jupiter semi-square.

Hi Kaiousei! Long time no see! I would most certainly keep that semi-square in the picture, only because it is so tight. I never ever look at Septiles and most certainly not at tri-septiles as Gear mentioned. I take semi-squares and semi-sextiles always in account if they really have half degree to 0° orb, very very exact, otherwise you dont notice anything.
So Gear, to answer your question: the inconjunct is of course way more important than the tri-septile.

I would most certainly keep that semi-square in the picture, only because it is so tight.

Click to expand...

Hey Starlink, just haven't been that active lately. Anyway, silly me, it was between Luna/Jupiter, 0°09' orb.

What's it mean? Minor tension between my least and most dignified planets? I want my three discordant aspect chart back.

starlink said:

So Gear, to answer your question: the inconjunct is of course way more important than the tri-septile.

Click to expand...

Did I ask a question about that?

I probably did, but it would have been rhetorical, making people think about the orbs.

I think that the semi-sexitle and inconjunct are two "major-minor" aspects, if I can play with words a little. In other words, although they are not considered major aspects, I think they can be as important or powerful when the orbs are very small as the more "major aspects", when the orbs for them are much larger.

If I see an inconjunct between two planets and the orb is less than a degree, I take it seriously. If it is less than 1/2 degree, it can be key to understand something important, in my experience.

The reason I think that sem-squares need to be examined equally carefully is that they often are keys in charts that have most planets in just two or three houses. This can be especially important when a sextile is split in half by a planet at the midpoint, all tight orbs, because the planet at the midpoint is slightly at odds with both planets that form the sextile. If that middle planet were 180 degrees away, in opposition to its position, it would form a yod.

I never look at quintiles or septiles (talking about biquintiles and biseptiles, triseptiles under the classification before I have carefully considered a chart without them.

However, if you are looking at a chart that seems to be lacking in aspects, if you are dealing with a person who seems amazingly at ease, advanced or "evolved" and can't see a reason for it, often looking at quintiles and septiles will show a very interesting picture. Not different, but it is as if there is a whole extra set of "colors" added.

I would certainly agree that you want VERY tight orbs when even thinking about septiles. For one thing, there will always be a lot of them unless you keep the orbs very small. Any planet can form a septile-type aspect three ways, on either side (total of 6), so they will be more common than quintiles purely statistically.

Quintiles, on the other hand, can only form two ways, on either side (total of 4)

In the same way there are only four places for the major hard aspects to show up (represented by the cross), and four places for the easy ones (a planet can be sexile and trine to four points in the wheel).

I've never been too sure about semi-squares and sesquiquadrates. Does a division by 8 resonate more than one by 7 or 5? My mind is open. I'm still investigating.

Gaer

Well of course the Vedics allow the entire signs as aspects and there are highly intelligent people who swear by traditional Hindu astrology, although I have not studied it much so I have no opinion either way on Vedic, although such treatment of orbs is at odds with the Western view.

Just to throw a wrench in here (or a spanner if you're English), I think some of the least studied aspects are not just those that are in longtitude, but latitude. North or South declination may also be important, the precurser to the longtitudinal mid-points first proposed by Ebertin, which I do think have validity, but I can't see the reasoning for mid-point to mid-point aspects. For example to echo Gaer's point I think an exact semi-square between two planets in square has validity and brings that square into prominence, but the sem-square and sesqui-quadrate should not be overlooked.

Most people I know don't bother to check parallels, although surely it would make sense that two planets in longtitudinal aspect that also share the same latitude would be much more powerful than longtitude alone.

I will admit to a degree of laziness here as I too don't often consider latitudes, but I wonder if anyone has an opinion here. (Let me guess ...)

On the really minor aspects such as septiles and and so on, especially when they have the prefix "bi", I haven't found much to support these aspects with anything more than a one-degree orb, and even then they seem fairly insignificant. The quintile seems to be a benefic aspect, but again I cut the orb to one degree or less. I try to keep it simple because I think the fewer aspects you use the better results you will have.

In one sense of course the entire chart is simply one huge and complex aspect, and it is probable that the more integrated the chart, the more major aspects, the more clear is the destiny, for want of a better word.

wayne penner said:

Most people I know don't bother to check parallels, although surely it would make sense that two planets in longtitudinal aspect that also share the same latitude would be much more powerful than longtitude alone.

Click to expand...

I was wondering if you'd explain this 'parallel', I know I've seen it mentioned in other places. Isn't it where say planet A is at 17°S and planet B is at 18°N? Close to one another's same degree of lattitude. Do they have to be in a beholding Sign or can it occur in any Sign? To me it would seem that they would have to be in the same Sign as, physically, a planet in the North lattitude in the Sign of Leo wouldn't be parallel to a planet in the South lattitude of Pisces. Even then, what is the symbolic interpretation of such aspects?

gaer said:

I've never been too sure about semi-squares and sesquiquadrates. Does a division by 8 resonate more than one by 7 or 5? My mind is open. I'm still investigating.

Click to expand...

It's actually pretty interesting that you mention this division, as the major aspects are divided off of prominent Sign characteristics. I believe the conjunction is based off of the number 12, a number divided by itself is always 1, which would lead to the Conjunction being contained within the same Sign, and the number 12 is the number of Signs in the Zodiac. A Sextile is based off of 2, which we know to be the number of polarities in the Zodiac (positive, negative). A Square is based off of the number 3, which we know to be the number of modes of the Signs (Fixed, Mutable, Cardinal). A Trine is based off of the number 4, which is the number of elements contained within the Zodiac (Fire, Earth, Water, Air). I'm not exactly sure about the Opposition, but I think it's just an extension of the Square as one Fixed Signs can only Square two of the other three, and Oppose the final one. I'd like clarification on that if anyone can offer it.

I have a page which describes the Traditional orbs of Planets and how to use them (in the case of being Combustion & Under the beams of the Sun) which may add to this discussion;

http://www.antiquus-astrology.com/Chap2-14.html

(in the case of being Combustion & Under the beams of the Sun)

Click to expand...

That's an interesting thought, as any planet within Sol's moety orb of conjunction would be delibated Within the Beams or Combust...

Kaiousei no Senshi said:

I was wondering if you'd explain this 'parallel', I know I've seen it mentioned in other places. Isn't it where say planet A is at 17°S and planet B is at 18°N? Close to one another's same degree of lattitude. Do they have to be in a beholding Sign or can it occur in any Sign? To me it would seem that they would have to be in the same Sign as, physically, a planet in the North lattitude in the Sign of Leo wouldn't be parallel to a planet in the South lattitude of Pisces. Even then, what is the symbolic interpretation of such aspects?

Click to expand...

They used to be called Parallels of Conjunction and were considered like a conjunction if both planets were in North or both in South latitude. If one planet was North and the other South they were considered to be in opposition. I haven't done much research in this area though.

Did I ask a question about that?

Click to expand...

Hi Gear, I believe you did ask something like that:

150=7/12
Triseptile=3/7 and then:

Click to expand...

So which aspect is more important?

Click to expand...

Maybe I misunderstood but I thought you meant between these two, which one is the more important.

Cheers, Star.

Gear, here another question you posted:

Now, a question to you and others here: which would you consider more important?
An inconjunct that is applying at one degree (approximately) or a square that is separating at 5 or 5 degrees? I'm not asking for a definite answer here, just posing a "balance" problem.

Click to expand...

This I also find a difficult one and my first thought was:"the ingoing aspect"
In the past the inconjunct was not yet playing a major role in Astrology but that has changed and I think an inconjunct is mighty important. I put it as something as strong as a square because I find that the inconjunct is an aspect that is very difficult to live with or to recognize even. When we have a square, we usually know (or find out one way or another) what the problem is: we come on too strong, or we have great difficulties achieving etc.etc. We can work on that aspect (improve our behavior) after a couple of people have told us , or because we are confronted again and again with a certain problem. Or we leave it like that, give in, use it negatively.
But the inconjunct has something psychological attached to it so that the problems it causes are far more difficult to recognize. We could have crisis after crisis and still wonder why on earth we always end up in this mess and we probably have to undergo psycho-therapy to figure it all out.
I dont know if I express myself clearly here. Maybe you are of another opinion, very possible. But to answer this question, I think an ingoing inconjunct is probably stronger than an outgoing (after 5°!)square, BUT like you also mentioned, we should look at the whole picture here. Maybe the inconjunct does not involve personal planets and the square is between Moon and Mars, VERY personal. This will make a difference then. If planets like Pluto, Neptune and Uranus should be rulers of Asc., Sun or Moon (in an inconjunct), then it becomes again more important than a square between Neptune and Pluto. In the latter case, the square could work out more in the life departments (the houses), like problems with polution in your neighborhood or something like that, not a charactertrait that causes trouble. Cheers, Star.

Hi Wayne, I am very much a person who needs visual explanation, like someone drawing it for me instead of telling me. So in this case:

They used to be called Parallels of Conjunction and were considered like a conjunction if both planets were in North or both in South latitude.

Click to expand...

If I look at a chart and draw the Horizon and the MC/IC axis line, where would I then find these parallels of conjunction between say, Mars and Venus.? Same latitude, both either East or West with same distance to the MC/IC or same distance between the ASC/DESC.? I have great difficulties "seeing" these paralells. I actually never used them.

I try to keep it simple because I think the fewer aspects you use the better results you will have.

Click to expand...

I would say, the fewer minor aspects you use. This goes for most things in Astrology I find. Like I personally never use the fixed stars, Lilith (finally start looking more at Chiron but with reserve) Arabic parts and the likes. (just in horary but also very limited).It complicates matters and it starts like you are entering a maze where you can easily loose your way. Small (simple) is beautiful, that is and has always been my motto! Starlink

You're a lot like I am when it comes to this, Starlink. Don't tell me about it. Draw it out for me and show me how it works while telling me about it.

Here's something I drew up really quickly in Paint just now, showing how I understand parallels. I'm not sure if it's correct though, but it's how I envision it.