Lilly is referencing Greek doctrines re equipollent and "like-engirdling" signs, which, to those old timers, was an important element in delineation: see especially Paulus Alexandrianus "Late Classical Astrology"; also, to a lesser extent some of explanations in Al-Biruni's "Elements". With the Greco-romans, at least during the first 5 centuries AD, position moreso than degree-aspect, seemed (in my take on the literature) to receive a great deal of emphasis in delineation; searching especially for "connections" (along the lines of the concept of conjunction) seemed to have been given a great deal of importance: actual degree conjunctions, but also the monomoiria connections, parallels of declination (and even, sometimes, of latitude), mutual reception, "conjunction" via equipollency, "sign" conjunctions (yes, they often regarded 2 planets in the same sign as conjunct even if one planet was at, say, 5 degrees and the other was at 25 degrees), and "conjunct"-like connections even by Egyptian or Pauline dodekatemorion ramification (see especially the P. Alexandiranus material on this topic) When we study the early authors (other than Ptolemy), such as Antiochus of Athens, Valens, Firmicus Maternus, Manilius, the remnants of the Nechepso/Petosiris handbook (150BC Alexandria), Dorotheus of Sidon, Paulus Alexandrianus, Olympiodorus, Rhetorius the Egyptian, Aratus, etc, we find (at least I found) some concepts which were very important to them, but which have been either radically altered, or altogether forgotten, over the many centuries since those times. The start of big changes I trace to modifications made by the early Islamic "Arabs" in molding astrological concepts and practices into a sytem along strictly Ptolemiac lines, then continuing with further modifications and eliminations, during the Enlightenment time, through the influences of Jerome Cardan and Kepler and Morin de Villefranche on the Continent, and William Lilly and his successors, in the English speaking world.
