An important point of discussion
in present-day astrology is the question of transgressional aspects:
- Do
aspects have any value when they pass the border of two signs?
- If a planet is positioned
in 28 Leo, is it conjunct to a planet in 1 Virgo, and is this
position sextile to a planet in 1 Scorpio
?
Actual Point: are aspects to be seen as distances in signs or as
distances in degrees ? If in signs, it is logical to deny the conjunction
and the sextile mentioned above. If in degrees, there is nothing wrong
what so ever with transgressional aspects.
For the sign-fans however there
is at least one trap: if you use
broken aspects, that are not a number of whole signs (30 degrees),
you get into trouble. For example, what is the nature of the semi-square,
45 degrees?
It is often stated that one
can recognize the nature of an aspect by measuring it from 0 Aries.
For example the trine,
120 degrees, is measured from 0 Aries to 0 Leo, is from fire to
fire, is “good”. The square, 90 degrees, is from 0 Aries
to 0 Cancer, is from fire to water is bad etc. This way, the semi-square
is from 0 Aries to 15 Taurus, is from fire to earth, is bad. This
seems quite logical, but what if the semi-square is from the middle
of Aries to the beginning of Gemini, f.e. from 14.50 Aries to 0.10
Gemini? The perplexing answer I once got on this question 1) was:
in such a case the semi-square is a far more benevolent aspect,
since
now it is from fire to air.
Imagine this: a semi-square from 15.05 Aries
to 29.55 Taurus (fire to earth) is principally bad, but if the second
planet is positioned
in 0.05 Gemini, just 10 minutes of arc further on, the very same
aspect, only having become exact, also has changed its character
from bad
to good. Isn’t this unbelievable? It is amazing!
What about the sesquiquadrate, 135 degrees? It is reckoned from 0
Aries to 15 Leo, is from fire to fire, so it should be good but is
almost universally considered bad.
The same for the quintile, 72 degrees, from 0 Aries to 12 Gemini,
fire to air, is good, but its supplement, the tredecile (108 degrees,
a powerful aspect) is from 0 Aries to 18 Cancer, from fire to water,
should be bad while it is principally as benevolent as the quintile.
- If you reject transgressional
aspects this is your good right. But then don’t use the broken
aspects or you will get into serious troubles!
The Angelman on the other side
is far too clever to meet upon such difficulties: he uses only the traditional Ptolemaic ‘whole’ aspects
and thinks he therefore faces no theoretical problem at all. (Frawley,
p. 81-90). But does he?
It is unclear why, if one reckons with
aspects based on signs, one should use orbs. If one planet is placed
in 5 Aries, and the natural
basis for the trine is the nature of the sign, in this case fire,
then why should this planet not be in a trine to another planet
in 29 Leo? The natural orb therefore would be the edge of the signs
(in
Hindu-astrology aspects indeed are measured thus). But even Frawley
does not agree with this, so he too has to handle with what is
in fact an inconsistent system. Simply stated: if it is the nature
of
the sign that counts, then what is the use of an orb?
Far easier (and quite in agreement with both logic and everyday astrological
practice) it is to apply the broken aspects of 45, 135, 72 and 108
degrees and to accept transgressional aspects. A classical example
is the following case:
In 1939, many British
astrologers failed to see that year Britain was to come into war
with Germany. For C.E.O. Carter,
this was the
reason to write a study on the subject of mundane astrology in
order to evaluate its several techniques. When we consider now
the horoscope
of the 1939 solar ingress into 0 Aries for Britain’s capital,
a standard technique in mundane astrology, the first thing that
strikes the eye is Pluto’s (29 Cancer 19’29’’)
quite narrow conjunction to the ascendant in 0 Leo 31, although it
is
a transgressional aspect:
Pluto’s nature had not yet completely been
determined at the time, so we can’t blame our then colleagues.
Analyzing this aspect now, this indication together with the square
from the sun to Mars, would be sufficient to draw the conclusion
of war.
We may also take the horoscope of the murdered Dutch politician Pim
Fortuyn as an example:
Here we see the sun in 29.13 Aquarius and Mercury in 1.39 Pisces,
both are in their detriment. Are we to really believe that,
a. only the sun’s opposition
to Mars in Leo in ten is valid, and not the opposition Mars - Mercury,
ruler
of eight?
b. only Mercury’s square to cusp eight is valid, and not the
sun’s square to this cusp, neither Mars’ one?
c. most bewildering: the sun in its detriment is not conjunct to
Mercury in its detriment?
In Hitler’s
horoscope (see
my ‘Primary Directions’ article)
we find the moon and Jupiter conjunct in Capricorn, the only
sign where both are badly positioned. Any planet in its detriment
or fall
is a malefic (see Morin’s Astrologia Gallica, ch. 21) and
of course their being conjunct makes their positions even far
worse since
they are both badly positioned and badly influence each other.
There is no sign however where both the sun and Mercury are badly
positioned,
so what we find in Pim’s horoscope is what we might almost
call an ingenious trick by the stars to make these two planets
stand both conjunct and both in their detriment. There is no
other place
in the
zodiac where this is possible. Therefore, we simply have to accept
this technical conjunction as an astrologically significant conjunction
and not as a meaningless coincidence.
What we see in this horoscope is of course
a most powerful opposition from Mars in ten to its ruler the sun and
to Mercury, ruler of eight, standing together in their detriment,
all three planets standing in a square to cusp eight and in a semisquare/sesquiquadrate
to cusp 12 (the traditional secret enemies). Even the opposition of
Neptune, natural ruler of twelfth, and its ruler Venus, actual ruler
of twelve, also partakes in this configuration. Neptune is exactly
semi-square to Mars and therefore by translation of light sesquiquadrate
to cusp eight and to sun-Mercury. Venus in its turn is opposite to
Neptune and although its orb is significantly wider, by translation
of light this too partakes in the aspects to Mars, the sun, Mercury
cusp eight and cusp twelve. A most impressive configuration in a most
impressive horoscope.
CONCLUSION
Returning to our subject: for those who do
not accept transgressional aspects, all depends on the “natural” link between signs
of the same element (‘fire to fire is good’) and the “natural” enmity
between signs of the same quality (‘cardinal to cardinal is
bad’). This I have never understood. Why should signs within
the same element (fire, earth, air, water) be friendly to each other
and signs of the same quality (cardinal, fixed, mutable) be inimical?
It will have
become clear now that here we have a classical example of a circular
argument: if we suppose an aspect of 90 degrees, or
rather three signs, is bad and should, without transgression, always
be calculated between signs of the same quality, then it seems logical
that such signs are inimical to each other. Therefore, it is clear
on its turn that a square should always be measured within signs
of the same quality. In the same way, signs that have their starting
points 120 degrees from each other, as fire to fire, would seem to
be principally related. Thanks to the broken aspects, discovered
by Kepler, we now know that fire to water (108 degrees, cardinal
to cardinal) can be principally good, just as fire to fire (135 degrees,
cardinal to fixed) can be principally bad.
This makes possible
a variety of interpretations that otherwise would be unthinkable.
If you are a sign-ist, you
would have to interpret
any aspect from a fixed sign to a fixed sign in terms of a square,
i.e. unfavourably, like ‘stubborn, headstrong’. A degree-ist
however would use such an interpretation only in case of a real square,
say from 15 Taurus to 15 Leo. If the aspect, between the same signs,
is a tredecile from 5 Taurus to 23 Leo, he might use a positive description
like ‘loyal, reliable’.
Thus using transgressional
aspects can be said to not only make your astrology more consistent
but also
to enrich it considerably.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS::
Theoretically speaking,
one might defend the vision that transgressional aspects do not
have any value. But then, in order to have a consistent
theory, one:
- should not use
any broken aspects, only the conjunction and the four traditional
Ptolemaic
aspects
- should count aspects
from sign to sign, not using any orb at all.
1) Karen Hamaker Zondag, personal communication
Reference:
* Carter, C.E.O. :
An Introduction to Political Astrology, reprinted in Mundane Astrology,
Astrology Classics Publishing, Abingdon 2004.
* Frawley, John : The Real Astrology,
London 2001
|