Ye Astrology Quizze: Parte the First - Answer and Parte the Seconde
July 14th, 2006 at 12:47 pm (Miscellaneous Astrology)
Dear Readers,
Here is Thomas’s answer to the first question of ye quizze. We hope you enjoy it and spend some quality time going over his answer. There is much to be learned here! Question Two is here as well, for the impatient.
—Nina AKA GryphonBoth c. and e. are correct.
Now to Mr. X. It is very tempting when assessing temperament to make a list of hot, dry, cold and moist and draw ones conclusion from the qualities that have the most points. But beware! The general condition of the planets must first be considered before a well-founded judgement can be made.
Which planets come into consideration in Mr. X’s chart? We have the Sun, the Moon and Jupiter as Lord 1 plus Sagittarius as ascendant. Saturn and Mars give some colour through aspects made either to the Moon or the Sun.
Five planets in this chart are peregrine, including the Sun. The Moon is in its triplicity. Jupiter is in its term. Both the Moon and Jupiter are in detriment.
The strongest planet in this chart is the Moon (see endnote 1 - Ed.). She is the Lady of the Geniture. But let us go through the reasoning. First this is a night birth and so the Moon has a stronger influence than the Sun. The Moon is also angular and in the first house. Don’t be confused by her being incepted. Inception is not a debility. It just means that Capricorn does not have a cusp. A planet in its triplicity is also strong. Being in detriment means that this Moon is not nice. She is in fact a nasty sort of Moon. So she will not give a well formed body. Mr. X is not handsome.
Although Lord of the first house, Jupiter cannot be Lord of the Geniture. Jupiter is cadent and combust and therefore very weak.
Mercury and Venus are angular but they are both peregrine and so are too weak to be Lord or Lady of the Geniture.
Now we are ready to assess the qualities. The Ascendant is hot and dry Sagittarius. Its ruler Jupiter is in warm and moist Gemini and being oriental has a bit more hot and dry. But Jupiter is also combust so the moisture is being evaporated so to speak. We have hot and dry with some moisture.
The Sun is in warm and moist season sextile to hot and dry Mars in Leo. Mars is occidental so yet drier. We have warm with some moisture but here also a tendency to dryness.The Moon is in cold and dry Capricorn. She is in her third quarter and so is even colder and drier. She is trine to Saturn in cold and dry Taurus. Saturn is occidental and therefore even colder but with a bit of moisture. Saturn receives the Moon in its exaltation as the Moon receives Saturn in its domicile. We have a very cold and dry Moon as Lady of the Geniture, angular and in the first house.
The native is strongly melancholic with some choler a tad of sanguinity.
Who is Mr. X?
He is the cabaretist Karl Valentin (pronounced Fah-len-teen)
Pictures of him may be found at the following link. http://www.karl-valentin.de/
Endnote 1 [by Nina Gryphon, your friendly blog editor]
I am of the opinion that a peregrine planet must always be preferred
to an essentially debilitated one (here, the Moon in detriment). As John Frawley put it, putting a debilitated planet in charge is like “giving the mafia keys to the country.” It’s much better to go for a cadent peregrine planet than an angular malefic. I wouldn’t bring in the idea of receptions as reasons to ignore potentially helpful planets. The point of finding the Lord of the Geniture is to be able to give practical, immediate advice to clients in which direction to go; advising anyone to follow that Moon would clearly be irresponsible.
Mercury is the most practical Lord of the Geniture for Valentin. The conjunction with Venus in a water sign on the Descendant gives him an artistic connection with audiences. Note that Mercury is conjunct the (bright) fixed star Alhena, which brings artistic renown. Yes, it’s in the Moon’s sign, but that’s life - lots of good Lords of the Geniture are in bad planets’ signs. The point is that we aren’t looking for the perfect planet here, but rather the best we can get. An angular Mercury conjunct Venus in the 7th with a good fixed star is not at all a bad thing.
Note also the prenatal eclipse - the eclipse Venus/Merc conjunct the natal Sun, highlighting the importance of the Venus/Merc natal conjunction.
Ye fecunde Questione:
What is moitie and how important is it?
a. Moitie is a fixed star in the constellation of Ophiuchus also known as X Oph. It is of the nature of Mercury and it is described by Ptolemy the younger as dividing in halves so depending on the context it may have some relevance.
b. Moietie is not a what, it is a who. Philippe de Moitie was an astrologer who lived during the reign of Henry IV. His only surviving manuscript, “Oublie les Orbes” (Forget Orbs) has been sadly ignored.
c. Moitie is French for half and refers to the radius of an orb of influence ascribed by many authors to the planets. Each moitie varying from planet to planet. Lilly, for example, gives the Sun a moitie of 15-17, depending on which he remembers. Moitie is actually equivalent to the modern orb which curiously has wandered from the planets to the aspects. Whatever. Both moitie and orbs can be safely ignored as it is more important to consider whether one planet “beholds” another. Planets in the same sign behold one another even if one is in the 1st degree of the sign and the other in the 29th. Planets in two succeeding signs, for example, do not behold one another. So a planet in Aries does not behold one in Taurus. They cannot aspect one another.
d. Moitie is what happens to an aspect when two planets are in signs of long ascension. It means “stretched.” So what usually is a square is in this case a trine. This is important when needed.
Other Related Posts:
Mark said,
October 17th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Hello Nina,
You state the following above: ”Both moitie and orbs can be safely ignored as it is more important to consider whether one planet “beholds” another. Planets in the same sign behold one another even if one is in the 1st degree of the sign and the other in the 29th. Planets in two succeeding signs, for example, do not behold one another. So a planet in Aries does not behold one in Taurus. ”
I assume you have got this idea from John Frawley who you studied with? It sounds like a quote from his Horary Textbook. John is certainly entitled to teach astrology anyway he likes. However, this is unrecognisable from the way astrology was set out by authorities like Lilly. The whole tradition from the time of the Arabs down to Lilly is founded on the use of the planetary orbs through moitie. An approach based on just plactic aspects/perfection is an insult to the work of figures like Bonatti or Lilly. Moreover, we have sources going back as early as Manilius advising astrologers not just to rely on signs but also the specific degrees. There are examples of out of sign aspects in the hellenistic era too ( one by Vettius Valens for example) it just that most people don’t look for them. In any case I would seriously question whether an astrology that abandons orbs from planetary moitie can really be described as fully ‘traditional’.
This approach to aspects advocated by Frawley has recently been heavily criticised by traditional astrologers such as Maurice McCann and Deb Houlding on the Skyscript site. They are not doing that that because they dislike Frawley personally. Rather they are concerned about the effects of his teaching methods are doing to the understanding of traditional astrology in general.
I am not trying to flame you or ‘have a go’ at you personally. Overall I think your site is fantastic. Still, I don’t think such controversial comments can be allowed to go unchallenged.
Mark
gryphonastrology said,
October 17th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Dear Mark,
Thank you very much for visiting my blog and leaving your thoughtful comment. I would be hard-pressed to take your comments personally, since I was not the one who wrote the post, as you will note if you read the post carefully. That said, I do not use moieties much in horary astrology myself, so I may as well respond to the substance of your comment.
First and foremost, my concern is less with what Lilly wrote or didn’t write, and more with practical application of techniques. As I have said in response to similar critiques, I will only repeat that I use astrological methods borne out in practice, and the techniques I use work. Note that I do not question your reference to astrological written authority, but perhaps upon examination we may find that the story is not so straightforward. With Lilly, this is a particularly interesting challenge, as many of the charts he uses as examples in Christian Astrology do not bear out his theoretical descriptions. I cannot think of a horary chart where he uses moieties in any traceable fashion. The fact that he gives different orbs in different portions of his book is a strong hint that his was a rather lax application of the theory.
I must admit I’ve always found the squabbling in the astrological community over petty concerns such as this amusing. My personal concern has been to practice astrology that works. I do not care whether it is modern, traditional, or whether it fell out of the sky from a spaceship manned by little green men. Ultimately, results are what matters, and we would all vastly improve our astrology if we focused our energy on that.
Warmly,
Nina
Mark said,
October 18th, 2006 at 9:49 am
Hello Nina,
So the quote was not yours? My mistake. I am still unclear who was the poster. I must be obtuse.
You state:
‘First and foremost, my concern is less with what Lilly wrote or didn’t write, and more with practical application of techniques.”
”My personal concern has been to practice astrology that works. I do not care whether it is modern, traditional, or whether it fell out of the sky from a spaceship manned by little green men. Ultimately, results are what matters, and we would all vastly improve our astrology if we focused our energy on that.”
I seem to have made another mistake. I assumed from the other comments here that you were a traditional astrologer. However, your approach seems more like a pragmatic eclecticism. If that is the case then we are not in disagreement. I respect different approaches i.e. Uranian, Huber, Cosmo-biology. It just that your approach in most other respects seems fully traditional.
As a traditional astrologer I am very interested in techniques that work too. I have four traditional planets & the ASC/MC in earth. Throughout his life Lilly did thousands and thousands of charts. He saw more clients in a year than many astrologers see in a decade. He survived soley on his astrology work. Do you think he could have done all that with methods that didn’t work?
I am not loathe to people trying out something and then finding out it doesn’t work. However, have you honestly tried out a traditional approach to orbs? Yes Lilly did admit to a bit of human fraily when he confessed he used an orb of 15 or 17 degrees for the Sun when his memory failed him. However, on the whole he was generally consistent in his use of orbs. He was pragmatic in his judgements treating every chart on its own merits. However, he never dispensed with a fundamental technique like planetary orbs. Just to clarify for anyone reading this in traditional astrology it is the planets that have orbs, not the aspect types. Each planet has a different orb. When two planets come into a potential aspect the combined moitie orbs are combined to see if they are ‘beholding’ each other as the ancients stated. Lilly, like every astrologer from the time of the Arabs to 1700 used this approach.
You also claim of Lilly:
‘I cannot think of a horary chart where he uses moieties in any traceable fashion. The fact that he gives different orbs in different portions of his book is a strong hint that his was a rather lax application of the theory.”
I am not loathe to people trying out something and then finding out it doesn’t work. Astrology is not a fundamentalist cult. However, have you honestly tried out a traditional approach to planetary orbs? It doesn’t sound like it to me. Yes Lilly did admit to a bit of human fraily when he confessed he used an orb of 15 or 17 degrees for the Sun when his memory failed him. However, on the whole he was very consistent in his use of orbs.
People who have spent decades actually studying Christian Astrology and working as horary astrologers ( Deborah Houlding and Maurice McCann) certainly would not accept your assumptions here. Like every other astrologer from the time of the Arabs to 1700 Lilly used planetary orbs. You are not just disputing Lilly’s approach. You are disputing the whole tradition prior to 1700. If that is your view fair enough. I just find it frustrating when astrologers describe themselves as ‘traditional’ and depart basic astrological techniques. Perhaps this criticism doesn’t apply to you. If you regard yourself as an astrological Magpie borrowing from a variety of sources thats your choice which noone has a right to question.
You further state:
I must admit I’ve always found the squabbling in the astrological community over petty concerns such as this amusing.
I hope I don’t appear some humourless fundamentalist. However, use of planetary orbs is not a trivial side issue. You might as well describe the aspects or use of houses as a petty issue not worthy of serious discussion.
Mark
gryphonastrology said,
October 19th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
Dear Mark,
I apologize in advance for the brevity of my reply - I can divide my time between discussing theory and practice, and I much prefer the latter.
If you read the post with care, you will note the person who wrote the non-italicized parts of the post is German astrologer Thomas Decker (owner of the wonderful Altair Astrology blog), to whom I refer to early in the post.
And yes, I tried orbs for several years, but they just never added anything to my horary judgments. Natal is another story, though even there I use rather smaller orbs than Lilly recommends.
Forgive me if I seem short here, but my astrological technique (though, oddly enough, not my results) is sometimes critiqued by self-styled “traditionalists” whose actual practical experience is typically revealed as rather limited. Ars longa, vita brevis, Mark, and in closing I would only submit the tradition is not as monolithic as it may seem.
Warmly,
Nina
Andrew Carter said,
October 28th, 2006 at 1:29 am
The arguments advanced by Mark seem reproduced almost verbatim from those of the eponymous Queen Gretchen of the Stars, who writes elsewhere in an almost identical vein, word for word, making the same dismissive, derivative, ad hominem remarks. The notion that a particular approach to astrological interpretation “is an insult to the work of figures like Bonatti or Lilly” or that it “makes a mockery of the efforts of the astrologers of the past” is such callow, fatuous drivel that it hardly merits comment. It seems that it is only within the practise of astrology that such a supercilious attitude is prevalent. Can you for a moment imagine what would happen if artists or engineers or musicians or scientists adopted such an attitude toward their disciplines? This whole debate is ultimately about power, not astrology: who decides what does or does not constitute “traditional” astrology, as if there ever were a monolithic “tradition” to begin with? Who decides who gets to speak on behalf of Bonatti or Lilly? Upon what basis do certain individuals abrogate to themselves the duty to “challenge” the astrological practise of others? Who decides what does or does not constitute legitimate astrological practise: astrologers with advanced degrees from dubious or obscure institutions? And which of the many claimants to the exalted throne of infallible sidereal wisdom is able to offer anything other than unsubstantiated, unverified, anecdotal “evidence” to support their bombastic assertions about the superiority of their skills? To quote Sariputra, “The delusions of sentient beings are indeed hard to remove.” Astrology is a symbolic system, not a belief system. One might legitimately argue that a particular approach is not congruent with, or not representative of, the underlying principles or practices of a very particular, narrowly defined tradition; but any argument beyond this is pure hyperbole: an exercise in infantile one-up-manship at the expense of intellectual integrity.
The intellectual method of these individuals consists of demonizing ideas with which they disagree (such as modernity) at all costs, even if it involves using the tools of modernity to conduct this demonization. It is the classic relativistic method: when a quote or a thinker suits your argument, use him; when a quote or a thinker can be used to assault your opponents, use him. It is intellectual fraud of the first order.
Nina, you have one of the most informative, educational, well-documented, well-written, and well-presented websites on astrology on the internet today — quite possibly the very best. Don’t allow the endless, petty, internecine bickering of the self-proclaimed astrological cognescenti discourage you from pursuing your passion!
gryphonastrology said,
October 28th, 2006 at 11:35 am
Dear Andrew,
You are very kind - God bless your heart. Yes, I am always amazed at people who claim to be channeling the words of the great astrologers. Who gave them the right? Anyway, the people out there who are doing quality, high-level astrology are not the same people going around harassing others. There is simply not enough time in the day. Too, criticism of this sort tells me I must be on the right track.
Thank you again for taking the time to write a well-thought out response. I appreciate it very much.
Warmly,
Nina
Thomas said,
October 29th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Dear Nina and Andrew,
As author of “ye quizze” I can only convey my emphatic accord.
Ye Quizze was intended as a playful look at “traditional” terminology. Humour is the keyword here. The response surprises me. M. Moitie would not be pleased.
warmest regards,
Thomas