You are on page 1of 5

Orbs and Aspects in Traditional Astrology

by
Todd Carnes

Orbs, or as I like to call them, orbits of influence, are a way of indicating the
relative strength of a planet. You can think of it as a circle surrounding each
planet or the "spread" of the planet's beam/ray as it reaches across the
chart to form the various aspects. Anything inside the circle can be touched
by the planet's beams/rays and be seen/influenced by the planet. Anything
outside the circle cannot. The semi-diameter is simply half of the orb i.e.
the radius of the circle.
Different authors give slightly different values for the semi-diameter of the
planets (Lilly himself gives 2 slightly different sets of numbers). For this
discussion, I will use Richard Saunders' numbers, which only vary ever so
slightly from our dear Mr. Lilly.
Saunders gives us the following values for the semi-diameters of the
planets:
Saturn () = 9
Jupiter () = 9
Mars () = 8
Venus () = 7
Mercury () = 6
Moon () = 12
Sun () = 15
In traditional astrology (i.e. 17th century astrology) we use 5 basic aspects
conjunctions (), sextiles (), squares () (or quartiles), trines () and
oppositions (). (Technically, conjunctions are not truly aspects, but
everyone treats them as such for simplicity's sake.) These aspects are 0,
60, 90, 120 and 180 of separation between planets respectively. The
aspects are EXACTLY these numbers not more, not less. (We'll return to
this point in a little bit.)
The nature of the aspects are as follows:
conjunction = good with the good, and evil with the evil
sextile = imperfect friendship

square = imperfect enmity


trine = perfect friendship
opposition = perfect hostility / open defiance
There are basically two methods of dealing with aspects in traditional
astrology. The first (I'll call it the Saunders method) is very good for medical
astrology, but can become a real pain, if the planets are involved in any kind
of retrograde motion or stationing. Also, it's not really suitable for day-today chart work like horaries, elections, etc.
Now, what a lot of people don't know. According to Saunders, there are four
different types of each of the above aspects seven, if you include the
conditions of applying and separating.
From most "perfect" to least, they are...
1) Aspectus Corporalis this is when two planets respect, or behold, each
other to the exact degree and minute. For example, if the Moon was at 15
Ari 00 and Mars was at 15 Can 00, they would be involved in a corporal
square. This is the most perfect aspect, because it happens when two
planets behold each other bodily (corporally) without respect to their beams.
It's affects are the strongest and are felt immediately.
2) Partile Aspects This is when both planets are separated from each
other so that, while not exact, each planet lies inside the semi-diameter of
the other. For example, with Moon at 07Ar00 and Mars at 15Can00, they
would be in a partile square. Mars would be well within the Moon's semidiameter of 12, but the Moon will have only just moved into Mars' semidiameter of 8. In this case, both planets can see and affect each other. A
partile aspect is considered to be just as strong as a corporal aspect, but
since the aspect is not exact, it takes time for its effects to be felt. In this
case, the Moon needs to travel 8 more degrees before the aspect perfects.
So, we would judge that the effects of the square will take 8 units of time,
before they are felt by the native. (How we choose those units of time is
beyond the scope of the current discussion.)
3) Monographic Aspects This is when only one planet is bodily within the
semi-diameter of the other. In this case, the beams of both planets are
intermingled, thus they are aware of each other and behold each other, but
only one planet has the power to act. This type of aspect is not as
strong/forceful as the first two. For example, with the Moon at 03Ari00 and
Mars at 15Can00, the Moon can behold (and begin to affect) Mars, because
Mars is just at the Moon's semi-diameter of 12, but Mars' semi-diameter is
only 8, so Mars cannot see or affect the Moon yet. In other words, it's like

the Moon is sneaking up on Mars. Mars has that tingling feeling you get in
the middle of your back when you sense someone is staring at you from afar.
Yet, when he turns to see who's there, he doesn't see anyone.
4) Platick Aspects These are the weakest aspects. In this case, neither
planet lies within the semi-diameter of the other, yet their beams still touch
each other. Each knows the other is near, but neither can really do much to
affect the other. For example, Moon at 25Pis00 and Mars at 15Can00 will
result in the very outer reaches of each planet's semi-diameter just barely
touching each other. This is the weakest of the aspects.
In summary, the sequence of events for a "Saunders" aspect (barring any
retrograde motion) would be as follows:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)

Applying Platick
Applying Monographic
Applying Partile
Corporal
Separating Partile
Separating Monographic
Separating Platick

While I've had good success with this method on medical charts, it really is
too involved for general use. That's where the second method, moiety,
comes in. I believe the erroneous practice by modern astrologers to assign
"orbs" to the aspects, instead to the planets where they rightfully belong,
derives from a lack of understanding of moiety.
First, I should point out that our terminology changes a bit when we use
moiety. There are only two kinds of aspects when you are using moiety
partile and platick.
Lilly tells us...
There is also a Partill or Platick aspect: Partill aspect is when two Planets
are exactly so many degrees from each other as make a perfect aspect: as if
Mercury be in nine degrees of Aries, and Jupiter in nine degrees of Leo, this
is a Partill Trine aspect: So Sun in one degree of Taurus, and Moon in one
degree of Cancer, make a Partill Sextile, and this is a strong signe or
argument for performance of any thing, or that the matter is neer hand
concluded when the aspect is so partill, and signifies good; and its as much
a sign of present evill when mischief is threatened.
Later he says...

A Platick Aspect is that which admits of the Orbs or Rayes of two Planets
that signifie any matter: As if Venus be in the tenth degree of Taurus, and
Saturn in eighteen degrees of Virgo, here Venus hath a Platick Trine, or is in
a Platick Trine of Saturn, because she is within the Moity of both their Orbs;
for the Moity of Saturn his Rayes or Orbs is five, and of Venus 4, and the
distance betwixt them and their perfect aspect is eight degrees
I interpret Lilly's word's when two Planets are exactly so many degrees
from each other as make a perfect aspect to mean that when we are using
moiety we call exact aspects partile (i.e. Lilly's partile aspects = Saunder's
corporal aspects). Some people claim partile aspects are aspects that are
within 1 degree of being exact. You can decide for yourself what Lilly meant.
If they are within moiety, but are not partile, we call them platick.
Be careful not to confuse Saunder's terminology with Lilly's. Saunders is
specifically addressing decumbiture charts and he is not using moiety.
That being said...
Saunders' book came after Lilly's, but Lilly knew (and agreed with) Dr.
Saunders. In fact, in Lilly's introduction to Saunders' work, Lilly has this to
say about Dr. Saunders...
"...I hope therefore this most elaborate Work of my Old Friend, may instead
be accepted, in which I find he has (to his great commendation) taken much
pains to good purpose, and in every Branch thereof is very copious, and no
less perspicuous, both in the Theory and in the Practick part (which hitherto
has been neglected by most Authors that have undertaken this task in the
English Tongue) so that I may, without the least partiality, affirm the Work
to be the most compleat and perfect of any of the Subject I have hitherto
seen or read..."
Lilly goes on and on like that for pages, even going so far as to say Saunders
had written the book he wished that he (Lilly) had written.
Also, if you think about it, there is no real conflict in the two methods... just
an unfortunate (in my opinion) choice of words on Lilly's part.
Todays traditional astrologers need to remember that Lilly was not infallible.
[ed note: Todd is quite correct in this, in fact, that was why he always made
it a point, no matter how famous he was to always refer to himself as
student of art rather than the master.]

Using moiety is a much easier process. You simply average the semidiameter of the two planets together and use the average, or moiety, to
determine if they are in aspect.
To continue our example...
The Moon's semi-diameter is 12 and Mars has a semi-diameter of 8. So
the moiety of any Moon/Mars aspect will be 10. Moiety has the advantage
of still taking into account the varying strengths of different planets, while
being a lot easier to work with. For example, while the Moon and Mars may
be in, what Saunders would call, a platick aspect when they're 20 apart, the
effect is liable to be so subtle so as to go unnoticed. However, by the time
they are within moiety, they're guaranteed to be close enough to notice each
other and be felt. In fact, if within moiety, they have to be in at least a
monographic aspect.
So, when using moiety, you end up with the following series of aspects...
1) Applying platick
2) Partile
3) Separating platick
This post has grown quite long, so I'll close hoping that anyone who has read
this far now understands why it's wrong to assign "orbs" to aspects. Doing
so treats all squares the same, all trines the same, etc. and totally ignores
the strengths and weaknesses of the individual planets.

You might also like