"The time has come to modernise the
ancient system of Astrology" said Alan Leo in the first issue of Modern Astrology in
August 1895, "It is our intention in these pages to introduce the science of
astrology in its true aspect...So astrology, or the law which rules life and destiny, will
be presented with renewed life and vigour to an awakening mental and spiritual
world." (1)
One result of this "modernisation" was to redefine the meaning
of the term "orbs". The ancient belief that planets themselves had orbs was
changed completely. Leo stated that it was the aspects, both major and minor, that had the
orbs. This alteration has resulted in a confusion that has persisted throughout all
branches of astrology to the present day.
It is generally understood that the Arab astrologer Al Biruni was the
first to write that the planets had orbs. He stipulated that Saturn and Jupiter had a 9
degree orb. Mars had an 8 degree orb, Mercury and Venus had 7 degrees each, the Sun had a
15 degree orb and the Moon's orb was 12 degrees. These were accepted more or less by
astrologers throughout the astrological world until the end of the 19th century when Leo
decided to revolutionise astrology. (2)
The method for calculating whether two planets were in major aspect was
to add their orbs and divide by two. This was called the moiety of the orbs. Claude Dariot
(1533-1594) the French astrologer, in his book "A Breefe and Most Easie Introduction
to the Astrological Judgement of the Stars" gave the following example regarding the
Moon and Saturn in sextile to each other, "half of the circle of Saturn is 4 degrees
30 minutes, and half of the circle of the Moon is 6 degrees, if then these parts be joined
together, which mount to 10 degrees and 30 minutes, the applications will easily be found.
Likewise must you judge of all other aspects of the planets." It should be understood
that Dariot was only referring to the major aspects and not to the minor ones. (3)
Leo was certainly familiar with the practise of older astrologers in
regard to orbs, people such as Lilly, Gadbury and Partridge, as well as the mid to late
19th century astrologers Simmonite, Zadkiel and A.J.Pearce. In Horary Astrology he
wrote that he had copied the orbs of the planets directly from The Science of the Stars.
(4) Yet in Modern Astrology, dated Oct 1895 two months after his declaration, he published
the third chapter of an article entitled "A Simple method of Instruction in the
Science of Astrology" in which he wrote "you may call 94 degrees a "square
aspect" or 86 degrees; in the former case it will have separated by 4 degrees and the
latter applying to a complete aspect, but four degrees away from it". Later he wrote,
"A conjunction is the position of two planets that are within five degrees of each
other." (5)
He made further changes in 1909 in his book "Horary Astrology"
when he wrote, "When two planets are approaching conjunction or opposition, add the
orbs of the two together and then take half the sum; this will give the distance at which
the two planets will begin to influence one another. Thus the influence of Moon conjunct
Venus commences while they are yet 10 degrees apart, 10 being 12 plus 8 divided by
2".
"For square and trine allow 3/4 of above orbs, for sextile,
semi-square and sesquiquadrate, ½ only". (6)
He neglected to mention the semi-sextile and quincunx and the supposed
orbs that were to be allocated to them.
The obvious point about Leo's approach to orbs was his inconsistency. He
continually changed the number of degrees for the orbs of aspects. In the library of the
Astrological Lodge of London at the Astrology Study Centre there are two type - written
volumes, undated, containing Alan Leo's Astrological Lessons. The lesson concerning orbs
shows once again that he was uncertain as to how to calculate them. "For conjunction
and opposition allow 12 degrees when the Sun aspects the Moon; 10 degrees when the Sun or
Moon aspects a planet; and about 8 degrees when two planets aspect each other.
For square and trine allow 8 degrees all round; for sextile 7 degrees;
for sesquiquadrate and semi-square about 3 degrees. For the weaker aspects only allow 2
degrees. For the parallel not more than 1 degree." (7)
Furthermore, in Casting the Horoscope published in 1912, he wrote that
the major aspects had an orb of 5 to 7 degrees and all others not more than 2 to 3
degrees. He thought that "the conjunction and opposition may be considered, in the
case of the Sun, when within 12 degrees. If planets are further from aspect than this it
is advisable to regard them as "applying to" or "separating from" an
aspect, rather than as being actually in aspect". (8)
It is evident from the above that he had been in some confusion for a
number of years as to exactly which degrees to assign to the orbs of aspects. Yet this
confusion is undetectable in his work as he writes with apparent confidence when stating
the number of degrees for each aspect, discarding one set of orbs after another as time
went by.
Somehow, Leo managed to persuade Raphael (9) and Sepharial (10) that his
"orbs of aspects" concept was worthy of endorsement since variations of it
appeared later in their writings. Still, they had their own views on the matter and it was
a number of years before Raphael abandoned the traditional method outlined in his book
Horary Astrology. He had presented the traditional method of determining the orbs between
two planets while adding Uranus, but omitting Neptune. "Uranus is 8, Saturn is 8,
Jupiter 10, Mars 8, the Sun 17, Venus 8, Mercury 8, the Moon 12...Suppose the Sun is
approaching the conjunction of Mars, you add their two orbs together, which is 25, and
divide by two which is 12 and a half; therefore, when the Sun gets within 12 and a half
degrees of Mars, the effects of the Sun conjunct Mars commence. It is the same with the
other planets."
He did not explain specifically why he had decided to allocate 8 degrees
to Uranus as opposed to any other number of degrees. (11)
In Raphael's book The Key and Guide to Astrology, where the Preface was
signed by one Edwin Raphael [sic], he had abandoned the foregoing method and accepted
Leo's theory while adding a few additions of his own. "The orbs of Uranus, Saturn,
Jupiter, Mars, Venus and Mercury, when applying are about 6 degrees, and when separating
from an aspect, they may be reckoned as 8 degrees.
The Sun and Moon have larger orbs. You may reckon the Sun when applying
as 12 degrees and when separating as 17 degrees; and the Moon 8 degrees when applying and
12 degrees when separating from an aspect. These orbs apply only to the following aspects
viz., the conjunction, sextile, square, trine and opposition.
The minor aspects viz., the semi-sextile, quintile and bi-quintile I
consider only when the planets are within 2 degrees applying, and 3 degrees separating.
The semi-square, and sesquiquadrate are to be reckoned 3 degrees when
applying, and 4 degrees when separating, that is, with the planets; the Sun and Moon may
be allowed an extra 1 degree.
With respect to the parallel, I do not allow more than 2 degrees either
way." (12)
It would appear therefore that Raphael was the first to suggest that
applying and separating aspects could have different orbs, and that separating aspects are
more powerful than applying ones.
Sepharial wrote that "Planets are called "in aspect" to
one another when, at birth, they are found to be within 5 degrees of any of the distances
indicated in the list of aspects". (13)
In his book Elementary Astrology, undated, he gave the following orbs
for the planets. "The Sun, 15 degrees, the Moon 12, Jupiter, 10, Saturn, 9, Venus 8,
Mars 7 and Mercury, Uranus and Neptune, 5 degrees each". (14)
It would seem therefore that Sepharial as well as Raphael had succumbed
to Leo's influence and adopted the theory that aspects had orbs, and even though he was
familiar with the traditional method, he eventually rejected it.
CONCLUSION
Leo's influence concerning the orbs of aspects has been a powerful one
which has spread throughout western astrology. He never at any time gave a clear
explanation as to how he had arrived at this concept or how it really worked, since he
continually changed and never settled on one set of orbs for the aspects.
The modern practise of tightening the orbs is well meaning but mistaken,
since it is thought that narrower orbs will pinpoint the aspects more accurately. This
practice tends to remove important aspects simply because their orbs are considered to be
too wide by modern standards. Yet these so-called wider aspects which were used by
astrologers for a thousand years before the end of the 19th century, would clarify the
natal horoscope much more if they were included. Only by using the orbs of planets as
specified by Al Biruni and others throughout history can the meaning of the horoscope and
its potential become more accessible.
There is a strong case for recommending that Irish astrologers, as well
as those of other countries, make an in-depth study of their own astrological history in
order to avoid any confusing influences from outside. To discover their own truths for
themselves and cease to rely unthinkingly on the unfounded opinions of others. Eventually
discovering that there is a common golden thread going through all of our histories,
assisting everyone to seek the truth.
This article was written to demonstrate that the so-called modernisation
of astrology undertaken in regard to orbs by Alan Leo, was ill conceived and inaccurate.
Having shown through the history of these changes that confusion now reigns in this area
of astrology, isn't it now time to revert to the correct and fitting method of designating
orbs to planets, and to banish the illusion that aspects have orbs of influence?
References
(1) Modern Astrology, August 1895 The Introduction and pages 23 - 4.
(2) The Book of Instruction in the Elements of the Art of Astrology, by
Al Biruni, written in 1029 AD, published by Luzac & Co. 46 Great Russell St., 1934.
(p.255.) This book can be obtained by writing to Deborah Houlding at Ascella Publications,
3 Avondale Bungalows, Sherwood Hall Road, Mansfield, Notts., NG18 2NJ.
(3) A Breefe and Most easie Introduction to the Astrologicall judgement
of the Starres by Claude Dariot, translated by Fabian Wither, 1583? (The British Library
catalogue questions the publication date). Available from Ascella Publications.
(4) Horary Astrology, by Alan Leo, published by L.N.Fowler & Co. 7,
Imperial Arcade, Ludgate Circus, E.C. 1909.
(5) Modern Astrology, Oct 1895, pp 60-1.
(6) Horary Astrology.
(7) Astrological Lodge of London Library, 396 Caledonian Road, London N1
1DN.
(8) Casting the Horoscope, by Alan Leo, published by "Modern
Astrology" Office, Imperial Buildings, Ludgate Circus, London. 1912.
(9) Confusion of Prophets, by Patrick Curry, published by Collins and
Brown, London 1992. Robert T. Cross, was the sixth and last known Raphael from 1876 -
1923.
(10) ibid. page 126. Sepharial was born Walter Richard Old on 20th March
1864 at about 1.30am at Richmond House in Handsworth, Birmingham, England.
(11) Horary Astrology, by Raphael, published W. Foulsham & Co. 4
Pilgrim Street, Ludgate Hill, London. 1897. page 4.
(12) The Key and Guide to Astrology, by Raphael, published by W.Foulsham
& Co.
Yeovil Road, Slough, Bucks., England. The Preface is dated Christmas,
1905. According to the copy in the library at the Astrology Study Centre it was published
in 1926. (13) The Manual of Astrology, by Sepharial, The preface was dated 1898, London.
Later it was re-published by Foulsham in 1962 with several alterations made to the
original. In the preface Sepharial mentioned the discovery of Pluto in 1930, yet Patrick
Curry reports in A Confusion of Prophets that he died on 23rd December 1929!
(14) Elementary Astrology, by Sepharial, published by W. Foulsham &
Co. London. 1929. page 25. This was a re-issue of Astrology Simplified first published in
1921.
(Originally published in Réalta. Vol 1 no.3.
August 1994. The Journal of the Irish Astrological Association)
©
Maurice McCann 1994.
A number of years later a friend presented me with further evidence that
Alan Leo had been discussing the orbs of aspects as early as March 1892. Here is
what he wrote:
"The following are the orbs of the planets, as given by Pearce in the Science of
the Stars. The Sun 17, Moon 12, Mercury 7, Venus 8, Mars 7, Jupiter 12, Saturn 9, Uranus
5, Neptune probably about 5. When two planets are approaching conjunction or opposition,
add the orbs of the two together, and then take half the sum. This will give the distance
at which the two planets will begin to influence one another. For instance, if the Moon is
approaching the conjunction of Venus, as soon as the two are within ten degrees of each
other, the influence of the conjunction will commence.
There are many astrologers who express themselves as dissatisfied with these orbs, and
advocate a uniform distance of about five degrees for each planet. I do not profess to
know for certain where the truth lies, but my opinion is that the orbs vary considerably
for each aspect. The strongest aspects are undoubtedly the conjunction and opposition, and
here, I think, the orbs which are given above are not much too large; but the margin of
distance must be diminished for all the other aspects according to their strength.
For the square and trine, I would allow about three-quarters of the usual orb.
For the sextile, semi-square, and sesquiquadrate, I would allow from one half to
two-thirds the orb.
The remaining aspects, semi-sextile, quintile, bi-quintile, and those others which are
doubtful, I think, have no influence unless they are within one degree of being exact.
Some such arrangement as this appears to me to be more in accordance with reason than
the rule of allowing a fixed orb, long or short, for every aspect, whether strong or weak,
indifferently.
In addition to these considerations, it must not be forgotten that the nearer an aspect
is to being exact, the stronger it is. For instance, an opposition or conjunction which is
only just within orbs is probably of less importance than a square or trine which is exact
in measurement; although the first two aspects are, speaking generally, stronger than the
last two; and a semi-square or sextile which is exact has probably greater strength than a
square or a trine, which is only just within orbs. The remaining aspects are not worthy of
consideration unless they are exact.
Therefore, when considering a horoscope, let the student pay most attention to those
aspects that happen to be exact in measurement, for it is tolerably certain that these
will be prominent in the life history.
I think that two planets which happen to be in the same sign of the zodiac have some
slight significance on this account, whether they are in conjunction or not.
There is doubtless much yet to learn respecting the precise signification of the
different aspects, and why one is good and another evil.
Alan Leo writing in The Astro1ogers'
Magazine of March 1892.
Republished in Considerations Vol XIV, No
1. Feb – April 1999.
Return to Articles
Return to Home page