Some
Comments on Bonatti's Liber Astronomiae Part III
Published by Project
Hindsight Latin Track Vol. XI.
In this article I shall
concentrate only on those sections of the book dealing with horary rules, with comments on
the orbs of the planets and minor aspects.
Introduction
p.ii.
Aspects,
Applications and Separations with Special Reference
to the Verb Iungo
Before deciding that two planets are in minor
aspect wouldn't it be wiser for astrologers to check first whether they are:
1. In parallels of declination.
2. In each others' antiscia.
3. Involved in a translation of light.
4. Involved in a collection of light.
Most astrologers mistakenly ignore or do not use
parallels of declination, and as for antiscia, translation and collection of light, only
those with some experience of horary or what has become known as traditional astrology,
will have heard of them. Yet, at first sight what appears to be a minor aspect in
operation may in fact be attributable to one of these four techniques.
The overlapping of major and minor aspects does
appear to be due to the fact that "the aspect orbs would overlap, causing many
angular separations to be assignable to two different aspects, and making it very unlikely
that 2 planets would not be in some kind of aspectual relation."
At one stage I tried drawing a table showing this
overlapping but could not succeed in explaining every aspect. Nevertheless, if such an
overlapping did occur then the major aspect would surely take precedence over the minor.
This overlapping can be explained more clearly by one or other of what have been called
horary rules but which should be more properly renamed cosmic laws. (1)
In "Vade Mecum" Partridge clearly gives
12 degrees for the orb of the Moon. I suspect that your source contains a misprint. As you
know many misprints occurred in 17th century English publications. (2)
The belief that the closer the orb between two
planets the more intense the aspect does not concur with my experience in horary
astrology. Positive answers to questions will occur as long as the significators are
within the moiety of orbs whether near or far apart. For instance, if the significators
were the Sun and Moon, with the Moon applying to the Sun within 14 degrees 30 minutes,
they would be within a major aspect and a positive answer would result. It would make no
difference if they were 1 degree or 14 and a half degrees apart, the result would still be
the same. The important thing being that the significators are within the moiety of their
orbs. Tightening the orbs will result in losing many important aspects that would reveal
deeper insights into a person's character and psychological makeup in a natal chart. This
belief is further undermined by the fact that the planets like to group together in threes
whether the moiety of orbs between them is wide or narrow, or as in the case of
translation and collection where no aspect may occur at all between two out of the three.
It should also be noted that the moiety of orbs
of the planets apply to parallels of declination and the antiscia exactly the same as in
major aspects. The belief that parallels are allowed one and a half degrees and the
antiscia one degree does not make sense. There is no logical reason as to why divisions
should be made between planetary orbs in major aspects, parallels or antiscia, their orbs
are all the same.
Applying and separating aspects.
It is generally accepted in horary that when two
planets acting as significators have separated by 6 minutes, the moment has passed and a
future prediction cannot be made. (3) If this technique is carried over into other forms
of astrology then separating aspects will continue to have no value. Moreover, once a fast
moving planet A has separated by major aspect from a slower planet B and does not apply
within the moiety of orbs of any other planet, it is void of course. In this sense a
separating aspect truly has no value. On the other hand, if the separating planet A next
applies within the moiety of orbs to planet C it will translate B to C bringing them
together as if in major aspect so that a separating aspect is no longer valueless but very
effective indeed!
Chapter XI. Page 78.
Concerning the
Transfer of the Nature of the Planets
In my experience there is no need for one planet
to be in the dignities of another in translation of light. Translation can be successful
without any of the planets being in their own or each others' dignities, therefore the
philosophers that Bonatti refers to were, in my opinion, correct. Since this is one of the
most common of horary rules it can be easily tested, translation with dignities or
translation without dignities.
Yet if we take this rule quite literally, as
Bonatti says "...when a swift planet is separated from a ponderous planet and is
joined to another (either more or less ponderous planet than itself), it transfers the
nature of the first [more ponderous planet] to the second."
This explains the problem of the Moon or any
other swift planet, applying only by major aspect to Pluto, co-ruler of Scorpio. Pluto is
unable to act as a main significator in horary astrology, therefore normally unable to
produce positive answers. On rare occasions where Scorpio has been on the cusp of the
house of the quesited, positive answers have resulted when the Moon's only aspect was to
Pluto in Scorpio. The reason for this has been that the Moon having separated by major
aspect from Mars the main ruler of Scorpio and transferred its nature to Pluto the
co-ruler of Scorpio, has translated the light of the ruler to the co-ruler. The same rule
will apply when Aquarius or Pisces is on the cusp of the quesited's house and the Moon or
another swift planet has separated from Saturn and applies to Uranus, also from Jupiter to
Neptune.
Note: This was one idea that I held.
Today, 16th April 1998, I cannot support this idea without further evidence or
research.
Bonatti's first example where the Moon at 5
Taurus has separated by conjunction from Venus at 4 Taurus and next applies by conjunction
to Mars at 6 Taurus, is a good example of one version of translation of light. Here Venus
applies by conjunction to Mars but has not yet perfected the aspect in the ephemeris. The
Moon's action helps to accomplish this before the perfection date.
In his second example, Bonatti states that
Mercury at 11 Pisces has just separated from Venus at 10 Pisces and then applies to the
Sun at 12 Pisces, and that The Sun is then joined to Mars at 14 Pisces. According to
Bonatti this means that "Mercury transfers the nature of Venus to the Sun, and the
Sun transfers it to Mars".
It would be better to say that there are two
translations in this example. First, Mercury translates Venus to the Sun and secondly,
Mercury translates Venus to Mars. In fact it is truer to say that the Sun is not joined to
Mars at all as Mercury can prohibit this conjunction by first conjuncting the Sun, then
Mars, before the Sun perfects its conjunction with Mars.
His third example is intriguing and seems to be
one of Bonatti's own inventions as I have not yet discovered any other authority who has
written about it or anything similar.
"Mercury was separated from Venus from the
10th degree of Pisces (or any other degree), and after the separation from Venus, he is
joined to the Sun and Mars in the 12th degree of that same Pisces (or any other degree),
and they themselves are joined to Jupiter in the 13th degree of that same Pisces (or any
other degree), but Jupiter is joined to no other planet, at this time Jupiter transfers
the light of Venus to that location of the circle which Jupiter himself aspects, to wit,
the 13th degree of Taurus by sextile aspect before him, to the 13th degree of Gemini by
square aspect, to the 13th degree of Cancer by trine aspect, and to the 13th degree of
Capricorn by sextile aspect backwards, to the 13th degree of Sagittarius by square aspect,
and to the 13th degree of Scorpio by trine aspect."
According to Bonatti Jupiter is joined to no
other planet but can aspect the 13th degree of other signs in major aspects to it, except
for the opposition which may be an oversight on Bonatti's part. Since Jupiter is joined to
no other planet it must be void of course, therefore how could it transfer Venus to these
degree areas?
In this example the following rules are in
operation:
1. Mercury separates by conjunction with Venus
and translates Venus by conjunction to the Sun.
2. Mercury separates by conjunction with Venus
and translates Venus by conjunction to Mars.
3. Mercury separates by conjunction with Venus
and translates Venus by conjunction to Jupiter.
4. Mercury can prohibit the Sun from perfecting
its conjunction with Jupiter.
5. Mercury can prohibit Mars from perfecting its
conjunction with Jupiter.
6. The Sun can prohibit Mars from perfecting its
conjunction with Jupiter.
7. Or, if the Sun had already separated from Mars
and Bonatti does not make this clear, it could then translate Mars to Jupiter by
conjunction.
Chapter XII p.80.
Concerning the
Return of the Light
of the Planets and
its Abscission.
Bonatti's example does not make sense.
Nevertheless, if we do accept it, then under closer scrutiny a number of flaws appear.
For instance, Jupiter cannot possibly cut of the
light of the Sun square Saturn as the Sun will perfect its square within 6 days, while
Jupiter could take perhaps a month before perfecting its trine with Saturn.
Another reason why Jupiter cannot cut the light
of the Sun is because this combination is a classical example of collection of light. The
Sun and Jupiter are not in major aspect with each other but each applies to a heavier and
slower planet than themselves at a later degree. Saturn acting like a transmittor collects
the light of the Sun and Jupiter bringing them together as if in major aspect.
If the Sun and Saturn were significators then the
Sun square Saturn would be a straightforward perfection and no problem would exist.
If Jupiter and Saturn were significators then the
Sun would cut off the light by squaring Saturn before Jupiter could perfect.
One answer to this problem would be if he had
used Mercury at 15 degrees Gemini instead of Jupiter. It is highly probable that Mercury
at normal speed would perfect its trine to Saturn causing abscission of light to the Sun
before it, the Sun, could square Saturn.
I don't see how return of light can destroy a
question. Bonatti says "...because Saturn gives back light to the Sun because it has
already begun to receive [the light] from the Sun, and it receives the light of Jupiter...
which is nearer to it, since it is in the 15th degree of the sign in which it is, and the
Sun is only in the 12th degree of the sign in which it is. In this way a matter about
which a question has been made or about which one has hope can be destroyed".
In this example he is clearly describing a
collection of light.
Chapter XIII p.81.
Concerning the
Prohibition of Conjunction
and Why Sometimes
Matters are not Perfected.
"The Sun was in the 10th degree of Capricorn
and Mars was in the 14th degree of that same Capricorn, and Jupiter was in the 16th degree
of the same sign; now the Sun was seeking to be joined to Jupiter, but Mars, which was
between them, to wit, nearer to Jupiter than the Sun, prohibited so that the Sun was not
joined to Jupiter, and Mars himself was joined to Jupiter.
This is one good example of prohibition for as he
says Mars perfected its conjunction with Jupiter before the Sun perfected with Mars and
Jupiter.
In my opinion and experience his next example is
questionable. He says that "Venus was in the 4th degree of Aries and Mars in the 9th
degree of that same Aries, and the Moon which desired to join herself to Mars by aspect
[was] in the 4th degree of Aquarius, and she would be joined to him unless another
impedited; but Venus, which was joined to Mars bodily prohibited the conjunction of the
Moon with Mars for the aforesaid reason, namely, that the bodily conjunction destroys the
aspect, but the aspect does not destroy the bodily conjunction, it would be otherwise if
the planet aspecting were greater in degrees in its own sign than that planet which is
joined by body, because then there would be a conjunction of the planet which made the
aspect, and not of the planet making the bodily conjunction accord into the [following]
example".
The only way in which Venus could prohibit the
Moon is by perfecting her conjunction with Mars before the Moon sextiled Mars. This is not
possible in Bonatti's example.
He then says "Venus was, as I have said, in
the 4th degree of Aries, and Mars in the 9th degree of that same Aries, and the Moon in
the 6th degree of Aquarius; at this time the Moon is joined to Mars and annuls the
conjunction of Venus with Mars because the Moon aspects Mars from a degree nearer than
[that from which] Venus was joined."
In this example Bonatti is wrong as the Moon
cannot annul the conjunction of Venus and Mars, in fact it reinforces it by translating
the light of Venus to Mars.
Chapter XVI p.88.
Concerning the
Contrariety of the Planets
Bonatti's example where Mars at 15 degrees
Aquarius wishing to conjunct Saturn at 24 degrees Aquarius is prevented by Jupiter turning
stationary retrograde at 26 degrees Aquarius and conjuncting Saturn first, is called
prohibition in modern horary astrology. Bonatti's word contrariety is better as it
describes a rare but precise kind of planetary alignment, whereas the word prohibition
describes a number of different planetary alignments with the same theme.
Chapter XVII p.89.
Concerning the
Frustration of the Conjunction of the Planets
Bonatti's example of frustration is rather a bad
one and his argument for planets having to change signs in order to come under the rays of
a third planet is very weak.
His example which has Venus at 17 degrees Aries,
Mars at 28 degrees Aries and Jupiter at 2 degrees Cancer is unconvincing for the following
reasons:
1. Venus and Mars are 11 degrees apart therefore
not within the moiety of orbs. Perhaps this was an oversight on Bonatti's part, his
intention must surely have been that Venus should be at a later degree within the moiety
of orbs of Mars.
2. Mars at 28 degrees Aries is within the moiety
of orbs of a sextile to Jupiter at 2 degrees Cancer whether across signs or not. The
important point is whether planets within the moiety of orbs can perfect their aspect
without interferance from another planet, changing signs cannot influence perfection.
Furthermore, rays would seem to mean the same thing as moiety of orbs.
3. Bonatti's example does not provide for
frustration occuring within signs. It could easily be assumed that frustration within
signs was perfectly valid and would have no influence in horary astrology, this assumption
would be false as frustration does occur within signs. It's as if the readers must read
between the lines and work things out for themselves.
Chapter XVIII p.91.
Concerning the
Abscission of the Light of One Planet by
Another
In this example Bonatti says that the Sun at 15
degrees Sagittarius is applying by trine to Mars at 24 degrees Aries with Jupiter about to
turn stationary retrograde at 3 degrees Taurus. He says that retrograde Jupiter will
conjunct Mars before the Sun perfects its conjunction with Mars therefore cutting off the
light of Sun and Mars. This seems highly improbable as the Sun would be more likely to
conjunct Mars before the Mars reached Jupiter. Nonetheless, if we use Bonatti's example,
then the faster moving Mars would conjunct the slower Jupiter and cause frustration to the
Sun. In modern horary this rule would be called frustration, but it does not totally
depend on a third planet out of sign turning stationary retrograde as Bonatti seems to
suggest.
Bonatti's second example where Mercury at 10
degrees Aries, Venus at 20 degrees Aries and Mars at 22 degrees Aries, is another flawed
example.
Mercury is outside the moiety of orbs of Venus.
Perhaps we should employ some poetic licence once again and place Mercury at a later
degree within the moiety of orbs to Venus, at 13 degrees Aries for instance. If so, this
would be yet another example of frustration.
Conclusion
I was very surprised and disappointed at
Bonatti's evident lack of understanding of horary rules, nevertheless I treasure this
book. Many of his examples were feeble and contradictory and failed to demonstrate his
arguments clearly. However, his way of looking at the rules gave me food for thought and I
did learn a lot. He made me realise that planets in translation of light not only had
their light translated but also their natures. This point had eluded me in the past but
thanks to Bonatti it is something I shall watch more closely in future. He also made me
theorise in terms of "what if this or that were to happen, or what if three planets
came together in this or that way, what would happen?" Who knows what new ideas or
rules may come to mind as a result of these theories.
Many of the comments that I have made concerning
Bonatti's version of various rules should be tested by the readers themselves. It is also
useful to keep in mind that many of these rules are based on the following premises.
1. Are the significators within moiety of orbs?
2. Can they perfect?
3. If they are within moiety of orbs, is there a
planet that will stop them from perfecting?
4. If they are not aspecting in any way, is there
a planet that will help bring them in to aspect?
I believe that natal and other horoscopes should
be judged in what has been called a horary way and, that there is a standard method, yet
unrecognized, for interpreting horoscopes. When finally this method is recognised a
revolution in astrology will take place causing many of our old methods to be abandoned
and a new approach based on horary rules to be adopted. I agree with Rob Hand's deduction
on page iii of his introduction that Bonatti "...gives no indication that he works
any differently with natal charts". I also believe that the medieval astrologers were
mostly correct in their techniques and that we in the 20th century have got much of it
wrong. At the same time astrology does not stand still and should not remain stuck in the
17th century as has been suggested. Astrology continually moves forward and there are
always new things to learn.
On page V of the introduction Rob Hand mentions
that potential joinings can be blocked or postponed. In horary these joinings would
certainly be blocked producing negative answers to questions, but in other forms of
astrology especially natal, there is every likelihood of postponement. When planets in a
natal chart are within the moiety of orbs but are blocked because of frustration,
prohibition or refranation etc, the potential to achieve perfection is already there.
Throughout the early part of life they may appear to be ineffectual but eventually this
potential could be achieved at a later stage as the planets progress towards perfection.
As a priority, I propose that we as astrologers
need to examine and study the movements of the planets in the daily aspectarian., as a
totally separate subject. This subject should be taught to beginners of astrology and
mastered by them immediately after they are able to recognise the various astrological
symbols, and long before they ever attempt interpreting aspects or delineating horoscopes.
In fact, as far as possible they should be encouraged to familiarise themselves with the
planetary movements, because these are what make up the rules, before embarking on
interpreting horoscopes at all.
We must also abandon the popular idea of relying
on two planet aspects to make most of our judgements and adopt instead the more accurate
formula of three planet aspects or groups as demonstrated in the so-called horary rules.
References
(1). McCann, Maurice. "Reappraising the
Minor Aspects", Réalta, Vol.2 no 1, pp.12 - 24. 1995.
(2). Partridge, John. Vade Mecum, Printed for
William Bromwich at the sign of the Three Bibles in Ludgate Street. London. p.24. 1679.
(3). Lilly, William. Christian Astrology, Regulus
Publishing Co. Ltd. London. p.110. 1985.