Gjiada wrote:

johannes susato wrote:[ 'Monographick' with its Greek meaning (monos - alone, single) would make sense in our context of focussing on only one orb (radius) of two applying or separating planets at a time.

In my opinion what you are calling "monographic"(?) it's partial conjunction.

You are right: In Bezza's definition the by Saunders so called "Monographick Aspect" is in case of a conjunction a partial-one. But remember that Saunders speaks of aspects, you with Bezza of conjunctions only.
Only discussing with Andrew, which term Saunders used I spoke of "Monographick Aspect" so it is not quite correct to attribute this term to me; especially I don't agree with the '-graphick'-part of the word.

Gjiada wrote:In my opinion, in every case we always should consider half of the whole planetary orb, i.e. the moiety.

You are right again to define the terms you use. There is some confusion about orbs as you see in the beginning of this thread. But as to your definition of "moiety = half of the whole planetary orb" I can't agree with you.

As to my knowledge the term of moiety was first defined by Dariot in the meaning of half the diameter: moiety = semidiameter = radius. Lilly adopted this term but changed its meaning into: moiety is half the orb, and the orb with Lilly is the planet's force before and behind it. And this before and behind is already the half of your "whole planetary orb"! So with Lilly the moiety is half the radius of a planet's total of power = a quarter of the diameter of the total orb in your definition.

Hello,

johannes susato wrote: "Monographick Aspect" is in case of a conjunction a partial-one. But remember that Saunders speaks of aspects, you with Bezza of conjunctions only.

This is not true
If it seems like that it's because surely i was not clear, but try to understand English is not exactly my mother tongue.
Deborah Houlding wrote better than me this in this same thread. And the same Bezza, he writes that different orbs for different aspect are a late addition, around 1700.

Only discussing with Andrew, which term Saunders used I spoke of "Monographick Aspect" so it is not quite correct to attribute this term to me; especially I don't agree with the '-graphick'-part of the word.

Again I was not clear, I'm not attributing anything to you, I understand it was a quote from Saunders. But hardly I can reply to him without a medium.

As to my knowledge the term of moiety was first defined by Dariot in the meaning of half the diameter: moiety = semidiameter = radius. Lilly adopted this term but changed its meaning into: moiety is half the orb, and the orb with Lilly is the planet's force before and behind it. And this before and behind is already the half of your "whole planetary orb"!
So with Lilly the moiety is half the radius of a planet's total of power = a quarter of the diameter of the total orb in your definition.

Well, again we are talking about the same thing. Moreover in Italian we don't have the word moiety, I cannot even translate in my mother tongue.

Anyway to me the word orb implies something circular, like when we talk about the orbit of the planet in astronomy. I meant this.
Then I would consider an half, i.e. the semidiameter. The picture I posted is clear.
The aspect is the intersection of two orbs.

I says this, and I believe this is what Bezza teaches at least from the picture taken from his book.

I believe that everybody agree about this point. Or not? I'm a little confused now,

p.s. obviously I agree with Eddy that sometimes we can consider planets in aspect by houses or by signs, it depends.
For example in temperament calculation I was taught to take planets in angular houses as in aspect with the Ascendant in whatever point of the house are.
Margherita

'Monographick' with its Greek meaning (monos - alone, single) would make sense in our context of focussing on only one orb (radius) of two applying or separating planets at a time.

You're right! It seems to make perfect sense.

A misprint in the AstroAmerica edition. See also:

http://www.astrologiamedieval.com/Orbes.htm

Gjiada wrote:

johannes susato wrote: "Monographick Aspect" is in case of a conjunction a partial-one. But remember that Saunders speaks of aspects, you with Bezza of conjunctions only.

This is not true
If it seems like that its because surely i was not clear, but try to understand English is not exactly my mother tongue.
Deborah Houlding wrote better than me this in this same thread. And the same Bezza, he writes that different orbs for different aspect are a late addition, around 1700.

It is in the context of conjunctions, that Bezza speaks of diverging orbs and that a conjunction is partial, if only the semidiameter of the greater orb is reaching the center of the other planet.
In contrast to Bezza Saunders is obviously implying aspects too, as he writes of "Monographick Aspects".

But why am I wrong about this, Margherita?

As to your qoutation of Bezzas writing about "different orbs for different aspects" its quite a different thing, new around 1700(?) as he says. In contrast to that Saunders speaks of unchanged orbs of the planets, that is the planets don't change their orbs according to different aspects.

As to my knowledge the term of moiety was first defined by Dariot in the meaning of half the diameter: moiety = semidiameter = radius. Lilly adopted this term but changed its meaning into: moiety is half the orb, and the orb with Lilly is the planets force before and behind it. And this before and behind is already the half of your "whole planetary orb"!
So with Lilly the moiety is half the radius of a planets total of power = a quarter of the diameter of the total orb in your definition.

Gjiada wrote:Well, again we are talking about the same thing. Moreover in Italian we dont have the word moiety, I cannot even translate in my mother tongue.

Anyway to me the word orb implies something circular, like when we talk about the orbit of the planet in astronomy. I meant this.
Then I would consider an half, i.e. the semidiameter. The picture I posted is clear.
The aspect is the intersection of two orbs.

I says this, and I believe this is what Bezza teaches at least from the picture taken from his book.

I believe that everybody agree about this point. Or not? Im a little confused now,

Dariot spoke of la moiti?, meaning half the diameter, Lilly called it moiety, meaning half the orb as he understood it (anf that is half the radius), and nowadays some use moities thinking radius, and some thinking with Lilly half the radius of the orbis.

And now I'm proud to present your Italian moiety (hoping the best for my dictionary!) to you: met? or mezzo . . . ?

Johannes

Hello again,

johannes susato wrote: But why am I wrong about this, Margherita?

I'm afraid I don't understand you.

I have Bezza "Commento al primo libro del tetrabiblos" and to me it seems it is talking about whatever aspect. He gives this example from Porphirius:
Moon at 20 Scorpio, Saturn 10 Aquarius, Jupiter 25 Leo.

Why do you think he is talking about conjunctions?

In contrast to that Saunders speaks of unchanged orbs of the planets, that is the planets don't change their orbs according to different aspects

.

So what? We were talking about "menographick" aspect...

And now I'm proud to present your Italian moietiy (hoping the best for my dictionary!) to you: met? or mezzo . . . ?

????
You will not believe me, but being an Italian I know my mother tongue a little better than you. And the word "met?" is not unknown to me, even it seems to you unbelievable.

It's just that we have not an astrological technical word, as we don't have a word for "void of course". We should use a paraphrase, something like "half (met?) of the orb".

In every case I should say that it's not the first time people from abroad in the Internet try to teach me Italian, moreover very common words that children learn when they start to talk, it's very strange for me.

Margherita

Johannes, idiomatic language use tends to be tricky - just because it seems like something should be the word for a concept in another language, that doesn't mean it is. Witness our recent Zoeller confusion. Or even Lilly's use of 'clown' and the modern use of 'clown' in English - not the same meaning at all even though it's the same word in the same language. Words like 'silly', 'nice', and so many others no longer mean the same things in English as they did even a few hundred years ago.

And here? You see moiti? et moiti? in the shops all the time - it's something you put in coffee. Not what Dariot was writing about, I'm certain!

Gjiada wrote:I have Bezza "Commento al primo libro del tetrabiblos" and to me it seems it is talking about whatever aspect. He gives this example from Porphirius:
Moon at 20 Scorpio, Saturn 10 Aquarius, Jupiter 25 Leo.

Why do you think he is talking about conjunctions?

Hi Margherita,

1. Because I didnt know all that you are telling me now
2. Becaues you spoke expressis verbis of conjunction only as you can read here:

In my opinion what you are calling "monographic"(?) its partial conjunction.

3. Because your graphic is showing conjunction only
4. Because your graphics legend is showing conjunction only
5. Because you didnt mention the concrete example, which I didnt know at all until now

You had written

Moreover in Italian we don't have the word moiety, I cannot even translate in my mother tongue.

And when I replied:

And now I'm proud to present your Italian moiety (hoping the best for my dictionary!) to you: met? or mezzo . . . ?

then your reaction:

You will not believe me, but being an Italian I know my mother tongue a little better than you. And the word "met?" is not unknown to me, even it seems to you unbelievable.

Its just that we have not an astrological technical word, as we dont have a word for "void of course". We should use a paraphrase, something like "half (met?) of the orb".

In every case I should say that its not the first time people from abroad in the Internet try to teach me Italian, moreover very common words that children learn when they start to talk, its very strange for me.

really appears a little strange to me.

Johannes

Olivia wrote:And here? You see moiti? et moiti? in the shops all the time - it's something you put in coffee. Not what Dariot was writing about, I'm certain!

Most certainly, Olivia. But, you see, the rim of the coffee cup is orbis-like round . . .

(Lest we loose our focus!)

johannes susato wrote:
really appears a little strange to me.

Well, I'm sorry if I misunderstood your words.
It's just as I wrote that it's not the first time people from abroad try to teach me Italian, which is a language I know quite well.
I believed it was another case, but if I'm wrong no problem.

Margherita

Gjiada wrote:
Well, Im sorry if I misunderstood your words.

believe me: You did!

Well, I'm glad that our little problem seems to be resolved now. Thank you, Margherita!

Johannes

Were the classical rules also applied in transits of planets? In modern astrology the orbs of transiting planets usually are tighter than those of the planets in the natal chart.

Andrew wrote:

'Monographick' with its Greek meaning (monos - alone, single) would make sense in our context of focussing on only one orb (radius) of two applying or separating planets at a time.

You're right! It seems to make perfect sense.

A misprint in the AstroAmerica edition. See also:

http://www.astrologiamedieval.com/Orbes.htm

Please excuse my overlooking your agreement (fine!) and your link to Steven Birchfield's very interesting article!