I (personally) don't see the compulsiveness element in the opposition. It is more awareness through confrontation or some teeter-tottering based on some polemic elements of the themes of the planets in question.

For the quindecile, it just seems like the two planets WILL express themselves come hell or highwater.

In my horoscope, I have Mars-Neptune and Jupiter-Uranus quindeciles. The expressions relating to Mars-Neptune and Jupiter-Uranus, as I mentioned to Bevan, just FEEL as though they MUST BE EXPRESSED, as if there really is no choice in the matter. I can dare say that if I removed the elements of my life that directly relate with those two aspects, what would be left would be a SHELL. It would not be a life that would have meaning for me.

I am following Noel's (Tyl) lead on this one, since he is the one that presented this to me. In client-work, I have the quindeciles marked clearly...and issues surrounding these aspects usually are relevant to talk about, since they are often expressions that the person doesn't directly see what needs they are resolving through their expression. Most importantly, these "themes" come out and keep coming out, even when it is obviously to the detriment of the person involved.

I can only comment about their relevance in a psychological, more modern, approach to Astrology. In other areas, with other approaches, I can't comment from experience, though it certainly seems as though they would have some special connection there as well. (If the quindecile truly can not be "unexpressed" in the natal chart, then what of its placement in a mundane figure for a country, etc.?)

I have not tested on this element of it, but Ricki Reeves, the author of the book on Quindeciles, has also commented that often PERIODS OF OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE BEHAVIOR can be found by activation of quindecile aspects.

There certainly seems to be much more to understand about this "peculiar" aspect. Thanks to all who are helping to fill in the history of this aspect.

Anyone care to comment about quindeciles in their chart?

Fascinating!

TMC

Hello Bevan,

Since you had posted your specific Quindecile, I wanted to share what Ricki Reeves said about it... "May be completely driven to fulfill one's own emotional needs and focus only on one's self in the process. May seek security through the attainment of recognition. There can be lack of objectivity with this particular pair. May be extremely self-centered and oblivious to the rest of the world. Can be extremely dependent or overly confident and assertive within relationships. Benefit can be found through the development of a strong relationship with one's self."

You will likely see large splashes of truth in this, but it also shows a shortcoming to that particular book. You would be hard-pressed to find someone who couldn't find some "connection" to the delineation text.

As an example, look at the sentence "Can be extremely dependent or overly confident and assertive within relationships." We've covered both poles! This sounds like the kind of text you regularly see James Randi using AGAINST Astrology in the main. It's like the classical, "you are an introvert at times. At times, you are an extrovert." Hmmm... I just don't know if I'm the introverted extrovert, or the extroverted introvert!!!

RIDICULOUS

Still, elements of what she said are true to the symbolism. (ie. likely true through "definition")

Were *I* looking at your Sun-Moon quindecile and trying to say what it MIGHT mean in terms of only that quindecile, I would expect that you would be compelled to use recognition and the feeding of the ego as a method in which to solve emotional needs. In addition, I would expect that you would have to use "caring for humanity" as an approach in order to try and meet your ego needs and your desire for recognition.

To give Ricki some credit, I must admit that the two quindeciles that I do have illuminate some specifics quite clearly. The lifelong spiritual quest, the excessive escapism, the addictive personality, the sexual fantasy, always pushing the envelope, and MANY other elements of my life are directly delineated through these two aspects. (of course, we must remember that these elements are also expressed in other places in the chart, it is merely that the quindecile ties these together in terms of a compulsive "packet" of delineation) The quindecile is kind of LIKE an opposition, except where the opposition generally has two poles that are resolving their differences or setting up a polemic situation; the quindecile brings the two planets together LIKE a conjunction of sorts, but with an element of forced expression in the life. The analogy I made with Bevan seems especially appropriate, that many times, if you removed JUST those elements in the life relating to the quindecile, the client will not relate to what is left as being their life.

If I remove the drive (Mars) towards spiritual endeavors and caring for others who are suffering (Neptune)...and the desire to incorporate "peculiar" things such as Astrology in creating my very unique philosophical construct of life; then what would be left YOU CAN HAVE, because without those, it's nothing that I would still want. To put it slightly differently, if we measure "need to express these planets' themes", then the marriage of Mars and Neptune as well as the marriage of Jupiter and Uranus cover nearly all of what I feel compiled to pour energy into.

In terms of the book...Quindeciles, by Ricki Reeves... I think there are some important CONCEPTUAL ideas in there, though the cookbook style references are sometimes appearing to hedge bets by covering both ends of various spectra. (as most cookbook style books do)

In terms of the quindecile, the planets involved DO appear to always be powerful expressions in the person's life in terms of their CONNECTED EXPRESSION having some compulsive thrust behind them. (It is interesting that the author of the book has found many cases of a clinical type of obsession-compulsion having its period of activity upon activation of quindeciles in the chart)

I certainly hope that some others will talk about their charts or AT THE VERY LEAST, give the quindecile a closer, personal look. Nothing to lose.

Thanks, Bevan for your help in the research. Are there any more older sources that you have found in the meantime that mention this aspect in particular?

Peace

TMC

nice thread. one of the earliest charts i did when i started out in astrology was a local attorney, son of a judge (my 9-5er day job is generally legal secretary) ... his chart a symphony of 15 degree aspects -- of course, being a tyro, it baffled me -- this discussion has shed a lot of light into it -- i keep thinking man of the hour, hour angle -- as a professional, the subject has no problem with ending an appointment after an hour without checking his watch

Ricki Reeve's appears to get lost in his attempt to delineate the aspect. I liked your explaination of 'the sense of identity being so closely associated with a compulsive mission' much better. I would not try to force astrology on anyone but would be willing to take my ideals to the stake.

Reeves wrote:May be extremely self-centered and oblivious to the rest of the world.

- If that means jumping off the bandwagon and taking a personal stand on the truth, what's going on and how people treat eachother - yes that's me, but Reeves could have phrased it differently.

TMCA wrote:Were *I* looking at your Sun-Moon quindecile and trying to say what it MIGHT mean in terms of only that quindecile, I would expect that you would be compelled to use recognition and the feeding of the ego as a method in which to solve emotional needs. In addition, I would expect that you would have to use "caring for humanity" as an approach in order to try and meet your ego needs and your desire for recognition.

This would make me a selfish Samaritan! Heck, this puts me in a no-win situation!:-sk
Perhaps a lot of practitioners within the alternative branch are just like that, but I tend to stay away from the 'Alternative Fairs' because there are just too many oddities there and it reminds me too much of a Supermarket.

SGFox - Pleased to note that you are enjoying the thread, but a clearer explaination of where your thoughts are taking you might be beneficial for others trying to follow the discussion.

Hello Bevan,

I noticed this Al H Morrison quote on the quindecile aspect...

"...it is in the affairs of the houses tenanted by the planets in this aspect that the native has the unending capability of carrying on, continuing, in total disregard of all practical reality. There is nothing like the nagging persistence of the 165 degree aspect, just never say die, never stop trying, never give up negotiating the non-negotiable."

This enlightening comment connects with the theme of compulsion and obsession as per our discussion.

Enjoy!

TMC

...never say die.

Nice quote. Considering I have this aspect between my Sun and Moon I think I probably should have gone for a part as 007 instead of getting into astrology!

Just an historical note since the question of what aspect the term 'quindecile' refers to was raised earlier in this strand.

James Wilson, writing in the first edition of his 'Dictionary of Astrology' (1819), p. 99, under 'Familiarities', expressly attributes the invention of the quindecile to Kepler (p. 99) and goes on to define it (p. 100) thus:

The Quindecile, a distance of 24?, is the circle divided by 15.

Therefore it is my firm belief that the term 'quindecile', having been already well-established under this, its logical definition, within at least one major work within the English-language astrological literature by as long ago as 1819, has been misappropriated and misused by Ricki Reeves and whoever might have taught her.

Considering the possible astrological influence of the 165 degree aspect is perfectly legitimate of course, but giving it a name that not only does not conform to the conventional basis on which aspect name are generally given but also already exists in perfect conformity to that conventional basis in the established literature to describe another aspect altogether, was a recipe for muddying the waters of astrological nomenclature.

I think it is a positive mistake to continue to call either the 15 degree aspect or the 165 degree aspect a 'quindecile'. It is tantamount to inventing a 174 degree aspect and calling it a 'sextile', or inventing a 177 degree aspect and calling it a 'trine'. Such a practice would outrage any astrologer. So should the misuse of 'quindecile'.

Nice points, Philip

...though I don't agree.

The "present" usage of quindecile aspects relates from the writings of Thomas Ring and further studied by Noel Tyl.

As you mentioned "...a distance of 24?, is the circle divided by 15" appearing in an old Astrology dictionary is a valid point as for the connecting of the term with a specific meaning, HOWEVER, you go on to mention that it's having been "well-established" under that definition, which I believe is misleading. The quindecile itself is NOT a well-established aspect, otherwise you couldn't ask most astrologers about it and get a blank look in return. Certainly, making an analogy that redefining it would be like redefining a "sextile" is absurd. EVERY Astrologer knows what a sextile is...and most use it.

The quindecile, with a quick check of Google OR Wiki shows MORE that the usage relates to the 165? aspect than to any 15th harmonic subdivision of the circle directly leading you to a 24? aspect.

An obscure historical reference is one thing, but it does not stand tall next to practical efficacy, which is why the 165? aspect has superceded the previous definition, in my opinion. In other words, the 24? aspect doesn't lead us anywhere practical, while the 165? aspect is often DEFINING of major themes from a chart.

Giving it the name from a previously defined aspect might not personally work for you, but considering the original term's non-usage and obscurity, appropriating it falls far short of a crime.

I won't even hammer on the differences between James Wilson (a virtual unknown, Google him and Thomas Ring (one of the greatest German-speaking astrologers of the last century).

Astrology is a language...and sometimes languages evolve.

Peace

Atlantean

I beg to differ regarding James Wilson, who was one of the major astrological writers of the early 19th century, and whose Dictionary of Astrology has gone through several printings, both in the UK and in the USA. It is not an obscure work at all in the history of astrology, but rather a very famous one.

I disagree that counting the number of google search results for a particular term is a relevant way to resolve its meaning. The vast majority of those results for the term quindecile (in English) are a direct result of the publication of Ricki Reeves' book on the single topic of the 165 degree aspect early in the days of the Internet. Of course a whole book written on that one theme has attracted a lot of discussion whereas in the context of Wilson's dictionary the quindecile was merely one of several aspects he listed and attributed to invention by Kepler.

This does not make the historical case any less important in my opinion, on grounds of both nomenclature convention and the actual historical reference naming in a major work naming the 24 degree aspect as the quindecile.

Nor should there be lacking a practical case for the consideration of the 24 degree aspect from any adherent of harmonic theory. The division of the circle by (3*5) is arguably as natural a consideration as the division of the circle by (2*5) or (2*3).

In contrast, the 15 degree aspect and its 75 degree, 105 degree and 165 degree multiples stem from the division of the circle by (2*2*2*3). This is arguably a more intricate division of the circle than (3*5). I think the mere fact that analysis of the 165 degree aspect has lately perhaps been more commonplace than that of the 24 degree aspect says nothing for their relative degree of theoretical and practical usefulness in astrology. Fashions come and go.

I wholly disagree that my analagy with the sextile is absurd. The main reason that more astrologers are not outraged by the misappropriation of the term quindecile to mean something different, in my opinion, is that they have not stopped to consider how the naming pattern works. Even if we are to presume that almost no astrologer today is familiar with Wilson's dictionary, the aspect names follow a consistent pattern based on the number by which the circle has been divided, and within this pattern the term 'quindecile' clearly denotes the division of the circle by 15 regardless of whether or not references to this in the historical literature are familiar to most of today's astrologers.

Peace to you too, and let's agree to differ on this!

Hello

I'm following this discussion with interest.

Apologies for the brief interjection but I want to comment on this:-

...a quick check of Google OR Wiki...

With all due respect, and aiming to be sensitive, I'm sorry, this really mustn't become our modern-day way of checking things. Obviously I don't know how you personally conducted your search so please don't take this as directed at you, but I've seen many astrologers, and indeed many professional journalists, be overly trusting of these websites and when I've discussed it with some astrologers they really haven't known that there are reliability and 'honesty' issues with the search results, and that Wiki in particular is a blessing and a dangerous curse. False results propagate around the globe before the truth has got its boots on, as the famous quote goes.

Google and Wiki are USA-centric, for starters, even when using non-USA Googles or non-USA Yahoos etc, it can be easy for some astrologers to forget to set them to search outside the USA and outside English-speaking websites.

Google and other search engines are also full of sponsored links, and deals done with other websites.

Wiki references tend to be spawned like weeds, masquerading as numerous other websites, clogging the search results and skewing them grotesquely.

The topmost search results are rarely the most representative.

The pareto principle, at least as an analogy and maybe as a mathematical reality, seems to apply to Google and Wikip(a!)edia.

Using those websites is like going into Wal-Mart or Tesco (substitute your own local monopolistic consumerist corporation) to assess what food is: one has to be very careful indeed and one must know the nature of the beast.

Regards

H.

And if you're working in trad astrology, it's that much more difficult. Wilson certainly wasn't an unknown in astrology. Devore's encyclopaedia (I think originally published in the 1940s or 50s?) is used more now, but that's got an entirely modern bent to it - check the different defintions of the same terms sometime - it's englightening. Or a little scary, depending on your view.

I just thought I should fill in on the printing history of James Wilson's Complete Dictionary of Astrology for the record:

1. First published 1819 by William Hughes, Islington Green, London.
2. Revised and corrected edition published 1820 (though undated) by William Hughes
3. First American edition published 1885 by Rolfe & Co., Boston, Mass., 1885
4. Reprinted by Samuel Weiser 1969
5. Second Weiser printing 1970
6. Third Weiser printing (but sold as second) 1971
7. Health Research reprint (comb-bound) 1971
8. Fourth Weiser printing (sold as third) 1974
9. Fifth Weiser printing (sold as fourth) 1978
10. Kessinger Publishing (print-on-demand) reprint 2003
11. Astrology Classics reprint 2006

By my reckoning that makes it a common book with many thousands of copies in print. However, it is interesting to note that Thomas Ring's work was mostly published in the 1950s and 1960s, some 70 years since the previous impression of Wilson's book. He may therefore quite plausibly have been unaware of it, if indeed he was the one who adopted the term 'quindecile' with a completely new meaning.

Wilson is also noted historically for having made one of the earliest printed translations in English of Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos (or at least the Proclus paraphrase thereof). His translation came after that of Whalley but predated that of Ashmand. Unlike his Dictionary of Astrology, however, his translation of Ptolemy is very scarce.