Reudi wrote:Am considering a trip to Europe this July and while I have the funds, the logistics will be a bit harried, which makes me wonder if we should just skip it. I/we have cabin fever and would love to be able to go. Should we make the trip?

I am 1H and as the trip involves passports and cross-border travel, I am using 9H as "the trip" itself.
I would be travelling probably with just my son who is 5th house.

Trip itself I would give 9H Aries so Mars (?) and I as Moon am already separating from it, although I haven't made a decision yet. Co signiicator Venus is opposing me (not so great) but there is a 7 degree trine going to happen between my son and the trip itself as if this will be good for him?

I wonder about the grand trine in the chart itself which includes both me and the trip and my son. In short not sure this is a firm yes or it is just showing the hassle i will go to in order to give my son this fun experience?

Also one of my hesitations is all the mess going on in Europe right now. On the one hand, I have time and would like to go while i can and am not bogged down by scheduling but on the other hand, anything can happen and i dont know if there is a warning to not go now.

welcome input and comments.

https://imgur.com/a/qsipaMI

Georgius wrote:In traditional astrology there is no great trine at all because Saturn is in the wrong sign for it. Thete is no trine between Libra and Pisces or Gemini and Pisces.

The classical attitude towards aspects and orbs was evidently more relaxed than that of contemporary astrology. The simple rule was that where two signs are in aspect, any planets within those signs are in aspect too, regardless of the specific degrees. Sometimes, sign-cusps were used as limits to the aspect's influence, as we are told in the 12th century text of Ibn Ezra, who claimed that the ancients would not consider a conjunction between two planets, even though they were in orb, unless both were also in the same sign. However, although Ezra wrote about the rule he disagreed with it himself, saying:

If the two planets should be in two signs and each one of them should be in the force of the other's body, they must not be said to be in conjunction, because they are in different signs. That is the opinion of the ancient scientists, but I, Abraham, the compiler of this book, disagree with them. [10]

In practice most traditional astrologers did allow an aspect which crossed the boundaries of the signs where it was close to exactness by degree. Also, even in the classical period, many texts remind the student that reckoning aspects by sign alone will not necessarily maintain the philosophy of the shapes, and that it is more correct to consider the actual degrees. [11]

A planet at 28 degrees Leo, for example, trines a planet at 2 degrees Sagittarius according to the relationship of the signs, but is close to an exact square when the planetary positions are measured from degree to degree. In classical astrology the latter is known as a partile aspect, because it considers the 'parts' (or degrees) rather than the signs. Aspects judged according to the relationship of the signs are called platick, from a term which meant 'plate' or 'broad area'. In later astrology the term partile generally referred to aspects which were exact or near perfection, whereas platick referred to those which were 'loose', or within the limits of their recognised orbs. [12]


Platick and partile aspects

In most of the classical chart judgements that have been preserved in the files of Vettius Valens, standard procedure for calculating aspects appears to have been according to the signs, for he rarely bothered to list planetary positions by degree. Yet certain passages suggest that this simplified approach was only suitable for generalities, and in one example where he refers to a damaging aspect occurring between Taurus and Virgo "because it is in its square, reckoned by degrees" [13] we see that the need for considering planetary aspects independently of the sign-relationship was not entirely ignored.

Georgius wrote:Many thanks for your differtiated sight of the aspect theme and the hint to Deborahs article! (I didn’t read it yet.)

For me it sounds very reasonable to respect the borders of the signs.

If there is a trine from 15° Aries to 15° Leo then the involved signs are of the same element (and humors), so it is intelligible to read this trine as a harmonious aspect.

More interesting in this connection is an aspect between Sun and Moon from 21° Aries to 6° Leo. Is this a trine with 15° orb or is it a square with 15° orb? If one prefers degrees square is nearby, but I would call it a trine because the signs in which the lights stay are fiery both. Or you might say it does not matter the orb is too wide.

If one doesn’t take the limits of signs as sharp then the question arises if the dignities of planets are also not changing rapidly. E. g. is Venus in 29° Aries in her detriment but in 1° Taurus in her domicile really? But maybe a soft change is indicated by Venus being in her (arabian) face in 29° Aries which is a minor dignity but better than nothing.

Michael Sternbach wrote:Moreover, if the nature of the different aspects would correspond to nothing more but harmonious and disharmonious relationships between the four elements, then the opposition should actually be as beneficial as the sextile, don't you think?

• Conjunction: same humors
  Sextile: same temperature but different moisture
  Square: different temperature, same or different moisture
  Trine: same humors
  Opposition: same temperature, different moisture.
  And again trine, square, sextile as above

Michael Sternbach wrote:I indeed attribute a 15° orb to the Sun alone, and 12° to the Moon. Using moiety, the maximum orb for an aspect between the Luminaries will be 13 1/2° in my book, so the kind of ambiguity suggested by your example cannot occur.

Georgius wrote:If one doesn’t take the limits of signs as sharp then the question arises if the dignities of planets are also not changing rapidly. E. g. is Venus in 29° Aries in her detriment but in 1° Taurus in her domicile really? But maybe a soft change is indicated by Venus being in her (arabian) face in 29° Aries which is a minor dignity but better than nothing.

Michael Sternbach wrote:That's an interesting observation in its own right, however, it somewhat misses the mark in the context of this discussion. Using partile aspects in the way indicated doesn't blur out the borders between signs - it doesn't use the signs as the rationale for the effects of the aspects in the first place. Otherwise there would be no need for orbs at all, and you could simply have a system of platick aspects.