Definitions and Foundations, Configuration Intensive

[David_Stricker]

"Neighborhoods"

The more I ponder the neighboring concept and the confines lord, it seems to me that different types of "neighborhoods" might more accurately represent the different confines lords of the neighboring planets.

Depending upon where people live, they interact with or "watch over " their neighbors in different ways. So I think maybe this idea of different kinds of neighborhoods might be better for elaborating on the planets in the neighboring concept.

How are the planets in adherence impacted or effected by the lord of the confines they are in? I am just exploring possible deeper layers of delineation (just for one topic!). For example, how do planets adhering in the confines of Ares, in a day chart, watch over each other differently than in a night chart. Ares is obviously going to be in out of sect in a day chart. Does this impact the neighboring planets somehow? I would hope so. How is Ares situated in the chart (location, image and configurations)? This should impact the meaning as well.

Suppose we have planets adhering in the confines of Ares and it is a night chart. Ares is considered less destructive in a night chart. So maybe when the neighbors look out the window at eachother at night and see a hooker on the street corner of their "rough" neighborhood, they might think, "at least the children are in bed and don't see this"?? Or maybe they think "at least she is making enough money to pay her rent" ? Maybe they don't see a fight break out on the street, because it is dark and they have bars on their windows. If Ares is configured in a positive manner, maybe there is a crime boss in the neighborhood and he makes sure the violence does not get out of control (if Kronos was configured with Ares, maybe?).

The whole point of this illustration is to try and think about how the different confine lords might impact neighboring planets. It is not meant to be an exact delineation but a way to maybe get a feel for what the differences might be like and the amount of layers there are, if we are looking for them! I doubt we are going to find very many "cookbook-style" delineations for confine lords of neighboring planets.

I am probably digging too deep in one spot (common for me). So image an archaeologist. Instead of uncovering an entire city buried under the ground, I find one house and want to learn as much as I can about it, forgetting temporarily the whole city. Mr. Schmidt has uncovered the major structures (and maybe more) of the entire city and the roads. We need to help dig down farther around the various areas to uncover more descriptive details. Mr. Schmidt has only one shovel. It may be a great one and he has been shoveling tirelessly for years. But we all need to help digging, as I suspect a lot of us are. As Mr. Schmidt has said several times, we are going to have to carefully make our own delineations for many of these concepts as we go along.

So I hope you have a shovel. And maybe some brushes and those little picks so we can scratch out all the debris hiding the little details!

If you disagree or have any other thoughts about my ideas, by all means share it. I am just exploring and I may be way off track. Mr. Schmidt may be cringing. But I hope we can have a constructive discussion about this. I am not totally "adhered" to this idea!

This reminded me of a "Classical Astrology" conference I attended at Cape Cod in late 1997. At the reception the first night, I was talking with some friends about some ideas that I was exploring regarding Valens' writings. A person overheard me and asked which of the translated books the idea was from. When I said that it wasn't in the books, the person actually said to me, "Who do you think you are to be using stuff that is not in the books?" I was taken aback by this stranger. I thought it was kind of funny that my ideas needed to be limited to only what was in the translated books. What I considered even worse, was when I told the person my name, the person sort of backed off and I guess decided it was okay. I had been posting a lot on the Traditions List back then and she must have seen my name. But just because I posted a bunch of stuff does not mean I was right or was allowed special privileges to think outside the box. And I was not anymore entitled to explore the ramifications of the ideas than anyone else. But apparently in this person's eyes I was. I was never "recognized" this way before (or since) so that was strange as well. It was not like I was putting my ideas into a book, as if it was "gospel". I believe in trying to follow all the rules of the system that we have. But what about the missing pieces? Like Mr. Schmidt's definition of "slipping aside" (flowing forth in the second half of the synodic cycle- meaning a separating aspect in the 9th, 10th or 11th places from the slower moving planet).

I hope we can have more interaction, even if it is in short bursts or snippets. I know my posts are long. But if any of you know me, you already know that I run off at the mouth as well. This is just electronically! I am hoping that we can explore things that have are not "written in stone". This way we can explore and learn faster. If I am causing confusion than by all means ignore me!

[David_Stricker]

Enclosure (emperischesis)

D&F page 197:

"Antiochus 12. That there is said to be enclosure (emperischesis) whenever two planets encompass a single planet with no other star casting a ray in between them upon those portions the planet has gone past or upon those to which it will go, and surely not within seven portions. Such enclosure is good when it happens by good stars, but poor (phaulos) by poor stars."

Porphyry 15 adds the following condition; "Or again, whenever different stars cast their rays in conformity with a figure upon the seven portions a star has gone past and upon the seven portions to which it will go. Or whenever one and the same planet casts its rays from different figures, as we said before. Such an enclosure happening by malefics is difficult, but by benenfics beneficent."

The first condition from Antiochus appears to be the Medeival condition of containment. I am not an expert at Medeival astrology, so correct me if I am wrong. I am somewhat unclear about the issue of a ray within 7 portions of where the enclosed planet has been or will go. What if the 7 portions go outside of the enclosure itself?

Intervention (mesembolesis) p. 200

Porphyry 16 "There is intervention when a star casts a ray onto the intermediate portions......."
Serapio 226, 1-2 "Those stars taking part or providing testimony or intervening are said to be helpers."

I left the example out of Porphyry to try and save some space here. As Mr. Schmidt mentions, there is no separate definition for intervention by Antiochus but it is implied in the enclosure definition.

Brad Pitt - A.gif (23.73 KiB) Viewed 1087 times

Brad Pitt has 4 planets that are in the Goat-Horned One. There appears to be a bodily enclosure of Hermes (16 portions) by Ares (10 portions) and Selene (22 portions). There is another bodily enclosure of Selene at 22 portions by Hermes and Aphrodite at 23 portions. While this is not a simple example of enclosure, I wanted to include it because it shows the layers of complexity the planets can have with each other. I don't know if it is possible to consider Hermes and Selene to be enclosed by Ares and Aphrodite? Selene is 12 portions from Ares. It is not clear if the seven portion range is a restriction for bodily enclosure, as it appears to be for the condition of enclosure by rays. But if nothing else, these four planets take part in two different enclosures

Mick Jagger -A.gif (23.31 KiB) Viewed 1086 times

In Mick Jagger's chart, there is a bodily enclosure of Zeus at 5 portions of the Lion by Helios at 2 portions and Hermes at 10 portions of the Lion. No other planet cast a ray between 2 and 10 portions of the Lion. My question about the casting of a ray within seven portions comes up in this chart. Ares at 12 portions of the Bull casts a tetragonal ray up to 7 portions in front of Zeus. As Zeus moves to 12 portions of the Lion, there will be a tetragonal figural conjunction.

Is this an intervention even though it is outside of the actual enclosure but within seven portions of the enclosed planet???

I will try to show an example of Porphyry's second condition with enclosure by rays in another post.

[David_Stricker]

Enclosure by the Rays of Two Planets

This condition described in Prophyry 15 is not mentioned by Antiochus. Porphyry and Antiochus describe the enclosure requiring no planet casting a ray within seven portions of the enclosed planet.

Here is the Porphyry quote again from p. 197:

"Or again, whenever different stars cast their rays in conformity with a figure upon the seven portions a star has gone past and upon the seven portions to which it will go. Or whenever one and the same planet casts its rays from different figures, as we said before."

Here is what I believe is an enclosure by the rays of two planets.

Karen Silkwood - AA.gif (23.63 KiB) Viewed 1091 times

Selene at 17 portions of the Balance is enclosed by the tetragonal rays of Ares at 14 portions of the Crab and Kronos at 18 portions of the Crab. I am ignoring for the moment the retrograde nature of the two planets casting rays. I find it interesting that Selene is the domicile lady of the image that Kronos and Ares are in. They certainly do not appear to be very good "guests" of this domicile! As many of you may remember, Karen Silkwood reported unsafe working conditions at a plutonium fuel plant. She died in an car accident when her car swerved off the highway and hit a concrete culvert on 11/13/1974. Her death was ruled an accident but there were some who suspected foul play but it was never proven. You may remember the movie made about her starring Meryl Streep.

Karen Silkwood also has a good example of an enclosure with Aphrodite at 5 portions of the Fishes between Helios and Hermes at 0 portions and 8 portions respectively. It is not unusual to find enclosures involving Helios, Aphrodite and Hermes because they never travel very far away from each other. So far I have come across several examples of enclosures and interventions involving these three planets.

Here is another chart that looks at first to be an enclosure but I believe is actually an intervention. Actually there are two different planets intervening. This chart has so many things going on that I hesitated to include it. But these are the kinds of things we need to look out for and understand.

Ava Gardner -AA.gif (23.38 KiB) Viewed 1083 times

The planets that are casting rays that I am interested in are Ares at 9 portions of the Fishes and Selene at 19 portions of the Fishes. Both planets cast trigonal rays into the Scorpion. Zeus is at 12 portions of the Scorpion, enclosed by the rays of Ares and Selene. But not really. Hermes casts a ray hexagonally into the Scorpion and in reality we have an exact figural conjunction between Hermes and Zeus. So Hermes intervenes. I am still a little unclear about striking with a ray (upcoming post), but it appears that Hermes strikes Zeus with a ray zodiacally? It does not seem that there is a difference between the exact striking with a ray and an exact figural conjunction. The only difference that I perceive at the moment is that an "exact figural conjunction" does not indicate how the planets are specifically interacting. If Zeus was at 13 portions of the Scorpion and Hermes was at 12 portions of the Goat-Horned One, Zeus is striking Hermes with a ray portionally while Hermes is looking upon or beholding Zeus, I think. More on this later.

The same two planets (Ares and Selene) cast hexagonal rays into the Goat-Horned One. Hermes at 12 portions of the Goat-Horned One appears to be enclosed by the rays of Ares and Selene . But here again, Zeus casts a hexagonal ray into the Goat-Horned one (or engages in an exact figural conjunction with Hermes). In addition, Kronos at 19 portions of the Balance, casts a tetragonal ray into the Goat-Horned One and intervenes between the ray of Selene and the position of Hermes.

Please don't even think of asking me to try and delineate this combination of the planets and their rays at this time!

[David_Stricker]

Decimation versus Striking with a Ray


One of the things that I have learned while studying Hellenistic Astrology is that I don't know the complete definitions of the English words that are in Mr. Schmidt's translation. For all his efforts to focus on the Greek words, I am sure he would be pleased to know that my vocabulary is expanding as a result of his efforts.

In the chapter on Decimation and Overcoming (starting on p.178 of "Defintions and Foundations") Antiochus 10:

"That decimation (epidekateuo) is said about a star overcoming (kathupertereo) a star, [the one situated in the tenth image the one in the fourth. But a star is also said to overcome a star], the one in the image on the right the one in the image on the well-named side, in either one of two ways of the frequently mentioned four figures. And the star overcoming is more powerful but if it is also capable of arising (anatolikos) and pivotal, a benefic signifies a nativity that is notable, while a malefic maltreats it."

I have to admit when I first saw the title, I was thinking of decimation as merely a destructive word, like devastation. For example, "The army's strength was decimated" or "The tornado decimated the town". I did not think deeply enough about what it really meant. The phrases I just mention could mean devastated, if losing a tenth of the army or a tenth of a town was considered to be devastation.

I did not realize the exact meanings of the word:

1) " to select by lot and kill every tenth man of"
2)" to exact a tax of 10 percent from"
3)a:" to reduce drastically especially in number b: to cause great destruction or harm to".

These are from a Webster's dictionary and I was at least glad to realize that my understanding of the word, decimation, was one of the meanings, but not necessarily the most useful in this instance for the astrological usage

As Mr. Schmidt has pointed out, there is another word/number play going on here. Decimation refers to the a tenth of something. It is the 10 paragraph in Antiochus. It is used to refer to a star in the 10th image from another star.

So a planet in the 10th image from another planet is overcoming and decimating it. The decimation indicates the star in the 10th image is extracting or taking something from the other planet.

When I was reading the chapter on "Paying Tribute by Striking with a Ray", I was immediately "struck" or fascinated by three ideas in this section.

1) I am fascinated by the Prophyry description of one school of thought about "a tetragonal star belonging to the image of response that strikes with a ray a star belonging to the image or pursuit. I think I understand the "image of pursuit", since that star is in an image earlier in the zodiacal order and is "pursuing" the other star across the sky. But I am intrigued about the "image of response". The description earlier of overcoming and decimation seemed to imply that the planet in the 10th image from another planet was "extracting" or "demanding" something from the other planet. I can't quite understand how this "image of response" can correspond with the overcoming planet. It would seem to me that the planet that was being overcome and decimated would be "responding" in some way. Maybe I am making too much of this or I have misunderstood it. But the idea of "pursuit" and "response" are fascinating when trying to come up with ways of delineating these planetary relationships.

2) Porphyry's description of two schools of thought on striking with a ray includes Thrasyllus' view that striking with a ray is destructive. The text reads (p.203), " ...those present in tetragonal or diameterical figures destroy, while the testimony of trigonal figures in the interval of the hour-marking portion is not taken for destruction." I don't understand necessarily why he brings in the idea of testimony for the trigonal figure. Why not just say that striking with a ray from a trigonal position is not destructive? The earlier paragraph indicates the other school of thought suggests that the trigonal star never casts a ray, "for , it fixes its ray more upon the tetragon that is near at hand than upon the trigon." My fascination extends to the idea of a ray destroying and overcoming that decimates.

3) I did not really find where the idea of "paying tribute" comes in with the striking with a ray. Granted the Greek word ballo as Mr. Schmidt explains has a underlying notion of to throw something. I don't think "throwing " your tribute to someone else would go over well with the receiver. I did not find where the sense of "paying tribute" comes in, but I may have not read the chapter close enough? It is implied in the notion of decimation. The decimated planet is the one that could cast a ray towards the overcoming planet.

So here is what I am interested in. There are two planets that are 10 images apart. One planet is overcoming and extracting a 10th of something from the other planet. The planet being overcome, could, if the portions are close enough and in the right order, be striking the planet with a ray in a destructive manner. Do you see what I am interested in here? This interaction between these two planets seems to have at least two layers of interactions going on that needs to be delineated. The planet in the 10th sign is taking something from the other planet while it is overcoming it or coming down upon it. The other planet is throwing a ray as to strike the planet in the 10th image, that could be a destructive act. It seems that both planets "lose" in this situation and would not seem to be "good" for the native, especially if malefics are involved.

[David_Stricker]

Figures on the Right (dexios) and on the Left (eunonumos)

This concept has always been troublesome for me to visualize when staring at a chart. It has to do with "perspective". On the right relative to what? I was looking at charts and tried to understand "on the right" or "on the left", visualizing it in order of the Zodiac. Initially that did not seem to work the way I was looking at it. I tried to visualize it from the perspective of the Horoskopos on the outer ring of the chart looking at the planets. That did not work either. I always seemed to get it backwards and it was frustrating, in a stupid kind of way. I knew if I thought out the details, I could come up with the answer. But it would be like having to write down on a piece of paper:

100
X 5

and having to work out the multiplication to get the answer instead of just being able to add two zeroes to the '5' and know the answer was 500 in my head. I wanted to be able to do the same thing with "on the left" or "on the right" when staring at a chart.

This definition came up again in the "Definitions and Foundations" (p.139-143) and while listening to Mr. Schmidt's "Configuration Intensive". Indirectly I think I have finally came up with how to visualize "on the right" and "on the left" while looking at a chart. I am sure this is not the only way to visualize this and this perspective may not do justice to the concept. But it gives me the "correct" answer, which sometimes will lead me to the original concept (as far as it might be understood). Please forgive me if I was the only one having problems with this, but I do have another issue yet to address, so please bear with me.

If you visualize yourself standing at the center of a chart circle and face the Horoskopos, images on your right hand side are "images on the right with respect to the Horoskopos. The same is true for the left (or well-named) side. For figures (aspects), if you think of standing in the center of the wheel and facing out towards the planet in question, images on the right side are images from which the planet has already been zoidically. The images on the left are the images the planet is moving towards.

The Anitochus text seems simple enough, at least when I tried to view figures in charts. Looking out from the center of the chart seemed to work, without having to remember every time, which way was left or right. The figure from which a star has departed is the right side and the figure it will go towards is the left. Helios in the Lion trigonal to Kronos in the Ram is a figure on the right, because Helios has already departed the Ram. Helios in the Lion tetragonal to Zeus in the Scorpion is a figure on the left, because the Scorpion is an image towards which Helios is moving. At least from the perspective of Helios. Which leads to my question:

Can we discuss figures on the left or right from the perspective of either planet? Or does it need to be from the perspective of the faster moving planet only? Here is why I ask. What if you are delineating a specific topic that requires you to examine a specific planet, or the domicile lord of a specific image? For example, what if you are considering marriage and one of the factors to look at is the 7th place and the condition of the domicile lord of that place. Let's say the Goat-Horned One is in the 7th place. The domicile lord is Kronos and let's say he is in the Scorpion in the 5th place. Imagine Ares is in the Fishes in the 9th and Zeus is in the Crab in the 1st. From the perspective of Kronos, the domicile lord we are examining:

Ares in Pisces is a trigonal figure on the left, since Kronos in the Scorpion has not been to the Fishes yet.
Zeus in the Crab is a trigonal figure on the right, because Kronos has already left the Crab.

But what if we are to consider the figures from the perspective of the faster moving planets? The text does use the words "from which it has departed" and "to which it will go". This implies movement and the figures form and change based on the movement of a faster moving planet with respect to the slower moving planet. Or do they?

Kronos is on the right of Ares (from Ares perspective), since Ares in the Fishes is moving away from Kronos and has already left the Scorpion.
Kronos is on the left of Zeus, since Zeus in the Crab is moving towards Kronos and has not yet moved to the Scorpion.

From the perspective of the faster moving planets, the figures are the opposite from the figures using Kronos as the perspective point. Can they be examined both way? Since the delineation of a domicile lord's condition would seem to be from the perspective of the domicile lord, I would have to say that you can delineate them both ways.

Comments?

[Doug_Noblehorse]

Decimation versus Striking with a Ray


One of the things that I have learned while studying Hellenistic Astrology is that I don't know the complete definitions of the English words that are in Mr. Schmidt's translation. For all his efforts to focus on the Greek words, I am sure he would be pleased to know that my vocabulary is expanding as a result of his efforts.

Yes, Mr. Schmidt has a way of not only familiarizing you with Ancient Greek, but he also challenges you to think much more carefully about the English words we use.

I have to admit when I first saw the title, I was thinking of decimation as merely a destructive word, like devastation. For example, "The army's strength was decimated" or "The tornado decimated the town". I did not think deeply enough about what it really meant. The phrases I just mention could mean devastated, if losing a tenth of the army or a tenth of a town was considered to be devastation.

I did not realize the exact meanings of the word:

1) " to select by lot and kill every tenth man of"
2)" to exact a tax of 10 percent from"
3)a:" to reduce drastically especially in number b: to cause great destruction or harm to".

These are from a Webster's dictionary and I was at least glad to realize that my understanding of the word, decimation, was one of the meanings, but not necessarily the most useful in this instance for the astrological usage

Yes, I think that the definition of the word "decimation" has become muddled and inexact over the centuries. I don't think decimation should be thought of as "great destruction or harm". After all, the Romans used decimation as a punishment for failure with their legions, at least as I understand it. I find it hard to accept that the Romans would themselves invite "great destruction" for their legions. A tenth yes.

So I don't see the astrological decimation as "destruction", but rather as Mr. Schmidt points out (and I'm paraphrasing here...), the exacting of tribute or respect. After all, it is the 10th from the hour-marker that is the second most-important place in the horoskopos - and yet we don't necessarily understand the relationship between the 10th place and the 1st place as destructive - but I suppose you could make a case for seeing the 10th place signifying praxis as "exacting" some kind of tribute or price to be paid from the signification of the 1st place.

So here is what I am interested in. There are two planets that are 10 images apart. One planet is overcoming and extracting a 10th of something from the other planet. The planet being overcome, could, if the portions are close enough and in the right order, be striking the planet with a ray in a destructive manner. Do you see what I am interested in here? This interaction between these two planets seems to have at least two layers of interactions going on that needs to be delineated. The planet in the 10th sign is taking something from the other planet while it is overcoming it or coming down upon it. The other planet is throwing a ray as to strike the planet in the 10th image, that could be a destructive act. It seems that both planets "lose" in this situation and would not seem to be "good" for the native, especially if malefics are involved.

Is it possible that the planet that is 4th from the planet that is overcoming and decimating is actually "striking with a ray" defensively?

This particular bit of Hellenistic doctrine is of special interest to me as I have a particularly pointed example of this in my own chart. I have Helios in the 20th portion of the Ram in the 10th place overcoming/decimating Zeus in the 20th portion of the Crab in the 1st place. Note that both planets are exalted, pivotal and are in an exact figural conjunction - in this case the overcoming tetragon.

So what would such a configuration mean? One possible application of this figural application in my life is the fact that my relationship with my father (as signified by Helios?) interfered - or perhaps decimated - my pursuit of higher learning (as signified by Zeus?) It did not destroy my zest for learning, but it (my relationship with my father) certainly altered my life in significant ways as regards my education. In point of fact, my father only had an eighth-grade education, so in my opinion the concept of higher education and its benefits was somewhat alien to him. My father, as signified by Helios in my nativity, demanded personal subservience and dependence. My natal Zeus (being exalted in his own confines in the 1st place) absolutely refused on a matter of principle - and had to pay the price of sacrificing a higher education, at least in a conventional sense (my natal Zeus is also modern-conjunct modern Ouranos - but that lies outside a Hellenistic framework, both literally and conceptually.)

Mr. Noblehorse

[Jane Griscti]

Whoa! So much information I'm probably putting my foot in it here but you've got my mind spinning with regards to neighbouring.

My first thought is that there will naturally be different types of neighbouring because the confine lords and their situations will differ; similar to your thinking along the lines of which type of neighbours actually exist in the world.

Second, why is neighbouring seen to intensify? I believe, if you consider that the lord of the confines is said to restrict the planet in some way, that neighbouring intensifies because both planets have to deal with the same set of restrictions. We also have the added concept of watching over, are they watching over each other to ensure the limits imposed by the confine lord are respected? If they were each in different confines they would each have a different set of limits, would they be 'watching over' each other for different reasons? Does being in the same confines mean they are both watching for the same thing? Would that narrowing of focus intensify their actions?

Third, is the neighbouring even more intense if the confines lord also has another relation with the planets i.e. is in a figural conjunction or testimony relation with the planets in adherence or to one or more of the planets neighbouring by configural conjunction.

Certainly a lot of food for thought

[Doug_Noblehorse]

I may be drifting afield here - and if I am I hope Mr. Schmidt corrects me at some point... but I believe at some point and in some venue Mr. Schmidt referred to confines as "tenets" or "operating rules" of some sort. Following that line of thought, I've begun to think of confines as "principles" or "guiding principles" if you will.

Principles of course, restrict and guide your actions in a certain way. So if two planets share the same confines or the same confine lord as in the neighboring concept, then their relationship would intensify and become closer ("neighbors") as they share the same principles.

For example, I feel I have much more in common with astrological colleagues who use Whole Signs; less so with those that use Placidus. I am restricted (by the adoption of Whole Signs), but it's the voluntary restriction of principles that I have adopted. I feel (at least on this one level) much more neighborly towards those who share the same principles...

Mr. Noblehorse

Whoa! So much information I'm probably putting my foot in it here but you've got my mind spinning with regards to neighbouring.

My first thought is that there will naturally be different types of neighbouring because the confine lords and their situations will differ; similar to your thinking along the lines of which type of neighbours actually exist in the world.

Second, why is neighbouring seen to intensify? I believe, if you consider that the lord of the confines is said to restrict the planet in some way, that neighbouring intensifies because both planets have to deal with the same set of restrictions. We also have the added concept of watching over, are they watching over each other to ensure the limits imposed by the confine lord are respected? If they were each in different confines they would each have a different set of limits, would they be 'watching over' each other for different reasons? Does being in the same confines mean they are both watching for the same thing? Would that narrowing of focus intensify their actions?

Third, is the neighbouring even more intense if the confines lord also has another relation with the planets i.e. is in a figural conjunction or testimony relation with the planets in adherence or to one or more of the planets neighbouring by configural conjunction.

Certainly a lot of food for thought

[David_Stricker]

Second, why is neighbouring seen to intensify?

Ms. Griscti,

I was probably describing the neighboring relationship improperly by calling it an "intensification". It is very hard to break out of old thought patterns. One of the things that Mr. Schmidt has insisted on for years is to not just use "strength" or "intensity" to describe a situation, if there is a qualitative way to describe what is going on. You make some interesting points, as does Mr. Noblehorse. His comment about the confines as tenets or operating principles is correctly describing how Mr. Schmidt has explained the effect the confines have on a planet.

I am fascinated by the confines and their lord and what kind of restriction or structure they impose on a planet. The "watching over" concept seems to be explicitly linked with planets that are in the same confines of a planet. This may be a further way of describing planets forming figures that are in the confines of the same star. I am not sure if planets of different confines could watch over each other? Would they "know" the tenets that the planets in the other confines are suppose to be following? The "watching over" might be a reinforcement of the idea that planets in the same planetary confines watch over each other when they are in "any figure whatsoever".

Just to make things more confusing in an attempt to get seek some clarification (!), since figures are usually limited to a 3 portion range, is there something happening if the planets are not within 3 degrees but are still in the same confines? For example, say that Zeus is at 3 portions of the Water Pourer and Aphrodite is at 13 portions of the Bull. They are both in the confines of Hermes but do not form a tetragonal figure because they are 10 portions apart and separating. Since they are in the confines of the same planet, does this indicate any kind of "relationship"? Should we consider testimonial relationships with the same confines lord in a different way? Testimonial relationships are really different than figures, so maybe this is not appropriate.

[Jane Griscti]

Hi Mr Noblehorse

I agree with your interpretation of the confines representing principles of behaviour although I'm not sure I think of them as being voluntary; my impression of the material is that the planet has no choice, it must abide by the rules laid down by the confines lord, hopefully Mr Schmidt will correct me if I've understood this incorrectly.

I feel (at least on this one level) much more neighborly towards those who share the same principles...

Not quite sure that neighbouring is always friendly, the text does say "...it symbolizes not simply the friendships and hostilities that belong to the modes of planetary relationship related to figures, but the closest friendships and the deepest enmities" I gather the friendship or hostility depends on the planets themselves in adherence or the type of figural conjunction being made.

Hi Mr Stricker,

Intensity was the word Mr Schmidt used to describe the situation in the intensive, if I recall it rightly, so I don't think you were wrong to use that word and as quoted above, the text does imply that word "closest friendships and the deepest enmities", it is not your normal engagement

I believe the "watching over" is due to the 3 portion rule, so these planets are in aspect and hence watching over one another and actually engaged with one other; with the neighbouring condition intensifying or perhaps deepening the relationship?

The key difference, as I understand it, between a testimonial relationship and an aspect is that the planets involved in a testimony relationship adopt a stance or attitude towards each other while those in an aspect are actually engaged with each other; so planets in a tetragonal testimonial relationship throw hostile glares at one another but in a tetragonal aspect are actually yelling or arguing with each other. Since the neighbouring concept only applies to planets within 3 portions it implies the planets must be engaged with each other and that the engagment would be deeper or stronger or more intense than the engagement between two planets within 3 portions but in different confines. Again, I may be wrong, this is just the way I've understood the material.

What I'm trying to understand is since it appears the intensity of relationship is increased by the two being in the same confines then the confine lord is presumably the reason for the intensification so would the behaviour of the planets be exaggerated along the lines defined by the confines lord?

For example, in JFK's chart, Hermes and Mars in adherence in Zeus' confines and Selene configured with the adherence also in Zeus' confines could possibly indicate an exaggerated personal and public [Selene] optimism but as Selene, Hermes, Mars and Jupiter are all in places unconducive to business this over the top optimism was harmful to the native. In some way, the behaviour the confine lord imposes plays a dominant role in the planets terms of engagement, the manner in which they interact with each other. Does that make sense?