Did William Lilly misunderstand contrantiscions?

William Lilly writes on pages 91-92 of Christian Astrology (1647):

“and as there are Antiscions, which of the good planets we think are equal to a Sextile, or Trine; so are there Contrantiscions, which we find to be of the nature of a Square or Opposition: and to know where it is, you do no more than observe in what sign and degree the Antiscion is, in the sign and degree opposite to that place [is] the Contrantiscion…” (bold is mine).

Note that Lilly specifies that the antiscions “of the good planets” are regarded as equal to a sextile or trine connection between the planets. He does not comment on the antiscions of “bad planets” or on the contrantiscions of either good or bad planets, except to say that contrantiscions are “of the nature of a square or opposition.” This view of contrantiscions appears in most modern texts about the topic of antisicia and contra-antiscia.

In reading through Ben Dykes 2020 translation of Abu Ma’shar’s 9th century Great Introduction to the Science of the Judgment of the Stars, however, I came upon a different view of contrantiscions, which took me by surprise because Lilly’s explanation of contantisicons as being like squares and oppositions had been so ingrained in my brain.

Ma’shar is writing about how the signs of the zodiac can behold one another, which is a matter of importance because the planetary ruler of a sign cannot effectively manage its own domain if it has no way to communicate with it. Such a state of inability to communicate visually is referred to as “aversion.”

All astrologers know that signs connected by major, or so-called Ptolomeic, aspects can behold one another. Thus, a planet in a sign can see what is going on in any other sign which is connected to it by major aspect (sextile, square, trine, opposition). Technically, the conjunction is not an aspect but refers to the actual bodily presence of a planet within a sign.

Ma’shar asks what happens when planets occupy signs which are NOT connected by any major aspect, that is, by direct vision. Are there other connections between the signs which will allow a planet in one such sign to know what is happening in the other? The answer is “yes” because signs can be connected by antiscions, contrantiscions, or by being ruled by the same planet.

Antiscions are basically reflections across the solstitial axis, so instead of direct vision, a planet in one sign can see the reflection of the other sign, so to speak. For example, in the following diagram Aries and Virgo are “inconjunct” or “quincunx” and cannot directly see each other via a major aspect. However, each can “see” the image of the other via its reflection across the solstitial axis. Such signs are said to “agree in power” because their days share the same amount of sunlight (the source of power in our solar system). This is considered a harmonious connection.

Image from my book Horary Astrology Plain and Simple

Contrantiscions are signs which reflect across the equinoctial axis and agree in the amount of time it takes each sign in the pair to ascend across the eastern horizon. Such signs are sometimes considered to communicate by being able to “hear” each other. Nonetheless, it is a form of communication and is regarded as a way in which the signs can “harmonize” with one another.

There is no mention of the contrantiscion acting like a square or opposition. Quite the contrary, Abu Ma’shar gives the example of signs in actual square aspect, which would normally mean conflict and hostility, in fact being in harmony and affection because both signs agreed in ascensions and had a contrantiscion relationship (as do the pairs Taurus/Aquarius, and Leo/Scorpio). In other words, the contrantiscion connection converts signs in square aspect to signs that, nonetheless, harmonize and feel affection for one another because they have a special contrantiscion relationship which permits each one to hear what the other is saying.

While it is true that the antiscion and contrantiscion degrees of a given planet lie opposite each other in the zodiac circle, it does not mean that the contrantiscion is equivalent to an opposition aspect. This notion must have entered the literature some time after the 9th century when Abu Ma’shar wrote his treatise, explaining that the contrantiscion is a connection of “harmony and affection” between signs. Perhaps Lilly’s version is based on a translator’s misunderstanding of the original Arabic text.

Abu Ma’shar’s explanation is similar to that of earlier Hellenistic astrologers. For example, Rhetorius of Egypt around the 7th century wrote: “Signs that are disjunct but having sympathy for each other are all the equal-rising signs [contra-antiscions], and those having equal power [antiscions], and those of like zone [same planetary ruler]. For example, equal-rising are Aries and Pisces, Gemini and Capricorn, Cancer and Sagittarius, Virgo and Libra; of equal power are Gemini and Cancer, Virgo and Aries, Libra and Pisces, Sagittarius and Capricorn; of like zone are Taurus with Libra, Aries with Scorpio. And most of the other disjunct signs they established wholly ineffective as regards sympathy.” (James Holden translation, 2009, pp. 16-17)

Like Abu Ma’shar, Rhetorius regards the antiscion, contrantiscion and same planetary ruler relationships between signs as one of “sympathy” (Rhetorius) or harmony and affection (Ma’shar), and there is no mention of contrantisions being of the nature of oppositions or squares.

Image from my book Horary Astrology Plain and Simple.
Horizontal lines connect antiscions (sign of equal power).
Vertical lines connect contrantiscions (signs of equal ascension).
Abu Ma’shar regards such connections as one of affection and harmony between the signs involved, even though the two signs cannot see each other by major aspect.

Addendum: I’m grateful to Luis Ribeiro for pointing out that Ma’shar used the term “natural opposition” when discussing antiscions and contrantiscions.  Inspired by Luis, I checked Dyke’s translation (2020), and he notes that by “natural opposition” and “natural sextile” Ma’Shar means that the two signs are in aversion (can’t see each other) but are able to harmonize because they are also in antiscion or contrantiscion relationship (see footnote 199 on page 362 of Dykes translation). So it may be that European translators in later centuries did not understand what Ma’shar mean by “natural opposition”, etc.

All written material and images on this page are copyright Anthony Louis 2022.