i started astrology since few months ago and I am interested to understand the horary. can someone advise me a fantastic book, easily understable

I'm not sure horary is the place to start if you're new to astrology! Horary is very complicated, even for those of us 'beginner' students who have been doing astrology for many years!

I would recommend you get very familiar with *natal* astrology first, learn to understand the planets, signs, houses, aspects, and their meanings, before diving into horary. I suppose it *is* possible to do horary astrology right off the bat, but to me it is like jumping into a deep and fast-moving river (full of rocks!) without knowing how to swim first!

The best place to start would be to have a good look on the horary section of this website, to start. It is a FONT of excellent information, example charts, quizzes, etc. You don't need a book just yet! Just get a feel for how it's done first.

I suppose you're right; I've come from years of studying natal astrology, which seems simple to me compared to the 'simplicity' of horary, which seems complicated!

But I still think that one needs to have the *basics* down pat; if you don't know the difference between a benefic and a malefic you're in deep trouble in horary, whereas the beneficence and maleficence of planets in natal astrology is, IMO, rather lessened by sign, house, aspect, etc, especially if looking at -basic- natal astrology and not diving into, say, the Jungian symbolism of Liz Greene-type astrology. One needs to have the skeleton in place before building the body, so I think beginners need to start at the beginning.

I'd also suggest reading Christian Astrology itself, especially the first book; if you want to know Christianity, read the Bible; if you want to know horary, read Christian Astrology! (But it's not the simplest of reading...)

Thank you for your help. I have orderd frawled books and I will find out if horary is more complex than natal astrology. But to my opinion, nothing is hard if you are motivated to learn.... my modo

bonne apres midi (good afternoon)

Good Morning,

Thanks for the response:

But I still think that one needs to have the *basics* down pat;

Precisely my point. And there is nothing more basic than horary. John Frawley, in his lectures teaches students how to delineate a chart with one planet in it.

if you don't know the difference between a benefic and a malefic you're in deep trouble in horary, whereas the beneficence and maleficence of planets in natal astrology is, IMO, rather lessened by sign, house, aspect, etc,

The astrologer needs to understand what a benefic and malefic is in all of astrology, and in horary, the influence is also altered by sign and house. Aspects are of far less importance in horary astrology than natal, which makes horary simpler. It's one less thing you have to deal with.

I'm writing a piece for the forecasting thread and in that post I use the example of Arthur Ashe. Ashe has a natal Saturn in Gemini in the 9th on Bellatrix. Taken by itself this could be a serious negative in a native's life, but due to other factors in the chart, the malefic effects are lessened and the benefic effects of Saturn manifest. I've never seen a horary chart that puts any planet in such a complex light. Saturn rules the 4th, Saturn is his parents. If what Saturn is doing or is being done to is our concern, pretty much that's the end of the story in a horary. We're not concerned with his career, or children, or friends unless the question pertains to those things.

Where I should have been more clear is emphasizing that because horary is the simplest type of astrology it does not follow that it is easy or takes little effort to master. That is manifestly untrue. But compared to a human life, a horary question is simple.

I do agree that CA is mandatory for anyone who is interested in astrology, and it is not the easiest thing to read, but once you get used to the odd phrasing, creative spelling, and Lilly's seemingly interminable sentences, it can become enjoyable.

And for some unrequested editorializing: The natal section of CA is almost as outstanding as the horary section. Were it not for the significant accomplishent of the horary section, the natal could stand in its own right as a classic. Some famous astrolgoers have made derogatory remarks about Lilly's natal ability. They're wrong. There is a wealth of valuable information in that book as well.

Tom

Tom,

I _do_ see your point about complexity/simplicity, but for some reason the ideas of reception, face, term, dignities/debilities, application, etc. in a horary seem more complicated to me than understanding that a Moon in Leo person will have a basic need to be adulated, and that having Moon in Leo in the 5th may represent a 'puer eternis' or Peter Pan complex (or be a drama queen!). I like your analogy of unravelling a human life, but perhaps for some people (like myself) human psychology is easier to understand than the simpler symbolism of horary! Perhaps it depends upon whether one is a 'lumper' (sees the Big Picture) or a 'splitter' (sees the details).

Lilly's descriptions of mundane astrology are fantastic, even for stuff we no longer use, like the humours (although modern medicine may behoove itself to have a look, especially for herbs, parts of the body, etc.). I love Lilly's endless sentences; before I discovered the semi-colon my sentences looked identical!

Hi,

We're getting a little off point, but that's OK because this kind of thing tends to answer others' questions.

First, it is true that complexity and simplicty can often be in the eye of the beholder. Some people pick up some things a lot easier than others will learn the same thing and it has nothing to do with IQ. It's the way we're wired. So, to your point, I do not doubt for one minute that there are people out there who will puzzle over a horary chart forever, and at the same time can read off a nativity almost second nature.

To your next point, and I think this is important:

but for some reason the ideas of reception, face, term, dignities/debilities, application, etc. in a horary seem more complicated to me than understanding that a Moon in Leo person will have a basic need to be adulated,

I would agree that the above statement, by itself, is correct. This is what I had in mind when I said that people who come to a traditional practice like horary from a background that is based predominently in contemporary natal astrology would see horary as far more complicated than natal. What I would point out is that the above comparison is not apples to apples. The dignities are important to horary and the dignities aren't used (other than domicile rulership and a little bit of exaltation) in modern psychological astrology. So when someone is introduced to horary by being hit on the head with a bunch of strange terminology it is obviously going to be appear to be complicated. There is very little fame of reference for the modern to grasp horary quickly. Try to explain the terms to a modern and then inform him that their origin is unknown. In the modern's mind it might seem that he or she is learning from scratch. I would bet a nice dinner that competent modern astrolgoers could grasp horary a lot faster than they think they could.

But let's look at it from the point of view of the astrological beginner. He or she knows some Sun sign stuff, maybe, or even has seen or had a chart delineated and decides to take the plunge and study astrology. We don't hit him in the head with the table of dignities right off the bat, any more than a modern would start lesson one with Jungian archetypes. We start with the houses, then the planets, then the signs.

The second point, and I don't recall if I made it on this forum or elsewhere, but something inside my rattlehouse tells me I've done it recently, is that modern astrology and traditional astrology don't have the same reference points at all. So practicing modern psychological astrology and then jumping to traditional horary may seem a bit like expecting one's tennis ability to make him or her a good basketball player. They are both games, and they both use balls, and the are both played on a court, but after that they have little in common. But the athletic ability will eventually translate from one sport to another.

Let's take a paragraph from The Astrolgoer's Handbook by Sakoian and Acker.

Saturn in the houses indicates the areas of life in which a person must learn to act with discipline. It shows what practical circumstances require responsibility from the individual, thus forcing him to mature. It shows how he must build structure into the areas of his life that lack it, and how he will express practical ambition.

Pretty standard fare.

Now for a traditional example let's look at Lilly. CA page 58.

He [Saturn] is a Diurnal Planet, Cold and Dry (being far removed from the heat of the Sun) and moist Vapors, Melancholic, Earthly Masculine, the greater Infortune, author of Solitariness, Maleveolent, &c.

The first quote directly relates Saturn to the individual. Lilly's quote tells the student what Saturn is like. Sakoian and Acker assume their readers are interested only in natal astrology (in which case the title should have been The Natal Astrologer's Handbook). Lilly is teaching fundamental astrology. Saturn is cold and dry and the author of mischief whether he is in a horary, natal chart, election, or chart of a nation, he is still Saturm.

For a person who is well versed in the kind of astrology that S&A are writing about, Lilly sounds like a foreign language. A beginner on the other hand, doesn't know any different and he takes his newly learned Saturn knowledge with him whever he goes.

On another point, we don't use the humors in horary astrology or psychological astrology, but modern astrologers, whether they prefer Jung or Freud or whomsoever, might wish to reconsider them. Temperament (which is not the same as personality, although it can be) is essential to understanding the native. Insult a phlegmatic and he'll probably cry. Insult a melancholic and he'll go off and be depressed. Insult a sanguine and you'll get insulted right back. Insult a choleric and you might get punched in the nose. And they all might have the Moon in Leo.

And finally, Lilly could have used fewer semi-colons and more periods.

Have a great day

Tom

So then, if we turn the argument on its head, and say a person begins with horary and then moves to natal astrology - will it be easier for them to understand natal astrology having done horary? I agree that 'one is not the other'; horary is like its own language. Applying the natures of the planets in a horary, for example, to natal astrology will only confuse the newbie, as likely will the idea that triplicity, term and face translating to a natal chart.

It just seems a bit backwards to me to start with horary, as horary requires a degree of *precision* that natal astrology doesn't necessarily need. Horary is, to my mind, more like mathematics (and let's not even address the Arabic Parts!) whereas natal astrology is more akin to geography, or map-reading, or painting a picture. Not everyone can do trigonometry, but almost anyone can pick up a paintbrush and, with a small amount of instruction, paint a decent picture. Almost anyone can figure out how to get to Albuquerque from Miami via New Orleans with a map in front of them.

Horary *is* simplistic, in a way, but as we know it also reaches far, far beyond the realms of 'Does he like me?' or 'Will I get a job?'; I feel that my own understanding of horary is *helped* by having a good knowledge of modern astrology, whereas it wouldn't have helped at all had the knowledge base been in reverse order. Am I barking up the wrong tree?


Toodle-pip.

I may be a little late to join this discussion but I thought the issue of good Horary books raised by Zohra is interesting.

I have been reading a lot of modern horary literature over the last year and would share Tom's suggestion of John Frawley's ''The Horary Textbook'' as a great starting point. Its probably the most straightforward introduction. My main difficulty with Frawley is that he tends to present his own take on horary as the only one there is. Thus you would never learn from his book that there are different approaches to the Void of Course Moon or out of sign aspects. Also his description of Mutual Reception is (at least to some of us) quite idiosyncratic. Still despite some reservations this is nonetheless an excellent book to start with.

Anthony Louis is far more broad in scope in acknowledging the diversity of approaches to Horary out there. His book ''Horary Astrology: Plain and Simple'' is the my personal favourite book on Horary. This is I believe a revised and expanded edition of his earlier book referred to by Tom. This book has the best coverage of the Fixed stars in a general horary book I have seen. Mind you some purists would dismiss his discussion of minor aspects in horary!

I think Derek Appleby's book 'Horary Astrology' ( which has just been republished) is a great book for beginners too. A very modest astrologer he even admits his mistakes! In typical Aquarian style he dispenses with Regio houses for Placidus. I don't have the new edition but suspect the hand drawn charts in the first edition would benefit from an overhaul.

Appleby states his major influence (after Lilly) was Ivy Goldstein-Jacobson and her book 'Simplified Horary Astrology'. I have just got this book and it looks very interesting.

I would question Tom's suggestion of ''Horary Astrology Rediscovered'' by Olivia Barclay as a good book for beginners. We may all owe her an enormous debt but the book is not the easiest introduction around.
I think it was compiled from a series of articles which may explain the rather awkward structure. Still its valuable for the intermediate student. The book certainly had a significant role in promoting the traditional revival in the United Kingdom. I found her enthusiasm for midpoints quite a surprise!

Incidentally as we are on the subject of Horary books has anyone out there read Lee Lehman's book 'The Martial Art of Horary Astrology'.
How do people rate it? I haven't heard it discussed much.

Also does anyone know when John Frawley's follow up Horary book looking at lots of chart examples is coming out?

Mark

So then, if we turn the argument on its head, and say a person begins with horary and then moves to natal astrology - will it be easier for them to understand natal astrology having done horary?

Yes. This is the purpose of my Saturn example or Lilly's Saturn example. Saturn is Saturn. I take the idea that Saturn is cold and dry with me no matter what kind of astrology I practice. Whereas Sakoian and Aker's delineation does me no good at all with mundane or horary astrology.

This is the way John Frawley teaches astrology. All students regardless of experience (unless they can demonstrate competence with horary) begin with horary then to natal and elections, then to mundane. On the other hand, Frawley doesn't teach much Jung

Applying the natures of the planets in a horary, for example, to natal astrology will only confuse the newbie,

The nature of the planets does not change from one kind of astrology to another. The astrologer's application of that nature changes. If I ask a question about a job and the job is represented by Saturn, that tells me something about the job. Saturn in or ruling the 10th in a nativity tells me the same sort of thing. The job/career is cold and dry. We don't need one nature for horary, one for natal, and one for mundane.

as likely will the idea that triplicity, term and face translating to a natal chart.

The dignities are used to great effect in natal astrology. Translating their use from horary to natal is easy, unless the student goes from traditional horary to say, Noel Tyl's psychological astrology. Then never the twain shall meet.

It just seems a bit backwards to me to start with horary, as horary requires a degree of *precision* that natal astrology doesn't necessarily need.

I should not take the bait But I will. You are correct. Modern astrology is, in fact quite imprecise, and that is a negative. If we go from precise horary to precise natal, what could be wrong with that?

This brings up another salient observation. Horary is best for newbies because they get an answer to their delineations very quickly, and therefore learn faster. "Will I get the job?" Well you will or you won't, and the astrologer will be right or wrong and know quickly. Compare that to delineating the career from a natal chart. It might take a lifetime to get the answer.

Horary is, to my mind, more like mathematics (and let's not even address the Arabic Parts!)

We don't use the parts (or lots) that much in horary. I've probably used the part of marriage in horary more than any other. In natal astrology they can be of immense value

Horary *is* simplistic, in a way, but as we know it also reaches far, far beyond the realms of 'Does he like me?' or 'Will I get a job?'; I feel that my own understanding of horary is *helped* by having a good knowledge of modern astrology, whereas it wouldn't have helped at all had the knowledge base been in reverse order. Am I barking up the wrong tree?

Yeah you are Nah, Not really. You know natal astrology, so that helps you with horary. It is only natural that your prior knowleddge would prove to be beneficial. For example you noted, correctly that horary goes a lot deeper than simple answers to simple questions. A beginner wouldn't pick up on that right away, so your experience did help in that instance. But I'm thinking in terms of starting with an absolute beginner. If I were hired to teach someone from the very beginning, I would start with horary, and to make natal easier to grasp, I'd start without using the three outer planets. The idea is to build up to complexity.

Good discussion.

Tom

Hi Mark,

Anthony Louis is far more broad in scope in ackowledging the diversity of approaches to Horary out there. His book ''Horary Astrology: Plain and Simple'' is the my current personal favourite book on Horary. This is I believe a revised and expanded edition of his earlier book referred to by Tom.

I believe Tom got the title wrong and you got it right. He may have two editions of this book, I don't know. It is a fine book.

Mind you some purists would dismiss his discussion of minor aspects in horary!

And I'm one of them. But the book is sound and is a nice supplement to CA when the reader needs clarification of Lilly.

Louis also demonstrates the use of horary with the outer planets and, horror of horrors, the use of house systems other than Regiomontanus!

I think Deb is correct when she urges students to be consistent with whatever system and techniques they use. In the end it is results that count, not technique. On the other hand, to be fair to John Frawley, it is not reasonable to expect teachers to teach methods that they don't use, when they are successful in other ways.

Alll the best,

Tom