Horary vs. natal applications

1
How much and in what way can one apply the interpretation of horary conditions and techniques to the natal chart? Eg, how much does peregrination in a natal chart mirror peregrination in a horary chart?

Combustion seems to work in a similar way in both natal and horary I've noticed, but not in every case. Many successful writers, for example, have Mercury either combust or retrograde. Yet others with Mercury combust or retrograde are extremely tongue-tied.

I am very interested to learn what those of you with more experience with traditional works have to say on this subject.

Tara

2
I suppose this is what the Jungians mean by "synchronicity." Recently I encountered a few things that made me rethink this question, and behold, here I find the question in print.

My former response was kind of flip, but it's a good place to start. Astrology is astrology so there should be many similarities - more than one might think at first blush. But that response, true as far as it goes, doesn't go very far.

Horary is much more specific and limited than natal. And obviously it is more immediate. It is confined to a particular question. Whereas a querent might ask, "Will I get this job?" The natal reading is or should be aimed at helping the native find the kind of work he or she is best suited for, and perhaps a general time frame that determines the best time to seek such opportunities.

Horary usually involves only a few planets; natal astrology involves all of them at one time or another. Horary, therefore is simpler. It is much easier to unravel a question than it is to unravel a life.

Moving on to specifics: The definition of a peregrine planet is the same in horary, natal, medical and mundane. What is different is how we look at it. If the querent's significator is peregrine, it shows the querent as weak in this particular situation. In a nativity the things represented by the peregrine planet are not likely to be major players in the life - a more serious weakness, but not a guarantee of failure. We all have weak planets in our charts and some highly successful people have all weak planets. If for example Jupiter is in Cancer in the 2nd it is an indication of great wealth, but Jupiter peregrine in the second indicates far less wealth. If Jupiter represents the job we ask about in the horary and is peregrine, it indicates that the job may not be what we think it is unless we know up front that it is not a great job. We can see the similarities in natal and horary, but note that how we look at it makes all the difference in the world.

Combustion is usually not good, but with the horary it might not be as bad as in a nativity. It depends on the question. If the question is, "Where is my necklace?" and the significator is combust, it only means it can't be seen. Having a planet combust in a nativity makes it difficult for the planet to be noticed. Going back to horary, if the question is about a disease, and we find the significator of the disease is combust, the disease is weak.

In the nativity, more so than in the horary we would note how close the planet was to the Sun and if it was applying or separating from the Sun. Being one or two degrees away and heading into combustion is a far different thing that being 7 degrees away and heading out of combustion.

I posted Norman Mailer's chart the other day and note that he a) is or was a successful writer, and b) he had Mercury combust and retrograde - a double whammy. But was Mailer a great writer? I would probably argue that he was not, although I'm not all that familiar with his work and I'm not a literary critic. But while Mailer's writings did bring him fame and fortune at first, when he began to drift from the Upper East Side chic, his writing worked against him. Also Mailer never achieved what he wanted most - to be Hemingway's equal. The Mercury might be indicative of the fact that he wasn't a great writer even though he was successful. Also in the post I noted that, in Mailer's case anyway, Mercury was less representative of his writing than Mars and Venus, but that takes us elsewhere.

The point is that the planets are the planets and they do what the planets do regardless of whether they are in a horary chart, decumbiture, or nativity. How we look at what they are doing creates the differences. This brings up another point: we need to have a reason to do what we're doing. OK this sounds a bit superficial, but ask yourself: if someone says, "Give me a reading," can we work with that to give the native something substantive, or do we want more guidance? Where do we begin? "Well you're a homo sapiens," is not a great help. But if the native asks, "What sort of career might fit me best?" We have a direction and that direction will tell us how to look at the planets. In brief, the direction and the astrologer's understanding of astrology and what the native or querent wants creates the differences. The planets simply are what they are.

I hope this helps a bit anyway.

Tom

3
What you have to say is very helpful and I thank you for taking the time to articulate it so well.
some highly successful people have all weak planets
Yes, I've noticed this and I'm not sure what to make of it.
we need to have a reason to do what we're doing. OK this sounds a bit superficial, but ask yourself: if someone says, "Give me a reading," can we work with that to give the native something substantive, or do we want more guidance? Where do we begin?
Exactly! When someone just wants "a reading", such as my 16 year old niece did recently, I can never think of a thing to say. I have to go away and scratch down a few notes, talk to myself about the chart and then I'll give her the notes and we can take it from there.

I was fortunate enough to attend a couple of workshops with Geoffrey Cornelius a few weeks ago. He suggests that not everything in the natal chart is relevant all the time. He talks about this in his book, Moment of Astrology, as well. It is such a liberating perspective.

The other thing about the indignities of combustion, peregrination, etc, etc, in the birth chart is that you do have a lifetime to figure out how to make even debilitated planets limp along to the finish line. The last thing we need is another reason to feel victimized, says I, thinking about the undignified fact that every planet in my birth chart but one is peregrine.

Thanks again for your help.

Tara

4
Hi Tara,
Quote:
some highly successful people have all weak planets

Yes, I've noticed this and I'm not sure what to make of it.

There are three charts that come to mind and I?ve only worked with one of them, but it provides me with some nice lead-in material. The three are Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, and General George Patton. These charts lack any significant essential dignity. So the first thing we can say is that we don?t need a lot of essential dignity in order to have a successful life. We only have rectifications for Lincoln, and I don?t know anything about Gandi?s chart, but Patton?s gives us some insight and answer?s this question:
Exactly! When someone just wants "a reading", such as my 16 year old niece did recently, I can never think of a thing to say.

The only planet with any reasonably strong essential dignity in Patton?s chart is the Moon in triplicity. Unfortunately, the Moon is in Capricorn the sign of her detriment. The quest then is to find a planet to work with. That planet logically is the Lord of the Geniture. The Lord of the Geniture is the planet with the most essential dignity with the caveat that a planet with less essential dignity in a good place might be better than a planet with a lot of essential dignity in a bad house, say 6, 8, or 12. That planet in Pattons? chart is not in great shape. It is Venus in Capricorn in the 7th, and she has dignity only by term, but that outweighs a planet in detriment in triplicity.

Venus is the planet of conciliation or relationship. George didn?t play well with others. Venus in his chart exhibited the exaltation of Mars characteristics far more than Venus characteristics, but Mars in his chart is the logical choice for significator of manners, i.e. the planet that tells us how the native behaves. When Venus crossed Patton?s MC by progression, he enjoyed his greatest successes in WW II, but the bulk of his adult professional life was filled with his being on the losing end of one internal confrontation after the other. He was no diplomat, and without a major war where he could demonstrate his talents, he would have ended up a seriously miserable man. In fact biographers tell us the period between World Wars I and II were the most unhappy of his life.

I?m explaining all this to suggest that Patton did not much engage the Lord or in his case the Lady of the geniture and if he had been a little more of a politician in his military career, he may well have accomplished even more and had fewer enemies. Where are we going with this?

Exactly! When someone just wants "a reading", such as my 16 year old niece did recently, I can never think of a thing to say.
I?ve never done this so I?ll be magnanimous and suggest that you be the guinea pig. Try to determine the Lord of Lady of the Geniture in your niece?s chart. Really dig in to what it means and try to get her to talk about it. If the LoG is the life we were born for and the ASC the life we are given, try to compare those things, and get her to talk about them.

Patton?s ASC is Gemini and Mercury is in detriment in the 6th house. Patton had all sorts of troubles in school and if he were born today, we would say he had learning disabilities. He was born to a military family and with an angular Mars he quickly found family approval with martial behavior that he couldn?t find with the results of his studies. He was a born soldier, but politics and diplomacy are part and parcel of a military career. He hated that, but a little tact would have gone a long way in his career. I'm not saying that with practice he could have become Eisenhower. He would still be Patton.

The Lord of the Geniture is the most powerful planet in our chart. It seems only logical that we should find a way to plug that in and benefit from it. And 16 isn?t too young to start thinking about it.

Good luck

Tom

5
Try to determine the Lord of Lady of the Geniture in your niece?s chart. Really dig in to what it means and try to get her to talk about it. If the LoG is the life we were born for and the ASC the life we are given, try to compare those things, and get her to talk about them.
No contest, Mercury in Virgo is Lord or Almuten, not only of the Asc (Gemini), but the whole chart, and this in a chart blessed with ED - Sun Leo, Moon Cancer, Mercury Virgo, Saturn Aquarius on MC.

I told her she has the "cream rises to the top" kind of chart and indeed at 16 she has already had a showing of her artwork at the municipal art gallery and has been quoted in local newspapers. She's a going concern.

But what if the Almuten (same thing as Lord of Geniture?) were combust? Does this make it harder to realize the potential of your strengths?

Tara

6
But what if the Almuten (same thing as Lord of Geniture?)
Mercury in Virgo would be tough to beat, but Almuten and Lord of the Geniture are not the same thing. Almuten is the planet that has the most essential dignity in a particular degree. It does not matter where in the chart the degree falls, the almuten is always the same. Now Mars is always almuten anywhere in Scorpio (I think) by virtue of his rulership and triplicity rulership, but if Scorpio rises and Mars is in Libra, we would never use Mars as Lord of the Geniture.

Lord of the geniture takes accidental dignity into consideration. Let's say Mercury in Virgo is in 12 and Jupiter is in Pisces on the 7th. Mercury has more essential dignity than Jupiter (domicile rulership and exaltation compared to domicile rulership, but we would use Jupiter as LoG since he is angular. Lord or Lady of the geniture is the planet with the most essential dignity but we may make an exception by choosing a planet that has less essential dignity but a lot more accidental dignity because the planet with more essential dignity has a more difficult time acting than the planet with a lot of accidental dignity.

You can see from this that the choice can be somewhat subjective. And there are always problems when the chart has no planets with any significant essential dignity or if there are two candidates. Since we are choosing the planet, the native can choose to work with the planet. In theory choosing the strongest planet to work with is the easiest thing to do. This is why we say the native can choose the life he wants as opposed to the life he was given (Lord ASC).

But what if the Almuten (same thing as Lord of Geniture?) were combust?
Then we wouldn't choose it for the lord of the geniture. A combust planet cannot act. It's power is obscured by the Sun. However, if the "combust" planet is in domicile, it might not be considered truly combust rather in a sort of mutual reception with the Sun since the "combust" planet is the dispositor or the "ruler" of the Sun.

If you're niece's Mercury is in any angular or succedent house, not including the 8th or in the 9th and maybe the third, it would be the strongest candidate. Look at Mercury's aspects, house position anything that qualifies or affects Mercury and see how she can use that energy to develop, and look to see if there are conflicts with Lord ASC.

One way to "plug in" the LoG is a partner, another would be a career. You can see we're using astrology to guide our free will.

Tom

7
It does not matter where in the chart the degree falls, the almuten is always the same.
Do you mean the almuten of that degree? But what use is the almuten if it's just some random degree in the middle of a house, etc.? :-?

To clarify -- the difference between almuten and LoG is that almuten considers only essential diginity whereas LoG considers all dignities?
if the "combust" planet is in domicile, it might not be considered truly combust rather in a sort of mutual reception with the Sun since the "combust" planet is the dispositor or the "ruler" of the Sun.
I am very interested in this statement as I've never heard it before. Where did you find this idea and how much validity do you think it has?

Tara

8
Tara wrote:
Tom wrote:if the "combust" planet is in domicile, it might not be considered truly combust rather in a sort of mutual reception with the Sun since the "combust" planet is the dispositor or the "ruler" of the Sun.
I am very interested in this statement as I've never heard it before. Where did you find this idea and how much validity do you think it has?
It is an arguable theory from John Frawley. Nevertheless, reception removes harm indeed, but in combustion there is nothing with Sun's disposition, but it is rather a matter of synodic cycle, like retrogradation. Therefore it should not be dismissed in such a way.

9
Hello,
It is an arguable theory from John Frawley. Nevertheless, reception removes harm indeed, but in combustion there is nothing with Sun's disposition, but it is rather a matter of synodic cycle, like retrogradation.
Actually you would probably be surprised Osthanes to know that this opinion is very old.
Serapion of Alexandria (CCAG 8/4 ) mentiones that when planets are in their thrones, idiothronountes:
Nevertheless, even if are combust, beneficent planets spread their good, the malefic changes their nature to beneficent influence.

I know that Robert Schmidt also has the same opinion regarding this subject.

Of course remains the discussion about whether a planet in combustion is a strong planet

10
Hello,

well, I am not so surprised, as being on one's own throne (and so sometimes disposing over Sun) and being burnt is two different point of view which can be conflated rarely, and that you mention is a result which is treated in such a conflated way. Combustion remains a per alium weakness (comparing with the per se retrogradation), however, it may be mitigated by the favourable dispositional context.
It is somewhat similar to the result effect of conjunction of Saturn and Mars who, otherwise being malefics, are checked by each other, thus their harm lessens. Or I could mention the Tail whose effect's description is often confused, but its block does little harm for the benefics, though regulates malefics.

11
Hello,
Tom wrote:
if the "combust" planet is in domicile, it might not be considered truly combust rather in a sort of mutual reception with the Sun since the "combust" planet is the dispositor or the "ruler" of the Sun.
From Robert Schmidt's lectures:

A planet in domicile rulership or exaltation or in its own horia (bounds/term) is like a planet riding in its own covered chariot hence protected from the sun when he/she is combust

12
Hi Tara,
But what use is the almuten if it's just some random degree in the middle of a house, etc.?
If the degree also holds a planet the theory is that the almuten and not the domicile ruler is the true dispositor. Frankly I don't put much stock in the idea of almuten for any reason.

I think you are referring to the various methods of determining almuten of the chart, and I'm not real familiar with them. I know Solar Fire gives lists, but I've never bothered with the techniques. They may have value and the almuten of the chart determined by those methods may very well be the same as the LoG that I'm referring to. I've never compared. Life is too short to check out everything in astrology, at least it is for me.

As for the combustion/dispositor/mutual reception idea. I go back and forth with combustion in and out of sign, cazimi, and even the idea that a planet in domicile cannot be combust, and I have this strong feeling that everyone can find charts to validate his or her opinion on the matter. I think it is safe to say that a planet in domicile, close to the Sun "behaves" a lot differently than the same planet combust in another sign. Is a combust planet in domicile strong? How strong is strong? The questions are valid, but they don't lend themselves to simple answers.

Tom