The question of radicality

1
Insertion by Andrew, April 6:
Ficina and I agreed to move the discussion on the question of radicality to a new thread. This is about where the discussion started. Please note, as becomes obvious further down that I initially had got the Lord of the hour mixed up in this game.. :oops:
However, the discussion remains. :)
On April 5., Andrew said:
Arsenal - Liverpool, 11.45 GMT
Odds: 1,90 3,30 4,10
Asc 4LE01 MC 11AR11 Moon 6LE50 POF 24CN46
The game starts of the Dy of Saturn and Hr of the Moon.
The LHr and Lord of radical ascendant, the Sun, are in the same triplicity and sign - radical. L1 is exalted in the 10th - advantage the favourite. AntiPOF is 5GE14 and sextile its dipositor, Mercury, at 5AR05 - advantage the favourite. I go for Arsenal.
Difficult to decide Arsenal/Liverpool but I finally went for a draw, 1-1. Chart not radical and no testimonies for either side.

3
Your additional criteria for assessing radicality are interesting, Andrew, and I can see the reasoning behind them, but for the time being at least I'm using the traditional criteria. I'll keep an open mind on it though :)

This is the only game today where I haven't gone for the faves to win. Knowing my luck, I've probably picked the wrong one :lol:

4
Bonatus para 143, page 69. Editor William Lilly
If the Lord of the Ascendant and the lord of the Hour be the same or the signs wherein those significators are placed be of the same triplicity or complection the question is serious; but otherwise, if the ascendant shall be at the end of any sign, the question is not radical.
Christian Astrology page 121:
The question shall be taken for radical, or fit to be judged, when as the lord of the hour at the time of proposing the question, and erecting the figure, and the Lord of the Ascendant or first house, are of one triplicity, or be one, or of the same nature.
http://www.astronor.com

5
Arsenal - Liverpool 1-1
How on Earth do you do that, Ficina? Get your astrology wrong and your football right?? :-? I hate it when that happens! Well, done! Spooky!

I thought L1 exalted in the 10th was an additional testimony for the favourites, but maybe not - and then it goes in direction of something else I've been pressing here for some time: When the chart is proven radical by triplicity, the triplicity likes to share things around - thus often resulting in a draw...

West Brom - Portsmouth 0-1 :'
http://www.astronor.com

8
If you read both quotes carefully, you will see there is an anomaly. The planetary hour agreement table which has been knocking around for years is based on Lilly. The table has disappeared from this site and I'm wondering if that is as a result of the Bonatus translation which obviously differs from what Lilly says.

Lilly's version produced the correct result on this occasion. Bonatus would have produced the wrong one, so I know which one I prefer!

Thanks for the Yellow Card. I'll give you a Red Card for dissent :wink:

9
Thanks for the Yellow Card. I'll give you a Red Card for dissent
Thanks for the Red Card :). Do you follow Frawley on this matter? He isn't tradition you know...
Christian Astrology page 121:
The question shall be taken for radical, or fit to be judged, when as the lord of the hour at the time of proposing the question, and erecting the figure, and the Lord of the Ascendant or first house, are of one triplicity...
In the Arsenal game, lord of Asc, who is the Sun, and the Lady of Hour, the Moon, are both in the triplicity of fire. Oh well, it looks as if we are going to have to rely upon higher powers to decide this one. Would you settle with the chart on page 177 of Christian Astrology?

No big deal. Matter closed. You did well in picking the draw, Ficinia. I hope you had money on it.
http://www.astronor.com

10
Do you follow Frawley on this matter?
I've already said, I follow Lilly. I don't know what JF says.
In the Arsenal game, lord of Asc, who is the Sun, and the Lady of Hour, the Moon, are both in the triplicity of fire.
I have hour ruler as Mercury, but your argument still applies since Mercury is also in Aries. If you read the example Lilly gives which follows on from your quote, he indicates they have to be of the same triplicity per se, not according to where they fall in a particular chart. This is where the anomaly lies.
Would you settle with the chart on page 177 of Christian Astrology?
That chart is one of ten examples in CA that are usually quoted where Lilly does not follow the three basic criteria for radicality. It's often been pointed out that he's not always consistent!

12
I think the chart is radical ( CA P121-122). I took notes when Deb said (www.skyscript.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=3):

' as a rule, whenever Lilly talks about ?Lord (or ruler) of the sign? he means the planetary ruler of the sign and not the almuten. There are some places where he uses almutens but he points these out (and explains why).

Regarding the hour ruler: you?ve interpreted this as well as you can given what Lilly has said, but it looks like Lilly might have made a mistake in his translation of his source, (probably Bonatti here), taking the phrase ?of the same triplicity? to mean that both should be members of the same triplicity, whereas Bonatti allowed agreement between the ascendant ruler and hour ruler when both are in a sign of the same triplicity.

So, rather than Lilly?s example: Mars is a member of the water triplicity and so agrees with water-signs on the ascendant; Bonatti would find agreement when the ascendant ruler ? whichever planet it is- is placed in a sign of the same triplicity as the lord of the hour. So if say, Aries is rising and Jupiter is ruling the hour, then Mars and Jupiter being in the same sign or signs of the same triplicity offers harmony.

To understand the point I am making, compare what Lilly has written with the comment I underlined within Bonatti?s 143rd consideration (Ben Dyke?s translation):

Quote:
For if the lord of the ascendant and the lord of the hour were the same, or the signs in which the aforesaid significators were, were of the same triplicity or the same complexion, the question will come to be from an intention. If indeed it were not so, or the ascendant were the end of some sign, the question will not be from an intention, nor rooted.


I think it is worth taking time out to at least make sure you understand what is being said, as you progress through the text. It might take a while before you personally realise when and where having hour-agreement matters in your own work, and there is no need to hold everything up whilst you think about that and get some experience. But students can rush through Lilly?s work feeling slightly confused, and then build one confusion on top of another. Take your time and savour it like a fine wine. It's not meant to be rushed. '

Well done everyone for getting right the Portsmouth win and Ficina on the correct score :' I actually thought (I know it's too late to say) it might be a draw because the Moon wasn't makeing any aspects within 5 degs. In Portsmouth/W Brom chart it sextiled anti-POF.
Last edited by Gem on Sun Apr 06, 2008 10:13 am, edited 3 times in total.