If you can think of any modern books, that would be great. I asked John Frawley and he recommended al-Khayyat's book on nativities and I order that on-line just today.

So what am I supposed to do with Lilly's specific rules about finding the person's career? I looked at two charts of celebrities, Oprah and Liberace, and Lilly's rules worked great. But I couldn't see how if fit for MJ. Do you use Mercury, Mars and Venus like Lilly says, or do you just look at the 10th house?

Lilly is kind of tough because it requires you to read between the lines. He gives these little rules to use, and some examples like "if you find the Moon conjoin Saturn in the 11th house it show X, if you find Jupiter and Mars or Venus opposite the Sun in either the 1st, 7th or 10th house it shows Y." Now I can see the underlying principles in these little aphorisms, but usually they don't apply to the chart I am looking at.

But I still think there should be some process, some specific techniques, or else we're like all the modern astrologers out there. I've recently looked at some natal charts on the late Lois Rodden's old website, where everyone submits their own comments, all from the modern perspective, and I've got to say I was shocked at the shoddiness of the reasoning. Everyone used some different techniques. One somehow managed to turn a Capricorn rising into a Cancer rising. Another mentioned more than two dozen asteroids; while yet another made aspects so wide that you could drive a bus between them. Sure in any art there are different approaches, but there should be some sound basis. I never felt better to be a part of this forum then I did after seeing what else is out there.

Modern astrology reminds me of modern art, which honesty, I do like. But especially in the last 50 years in art, if you start your art career by learning from the past generations of artists, the art world brands you as a coward, old-fashioned, and uncreative. The idea has taken hold that the past can teach us nothing, and that one modern person's opinion is just as sound as a tradition of learning going back a thousand years. I think the same is true in astrology.

So what am I supposed to do with Lilly's specific rules about finding the person's career? I looked at two charts of celebrities, Oprah and Liberace, and Lilly's rules worked great. But I couldn't see how if fit for MJ. Do you use Mercury, Mars and Venus like Lilly says, or do you just look at the 10th house?

For one thing I think it?s misleading to refer to them as Lilly?s specific rules as it seems to me he was passing on the technique, not necessarily buying into it. His comment ?I have ever gathered much knowledge concerning the Trade of any that came to me, from the sign of the tenth, from the signe and house wherein the Lord of the tenth was placed?, shortly before he explains how Ptolemy deviated from it also, by considering either the Sun or the sign of the Midheaven, suggests that although he was aware of the technique and explaining the knowledge of it, he wasn?t necessarily impressed by it and his own experience hadn't fully supported it.

I don?t place great store on it, mainly because in many of these structured techniques to find something specific, whilst they usually have a lot of merit in them, sticking strictly to them means that you might undermine something else of greater importance. For example, any planet that is prominent on the midheaven and well aspected by the luminaries is going to have a very strong impact on the career and the whole expression of personality and this technique doesn?t account for that. If none of the three fit then the profession is judged to be poor. In MJ case this offers an interesting suggestion that the profession is managed negligently but what about someone who has the Sun in Leo on the Midheaven receiving the trine of the Moon and the sextile of Jupiter? They might fail to fit this criteria.

The most worthy part of the section as far as I?m concerned is where Lilly tells us that Mercury shows the wisdom and parts of the mind; Mars the strength of body to endure and Venus the delight. It seems fair to suppose that if any of these planets are strong, free and angular in the necessary places a reputation could be built upon the back of those qualities. But I think it?s more limiting than helpful to only consider those three planets.

You know, you took the words right out of my mouth. After I posted that, I went back to Lilly and read it again. I must have skipped over that part about using the 10th house ruler and its dispositor. He spent so much time and space talking about that technique with using Mercury, Venus and Mars that I missed what he said about the 10th house ruler.

I do disagree that Lilly didn't put much stake in the Mars, Mercury, Venus formula though. Usually when he states some technique that he doesn't believe in, he will say so explicitly He does this at the beginning of his book of nativities where he described the Hyleg (the sign of life) and some other ancient techniques, and he says directly,

As I have formerly delivered, that I am not sufficiently satisfied either of the Hyleg or Anareta, so neither of the Alcohodon....

He goes on to say that he needs to study it more before he is assured of their worth.

If Lilly had the same lack of faith in his technique about Mars, Mercury and Venus he would have said so. Look at how much space Lilly gives to describe the nature of the profession for each of the three planets singularly and also combined with one another.

I do totally agree with the idea that what Lilly is saying is that if you do find either of them in any of the angles, except the 4th house, or if the lord of the 10th house is one of those three planets, that this is a sign that the person's work will be in those areas. He downplays his later rules (yes, he uses the word rule) about if one of the three planets is in aspect with the Moon by saying that if that is the case, then the person will be in some ?ignoble Profession, and manage it negligently.?

Lilly gives nine full pages to talking about how the career is show by Mars, Mercury and Venus, from pages 625-634. He gives one sentence to explaining how to us the 10th house ruler. And I think that says a lot about CA in general and explains why I have had some problems with it before. This is just a thought, so please everyone, tell me if this makes sense.

Lilly assumes that you already know to use the 10th house ruler and its dispositor, so he doesn?t feel the need to write about it at length. He assumes you know to look at the 10th house ruler, the aspects it makes, it?s essential and accidental dignity, the condition of its dispositor and if it makes any aspects of its own. He assumes you know about how the house the lord of the 10th is in describes the person?s work. He is writing CA as an advanced guide, not as introduction. Perhaps he was so busy doing his own work with all those horaries that he didn?t have the time or interest to write a book for beginners. Anyone could write an introductory work. I think Lilly saw that his special contribution was to add new thought and techniques that went well beyond the standard level. So maybe we shouldn?t take the amount of time and space he spends on this technique of Mars, Mercury and Venus and compare it with the short shrift he gives to the 10th house ruler as a sign that this is his number one favorite technique. I think he assumes that we know that that the 10th house ruler is the basic, trusty technique, and that he is calling our attention to something that is new and can be valuable in the right circumstances.

All this makes CA a tough read for a beginner like me. Because if that?s the case then it?s easy to get caught up with all of this advanced stuff and new ideas, and to forget about the fundamentals that he seems to virtually ignore. He?s ignoring them because his audience already knows the fundamentals.

One little point here about why he omits the 4th house when he says that if Mars, Mercury or Venus is in an angle it shows the profession. The idea I have is that the 4th house is opposite to the 10th house. If the 10th house is about our public side, then the house that is opposite it would be just opposite too, our private side. I don?t think I am saying that right, but I think he omits the 4th house because of its opposition to the 10th house.

Well we might vary on the strength of opinion over certain things but I don?t think I disagree with your main drift. Another essential point that I personally don?t think Lilly expresses clearly enough is the prominent role of the Moon in all forms of astrology. Most other authors dwell heavily upon the role of the Moon as the receiver and transmitter of planetary influences and when you?ve read a few traditional texts you are left in no doubt about the great significance of the earth?s satellite in all matters. It is there in Lilly but it is almost as if he expects you to be aware of this anyway so he doesn?t need to labour upon it. So horary students, even those who have studied CA in some depth, often need to be reminded of it. (My advice is this ? just when you think you?ve already overdone the Moon?s significance, go back and give it some more attention ? that?s not just in horary but in all your charts.)

One thought though - since the nativity section is the 3rd volume of his work, Lilly was probably expecting students to study this part of his work after they?d already realized how important the 10th house and its ruler is because of the instruction he?d given in his second volume.

You mentioned how important the Moon is in any chart and that brings up something else I am having in beginning with natal charts. Lilly doesn?t write about either the Sun and Moon much, and I have wondered about that. Somewhere I picked up the idea about some sort of hierarchy in astrology having to do with the planets and luminaries. I am not sure where I heard this but I got the impression that the Moon is the most important part of a horary, while the Sun is the most important part of a nativity, and that Saturn in the most important part of a mundane chart.

I noticed that Lilly has us start with the lord of geniture, then temperament, significator of manners and the wit of the native, but doesn?t deal with either the Sun or the Moon directly. Is this another case where he doesn?t feel the need to mention it because he assumes we understand that already?

What exactly do the Sun and Moon represent? I think I have a loose grasp on it, but not so specifically. I?ve read modern books that describe the Sun as the soul and the Moon as the emotions. But in concrete terms what does the soul mean? And I?ve seen others say that it is the ASC that is the soul of the person, while others say that the ASC is the face we show others. These basics confuse me.

If we take MJ?s chart as an example, his Sun and Moon are opposite each other. So his soul is in opposition to his feelings? I really don?t like the sound of that because I don?t think it says anything concrete or meaningful. It comes across like something from one of those astrology cook books that John Frawley criticizes so well at the beginning of The Real Astrology. If we go to look at essential dignity, the Sun is strong mostly because it is in mutual reception by sign with Mercury, while the Moon is moderately strong because it is in mutual reception by triplicity with Jupiter. But these are just formulas I looked up from a chart and don?t tell me much. I am stuck.

Should I start a natal analysis with the Sun and Moon, or with the temperament, manners and wit like Lilly says?

I?ve read modern books that describe the Sun as the soul and the Moon as the emotions. But in concrete terms what does the soul mean?

The Moon is the soul ? that part of us that connects us to everyone and everything else and makes us feel empathy and emotion and inclines us to support others and draw strength form them. The Sun is the spirit, or vital spirit ? that part of us that wants to be unique and creative and powerful. If the vital spirit is weak and the soul is strong, we might feel the pains of the world and have extreme sensitivity but we lack a will or the creative energy to make a difference. If the vital spirit is strong and the soul is weak we might have such singular focus and belief in our own independent will that we can change the world, but we will also come across as insensitive and inconsiderate to others and be out of touch with our emotional needs. Having the Sun and Moon in an harmonious relationship shows that the two support each other ? so there is an active will supported by emotional security which is the most creative basis for their energies. Everything else leads to problems sooner or later.

The Sun and Moon are the main luminaries and the most important planets in any nativity so every analysis has to consider their potential.

Should I start a natal analysis with the Sun and Moon, or with the temperament, manners and wit like Lilly says?

It doesn?t matter how you start because until you have a full understanding of the chart you are only taking note. How you draw it together into a judgement is up to you but you?re not ready to make your judgement until you?ve noted everything of importance.

I?ve made the point before ? other people may disagree - I don?t think Lilly?s text is the best source for learning natal astrology if you?ve had no experience of it before. I think you should read widely and not isolate yourself from modern texts. John Frawley critizises from an informed position because he was adept at modern astrology before he became interested in traditional techniques. Like everyone else, his first experience of it was stimulating and it was only after he?d saturated himself in the modern insights that ? like most traditionalists ? he got to the point where he knew he needed more definition and structure.

I hope you get some more views on this but my own opinion is that Lilly?s nativity volume doesn?t train you to probe the meanings of the planets or the rationale and philosophy of astrology so that you really understand it for yourself. A lot of it is based upon the assumption that you?ve already done that. In his age no one needed to be told what the planets were about, because planetary symbolism and terminology was so heavily ingrained in everyday life that you grew up with it. Sex wasn?t sex it was venery; emotional disturbance was lunacy, soldiers were martial, you were sanguine or full of choler in the way you behaved, or afflicted by melancholy, and all aspects of art and religion expressed planetary symbolism. Its not that the volume is advanced in terms of what he was offering his readers at the time, but most of us need to become re-aquainted with what he would have viewed as common knowledge. That?s why it is such a good ?corrective? text in terms of bringing modern understanding back in line with tradition.

There?s a lot of good support material already available on this site. All of them will help you understand Lilly better.
For articles on the Sun: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/sun.html
For the Moon: http://skyscript.co.uk/moon.html
etc.

Holy luminary, Mark and Deb! You have gone in the direction that I was going to take in a new subject post. The Sun and Moon: the absolute essentials. Positive and negative. One big disk says ?masculine? and the other says ?feminine?. All the other planets line up behind one or the other in that respect-- except Mercury, who goes both ways (that frisky little planet). And the two are in a constant dance, which is shown to us by the lunar phases. In some charts they are in the same hemisphere, in others they are in opposite ones. What might it mean for a chart to have the positive/masculine Sun in a negative sign and the negative/feminine Moon in a positive sign? There is plenty here for symbolic meaning.

This is getting away from Mr.(?) Jackson, and perhaps should be a new thread. I would like to see an extensive discussion of these two really big things up in the sky which we tend to take for granted and overlook.

Looking at Michael Jackson?s chart you can see right away that his life is filled with detractors and enemies, both open and secret (and that he is self-destructive): Mars as the intercepted ruler of the 11th and ruler of the 6th, in detriment in the 12th, shows that his friends and subordinates are his secret enemies. Saturn, ruler of the 10th in the 7th, shows Saturnian authority figures as open enemies.

I agree with Deb that Lilly?s book on nativities can be confusing. But it seems to me that Lilly?s character analysis methods (?Manners of the Native?) are right in line with normal ancient and medieval practices (e.g. Ptolemy, Abu Ali, Bonatti, Schoener) There were two main techniques they relied on ? and neither uses the Sun! I?ll outline them here, with a template of how I use them. If people are interested, I?ll start offering delineations of Michael Jackson in the next couple of days.

The first technique centered on the ASC, its ruler, planets in and aspecting it, etc. They used this to figure out what planet ruled the native?s personality and character, because the ASC rules the native?s body (chemistry), mind, and natural talents. Lilly calls this the ?Significator of Manners.? So they looked for a special planetary significator. Interestingly, Lilly does not allow either of the luminaries to be the significator! I think he is following Ptolemy and Schoener here.

The second technique used general significators: the Moon as a stand-in for emotions and desires, and Mercury as a stand-in for intellect and cleverness. Their standing in the chart and how they aspected each other showed what the character of each was and how integrated and harmonious the parts of the native?s soul were, and by extension whether the person is, say, flighty and changeable, or stable and virtuous. This reflects a common view that we have different faculties in us that can conflict ? like when we say our head (Mercury) says one thing and our heart (Moon) are in conflict. That is what Lilly is doing when he talks about Mercury as a ?Significator of Wit or Understanding.? You can see he talks about the Moon in this section, but emphasizes Mercury.

When I do nativities I do this (though there is overlap):

1. Temperament: mood and energy level, along with suitable jobs or hobbies. This is ASC-centered. (Lilly has a technique for this.)

2. Physiognomy: using the ASC and associated planets to determine body type and planetary personality, again along with suitable pursuits. (Lilly has a section on this, but I haven?t looked at it for a while).

3. The ASC and its Lord as indicator of what motivates the native, what makes him/her happy, and how successful the native will be in finding it. This is based on the rising sign, the nature/location of the ASC ruler, and some aspects. It?s very similar to looking to someone?s sun sign. (This is originally from Robert Zoller?s teacher, but based on medieval principles.)

4. Moon-Mercury (see above).

Best,
Ben

Hi All,

Deb writes:

I hope you get some more views on this but my own opinion is that Lilly?s nativity volume doesn?t train you to probe the meanings of the planets or the rationale and philosophy of astrology so that you really understand it for yourself. A lot of it is based upon the assumption that you?ve already done that.

I use Lilly with my natal course with John, and I have to say that he [Lilly] explains more than the other texts (one exception; see below), but Deb's right in that he expects the student to be familiar with the philosophy and rationale. The way I was taught to read Lilly, and this goes for horary, too, is to read what he says and if it isn't instantly clear, STOP- and figure out why he is saying what he is saying. The answer is usually "reception." If the student is willing to work, this is an excellent natal text especially when compared with the more sketchy guides like Al Khayyat.

The exception is Ptolemy's description of the quality of the soul. These planets are the significators of the manners and his descriptions are in depth.

The temperament is the foundation of the natal reading. We build on it, therefore, step one in the natal reading is to determine the temperament and then everything after that is delineated with the temperament in mind. If the nativity shows a talent for leadership, a choleric might do well in an aggressive business or in the military, a sanguine type might do better heading a department at a university, the melancholic a chain of funeral homes. This sort of thing can be done with most of the houses in one way or another.

I'm looking forward to Dorian Greenbaum's book on this subject due out late this year or early next.


Tom

Some very good points in these last two posts. It will be really interesting to see the medieval approach applied to MJ's chart.

Tom tells us that

[quote]The temperament is the foundation of the natal reading. We build on it, therefore, step one in the natal reading is to determine the temperament and then everything after that is delineated with the temperament in mind. If the nativity shows a talent for leadership, a choleric might do well in an aggressive business or in the military, a sanguine type might do better heading a department at a university, the melancholic a chain of funeral homes. This sort of thing can be done with most of the houses in one way or another.
[/quote]

So, how d'you do it?

It seems that there are different ways of defining the temperament. Lilly and Coley appear to follow the method I find described by Montulmo, as does Sibley, although the latter combines the temperament coming from the pre-natal epoch with that of the birth chart.

These three sum the various humors, as does Scott Whithers in an article in The Traditional Astrologer (issue 17, September 1998). Scott does seem to cut out many of the counts that Lilly & Co might have included, which is worrying.

And then there's John Frawley in his 'The Real Astrology Applied' who challenges how Lilly et al. apply the method--adjectives vs. nouns.

Finally, Lee Lehman in "Classical Astrology for Modern Living" who seemingly ignores the standard method of Montulmo, Lilly, etc and offers three variants that she calls Triplicity, Seasonal and Traditional, none of which delivers temperament.

Of course, here in my present domicile, temperament should perhaps best be described as " 'tude".

To my questions: just what is the best way to identify temperament? Is it straight counting as per Lilly or is it Frawley's modifying approach?
If, as Tom says, "temperament is the foundation of the natal reading" then there must be an agreed approach to identifying it. Can someone kindly point me towards it?

By the bye, I utterly fail to comprehend just what Tom means by the final sentence in the above quote.

By the bye, I utterly fail to comprehend just what Tom means by the final sentence in the above quote.

And said quote says:

This sort of thing can be done with most of the houses in one way or another.

The problem with answering this in depth is that it would take an entire delineation to do so. I'll use King Charles I chart since emotions do not run too high over a political figure dead over 350 years. He was choleric. He had Mercury in detriment combust. So we have a "hot headed" individual who has difficulty seeing other people's point of view. Were he Sanguine he might have been less intractable even with the combust Mercury. If he were phlegmatic, he would have been less inclined to act out his combust Mercury. If he were melancholic he may have been ponderously reflective with his combust Mercury.

As for the houses, since the temperament is asscociated with the body it is also associated with illnesses, so when delineating the 6th house we take into consideration the native's temperament to determine the nature of persistant or common diseases. If Leo is on the 6th and the native is choleric, a heart attack or other violent heart disease is more likely. If Sanguine there may be other diseases associated with the heart that would likely manifest.

What types of partners is a choleric likely to attract or a sanguine? What kids of studies would interest the various types (9th house)? What kinds of careers? The temperament gives us insights into all of these.

If, as Tom says, "temperament is the foundation of the natal reading" then there must be an agreed approach to identifying it. Can someone kindly point me towards it?

Would that it were so. Widespread serious study of the traditional texts only began in the mid 1980s. We know there is a lot we don't know. Dorian Greenbaum did a great deal of research on this subject and discovered, like a lot of astrology, there is no universal or near universal agreement on how to do it. Dorian came up with her own method, which, when compared to Fralwey's usually produces similar results. John's method makes a great deal of sense especially when it is explained by contrasting it to Lilly's chapter on this subject.

There ain't no easy way.

Tom