skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
A Correct Prediction: the NYC buiding strike, 1991
by Robert E. Zoller
Book II of Carmen Astrologicum by Dorotheus
translated by David Pingree
Compiled by Deborah Houlding
Astrology and Cosmology in Early China: Conforming Earth to Heaven, by David W. Pankenier
Reviewed by Gill Zukovskis

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Will my daughter Amelia get the job, yes or no?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Horary & Electional Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Clinton Soule



Joined: 14 Sep 2008
Posts: 471
Location: Reno, Nevada

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seiko said:

Quote:
It says page 430 but since I have a PDF file I cannot guarantee it's the same in the book. The subtitle is "Of Science, Cunning or Wisdome in a man, whether it be true or not."


The thing I'm wondering having Not read this document, is was it published or written prior to Lilly's CA either the first printing or the 2nd edition? Or is it something that was written after?

In other words why is Not the contents, it's totality not in CA?

Was it found latter like Kepler's minor aspects to Not be reliable as a method to be put in CA?

Or was this something after the 2nd edition that Lilly may have wished he had put into CA?

Carol, all of us who study CA find a few descrepencys in Lilly's work like the insistence on using the Lord of the hour when occasionally he does not in CA.

But one has to remember Lilly didn't stop with his investigations and thus created his point system because of conflicting testimonys.

If he had lived now he would have been more accurate with computers, and Like Deb said 'about a particular horary where an outer aspect as lord of the matter was the only way she could see it answered', Lilly may have investigated the outers as well. But that Pisces Ascendant of his occasionally leaves all of us bewildered, yet he is the Taurus Sun monumental giant of Western Horary lore!

Clinton Garrett Soule
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Seiko



Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 363
Location: Latvia

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Carol,

We should take everything with a grain of salt. Lilly was a genius but even the biggest fan of his has to admit that it is impossible to learn everything about everything even if you lived for a 100 years. Look at the theft questions or relationship questions -- he is using different methods as opposed to a 'normal' horary. He determines the sig of the thief we could say by chance -- a peregrine planet in an angle. I'm not arguing if it's the right thing to do or not, but apparently Lilly did a lot of those charts (he talks a LOT about thefts and finding things) so he developed this method. Can you imagine how much time it took to develop this method? He had to save the charts (don't forget it's the Middle Ages) and he had to wait for the resolution then he had to compare charts etc etc

And that was just one small area of human life. How much do you think Lilly was asked about someone's ability to do science? Not a lot, I would think. Maybe, if Lilly would've done a lot of science etc charts, he would develop another method for science questions that would be different from the one presented.

The point of my blah blah blah is, Lilly gave us the basic tools -- well, to be fair maybe a little more than that -- to develop our own methods and ways of doing it. He gave us the alphabet of astrology and showed us how to make certain words but he could've not known all the words even if he wanted to.

That's why it is amusing when people who have done only a number of charts (sometimes only one) regarding the specific question are arguing to the death about who said what and who used that method, and who of the ancients is right.

The astrologers should come together and compare charts of similar inquiries (like 5 or 10 charts) and see what works and what doesn't. But that's not going to happen. Egos are getting in the way. Just like everyone in the whole world thinks he or she is an above-average driver, everyone who has read a book or two thinks he or she is a professional astrologer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Carol



Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 210

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seiko wrote:
Quote:
Lilly was a genius but even the biggest fan of his has to admit that it is impossible to learn everything about everything even if you lived for a 100 years.

I agree. My point was that he often suddenly out of the clear blue goes completely against what seem to be his own 'rules' and never really gives a clue why, so it's pretty hard to say what his 'rules' really are in those cases--intuition? magic? Who knows?

I think Clinton may have hit the nail on the head:
Quote:
But that Pisces Ascendant of his occasionally leaves all of us bewildered, yet he is the Taurus Sun monumental giant of Western Horary lore!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Seiko



Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 363
Location: Latvia

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Carol wrote:

I agree. My point was that he often suddenly out of the clear blue goes completely against what seem to be his own 'rules' and never really gives a clue why, so it's pretty hard to say what his 'rules' really are in those cases--intuition? magic? Who knows?


That's the whole point, there are no rules. Look, if you would be asking a bunch of questions about religion and stuff, and something would not add up, maybe you would end up using H9 (for clergy etc) instead of H1 because it would work for you.

Different inquiries, different approaches. No magic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3866
Location: England

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Like Deb said 'about a particular horary where an outer aspect as lord of the matter was the only way she could see it answered'...


I don't recognise this as the kind of thing I would say, but perhaps it is poorly phrased.

Also, these posts are proposing that Lilly developed and invented methods, like the point-scoring tables, the use of peregrine planets in angles, etc. This is not the case at all, he presented the well established principles of the tradition as he received it. Most of the theoretical introductions in CA are his translations of Latin texts and he notes where, in his experience, he has reason to propose an alternate view. I find that there is very little that does not make good sense in his judgements - if whoever is reading the judgement understands the principles his reasoning is easy to follow. Why should Prince Rupert be given the ascendant in the chart on p.452? He was not the querent and Lilly's introduction explains his choice of signification perfectly well. The question concerns the fate of the Prince so Lilly took the Prince's signification from the 10th house of kings, princes and royal personages (CA p.55).

Lilly's opening remarks on that chart ought to be a mantra for other horary astrologers to follow. In a nutshell: don't expect that simple rules should govern your approach to every chart but combine your knowledge of the rules with good reason, since astrology comes Ate & a Scientia ('from yourself as well as from the science'). His choice of signification is fully justified from the descriptions that follow. He admits that he spent 24 hours studing that chart before he came to his judgement on it - it's a great chart and needs more than a half-hearted reading and a paraphrased summary that misses the point.

Carol, comparing this to the different approach to signification taken in the 'Robert Earl of Essex' chart, you say
Quote:
Lilly is so inconsistent and enigmatic on this particular issue that we should take with a grain--or ton-- of salt whatever he says at any given time and not expect to find any hard and fast rules.
But the Prince Rupert chart is not an appropriate comparison to the Essex chart on p.473. The former is a horary asked by a supporter of the Parlimentary cause, the latter is a commencement chart, where the ascendant signifies the initiator of the action. As the title of the chart illustrates, the chart is cast for the time that Essex set off with his army. Lilly begins by explaining how the ascending sign "well represents his form and body" - this is a check that he regularly makes, to show that the symbolism is working appropriately. No astrologer should follow techniques or other people's experience slavishly, but every judgement Lilly records is well worth hesitating over.

If astrologers think they are going to get constantly reliable answers with the application of 'rules' that are supposed to be fully consistent, free of contradiction and applicable in all cases, then they will be dissapointed, not just by the fact that such strict rules don't actually exist, or that Lilly doesn't show strict adherence to a mechanical, non-thinking approach which follows a basic template; but that the system itself does not work that way. Horary is not a technique that responds to mere data-input and analysis; nor is it improved by the greater 'accuracy' of computer software. Think about the fact that Lilly studied the Rupert chart for 24 hours before coming to a confident resolution on its meaning. When he gave his judgement, he didn't give it lightly.

The passage that has been attributed to Lilly on p.430 is a paraphrase of the actual text. Probably from the Zadkiel paraphrase, which is not usually recommended because it makes many ommisions and doesn't capture all the points correctly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Seiko



Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 363
Location: Latvia

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eventually it all boils down to those mechanical and non-thinking ways. The problem or the solution is, things are different for each type of question. If you have dealt with a ton of similar questions, you will eventually come up with some rules or testimonies that work 9 times out of ten.

The hardest part is to come up with those rules or patterns. If there is no foundation, you are not gonna build the house. If rules would change every time you make a chart (for similar inquiries), then the whole thing is useless plain and simple.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3866
Location: England

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But what supports the implication that Lilly changed his rules? His signification in the Prince Rupert chart is appropriate, and he begins the judgement by explaining that it is a chart scenario that "falls not under the notion of vulgar (ie., commonly applied) rules". This is because a prince is the subject of the enquiry; therefore he takes the 10th house to represent Prince Rupert and judge the expectation of him gaining or losing honour by his actions. This is not changing the rules - it's knowing them well enough to understand how to apply them appropriately within the context of each chart.

If someone, with good reason - whatever their motivation - asked me a question that related to the Queen of England, I would use the 10th to signify her, the opposing house for her opponents, and I don't believe anyone would find that controversial. Lilly says on p.55 of CA:

Quote:
The Tenth House
Commonly it personifies kings, princes, dukes, earls, judges, prime ministers, commanders in chief, whether in armies or towns, all sorts of magistracy and officers in authority; ...


So I'm not seeing any inconsistency here in his choice of the 10th house to personify Prince Rupert.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Carol



Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 210

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Carol, comparing this to the different approach to signification taken in the 'Robert Earl of Essex' chart, you say
Quote:
Lilly is so inconsistent and enigmatic on this particular issue that we should take with a grain--or ton-- of salt whatever he says at any given time and not expect to find any hard and fast rules.

But the Prince Rupert chart is not an appropriate comparison to the Essex chart on p.473. The former is a horary asked by a supporter of the Parlimentary cause, the latter is a commencement chart, where the ascendant signifies the initiator of the action. As the title of the chart illustrates, the chart is cast for the time that Essex set off with his army. Lilly begins by explaining how the ascending sign "well represents his form and body" - this is a check that he regularly makes, to show that the symbolism is working appropriately. No astrologer should follow techniques or other people's experience slavishly, but every judgement Lilly records is well worth hesitating over.


Deb, glad you joined the discussion, but I guess I'm totally confused! I was apparently looking at this chart from a completely different standpoint. I thought the main concern in both of the questions was how these two opponents, i.e., Royalist Party/Prince Rupert and the Parliamentary cause/ Earl of Essex would do in their upcoming battles in the overall Civil War between the two. And it seemed in the 2nd question about Essex that it made perfect sense to give him the Asc. since he was on the same side (Parliament) as the querent.

And in the 1st question where Earl of Essex is also on the same side as the querent/the Parliamentary cause, and Prince Rupert is the opponent, it seemed that it would have again made sense to give Earl of Essex the 1st house along with the querent, and Prince Rupert the 7th/enemy, but instead he gives Prince Rupert the 10th house because he's a person of eminence, etc.

But even if this weren't a chart about opposing parties in war and we just looked at it from the standpoint of a querent asking about the fate of another person, it seems in the 2nd question specifically about Essex, Lilly follows his own rule about using the Asc. for the absent party (when there is no relation to the querent), but in the 1st question about Prince Rupert, he seems to break his own rule and use the 10th.

But when you say in the 2nd question about Essex, it's a "commencement chart, where the ascendant signifies the initiator of the action," is that because it's like an event chart actually timed to when Essex set off? And if the 1st question about Prince Rupert had been asked in that form, would he then have been assigned the Asc.? And if the 2nd question hadn't mentioned anything about time and just asked how Essex would do when he set forth, he would have been given the 10th because he too was a person of eminence?

Like I said, I guess I'm totally confused, and I apologize if I'm inadvertently just making things too complicated and more confusing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3866
Location: England

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Carol

Quote:
when you say in the 2nd question about Essex, it's a "commencement chart, where the ascendant signifies the initiator of the action," is that because it's like an event chart actually timed to when Essex set off? And if the 1st question about Prince Rupert had been asked in that form, would he then have been assigned the Asc.?


The reason this is not comparable to the horary is because with commencement (or 'event') charts we usually apply the rules that are part of electional astrology and fix the event to whatever is begun or initiated at that time. So the ascendant is taken to represent whoever initiates the action or causes the event to happen. This is the only chart of this type in the book and it comes as a sort of addendum after the material on 12 house matters (along with the tables and instructions on calculating the lord of the hour), before the section on nativities commences. Note that the text on the previous page ends with a lead in to the tables which follow this chart. It looks to me like this was inserted as a late addition for some reason.

Quote:
And if the 2nd question hadn't mentioned anything about time and just asked how Essex would do when he set forth, he would have been given the 10th because he too was a person of eminence?


For that we need to understand the focus of the question and the extent to which the eminency of Essex is relevant. This is where we need to follow Lilly's reasoning based on his explanation of the situation involved.

For example, in the question about Prince Rupert, the title of the question shows that Rupert formed the focus of the question - it was about what would happen to him personally, in terms of his honourable position, and the implications of the war events are discussed in relation to that. This is consistent with Lilly's approach - note he does the same in the question on p.455, which concerns whether the king would get support (king is given to the 10th house) whether the queen would move her army (queen is given the 4th) and whether the two of them would meet.

A better comparison is with the chart on p.401, which concerns whether Essex would take Reading. Essex, though an earl, was fighting against the king, so Essex is signified by the ascendant and the 10th is used to signify the king (we can tell from the judgement that whoever asked the question was supporting Essex and identifying with his cause). Here, the fact that the 10th ruler was positioned in the 7th formed Lilly's judgement that the King would get involved and send whatever forces he could muster to oppose Essex as vigorously as he could. The 7th house is used to signify the opposition that Essex faces but it's not just a case of the 1st and 7th houses being used in this horary. Besides the 10th for the king a lot of emphasis is given to the 4th house to signify Reading as the city besieged, and the 4th ruler to its Governor, Sir Aston.

There are various ways that any astrologer could approach this chart but Lilly's judgements stand up well to close scrutiny because they are very descriptive in their details. For example the way that we have the royal sign of Leo on the MC, making the Sun the perfect significator for 'his Majesty', and the way that Aston is perfectly signified by the 4th-ruler Saturn in Aries, conjunct SN. He was supposedly rendered speechless after being struck on the head by a falling brick, though some think he feigned this so he wasn't able to do the traitorous deed of surrendering himself.

My point is that Essex is not personifying a position of eminence in this chart though in another he might. There's no hard and fast rule over whether someone like an earl should be signified by the 1st or 10th. The astrologer has to make a judgement on that, based on rules and reason and how it all fits into the full scenario. My honest advice to any horary astrologer is to give Lilly's judgements a lot of attention - we get good accounts of the theory of horary in many traditional works, but Lilly's charts have a lot of hidden gems. I'm not saying everything is shining with clarity but he really knew what he was doing in the practice of horary. The more I've learned about horary myself the more I've come to realise that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Carol



Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 210

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deb,

Thanks so much for your input and explanations. That helps a lot. I plan to go over everything more closely again, but it's already cleared up a lot of confusion, and I take back the aspersions I casted on Lilly.

But regarding Lilly's statement/rule about using the Asc. for the absent party, I get the feeling we were probably using it completely out of context in the discussion here. Indeed, my original understanding was that it was meant to be used for literally absent, i.e., missing people not related to the querent, to find out where they were and if they were dead or alive.

And the other case for using the Asc. for other people asked about was when the querent strongly identified with this person(s), as in being on the same side in a conflict, wanting the same thing, having the same goal, etc. Otherwise, if a mother is asking about her daughter's prospects for landing a new job such as in the original question here, the mother would be the querent, the daughter the 5th, and the job would be the turned 10th from the radical 5th/daughter. Would that be basically correct?

Thanks again,
Carol


Last edited by Carol on Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3866
Location: England

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It might help if I add two more points on that. The ascendant signifies the absent party if there is no other obvious choice of signification. If we refer to the missing party as brother they are signified by the 3rd, husband 7th, boss 10th, etc. So even in that situation, if asking about an absent king, prince or queen we could take their signification from the 10th. An unrelated celebrity, no; but a leader of state or other kind of person defined by rulership would fit the association of the 10th.

When there is no other way to establish signification we defer to the ascendant, but only for the person we empathise with and share concern for. A missing fugitive or someone we are trying to hunt down is given to the 7th house. For that reason I've noticed some horary astrologers suggest that all missing persons should be signified by the 7th house, but if we are following the traditional principles that only applies when there is antipathy for the missing person, not where there is concern about their health and wellbeing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Carol



Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 210

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deb, I see we crossed posts again and you already answered my latest question like you read my mind. Thanks again!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3866
Location: England

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well hopefully we ended up in the right place Smile I should probably point out for other readers that the last three posts look like a strange conversion because of the way our posts overlapped, which led you to change your earlier post a little from how it was when I responded to it.

For a chart where a mother is asking a question about her daughter, I would take the mother as the querent and use the 5th for the daughter, but I would consider the radical 10th for the job - throwing in some consideration to the turned 10th. Basically the chart is about a daughter (5th) and a professional placement (10th), the main reason for turning a chart is to distinguish between one person's job and another’s'. So this is where I wouldn’t turn a chart as much as some other astrologers might. Think of a comparable situation: a question where the querent asks out of concern that his/her father may be dying. The father would be 4th, the prospect of death would be the 8th. I'd consider the turned 8th too, but would never ignore the radical 8th house - the turned 8th just helps to give more detail. There is a real 'art' in knowing when to turn, when not to turn, and how much significance to give to the radical and derived houses simultaneously.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Seiko



Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 363
Location: Latvia

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not saying I'm right about this but IMHO you should turn the chart only if the Querent is on the stage. Like, in Deb's example, the Querent is concerned about the wellbeing of his/her father. Or his/her brother, pet etc etc

The question here is will Amelia get the job? The Querent is not on the stage. If the question would be "Is Amelia OK?" then poof! here comes the Querent.

I asked a horary question about a hockey player when I heard the news about the plane crash I'm sure many of you heard about. There was nothing going on in the chart except L7 was in H8 which is, of course, death. I've never met the guy or anything but I was a big fan, yet he was not represented by H1 because there I was (ASC) concerned about him (DSC). If I would ask about his chances to win something, he would get ASC because I wouldn't be on the stage.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Carol



Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 210

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deb wrote:
Well hopefully we ended up in the right place Smile I should probably point out for other readers that the last three posts look like a strange conversion because of the way our posts overlapped, which led you to change your earlier post a little from how it was when I responded to it.

For a chart where a mother is asking a question about her daughter, I would take the mother as the querent and use the 5th for the daughter, but I would consider the radical 10th for the job - throwing in some consideration to the turned 10th. Basically the chart is about a daughter (5th) and a professional placement (10th), the main reason for turning a chart is to distinguish between one person's job and another’s'. So this is where I wouldn’t turn a chart as much as some other astrologers might. Think of a comparable situation: a question where the querent asks out of concern that his/her father may be dying. The father would be 4th, the prospect of death would be the 8th. I'd consider the turned 8th too, but would never ignore the radical 8th house - the turned 8th just helps to give more detail. There is a real 'art' in knowing when to turn, when not to turn, and how much significance to give to the radical and derived houses simultaneously.


Very interesting! I hate to keep bugging you, but if you have time, could you comment on how you would interpret this chart in view of the outcome of the daughter not getting the job?

Using the daughter as the 5th/Sun and the job as the radical 10th/Saturn, the applying trine between them seems to suggest she would get the job, but does the Sun's detriment and Saturn being in Sun's fall override that?

And using the turned 10th, some would say the upcoming conjunction between Mercury/turned 10th and Sun/daughter would also suggest she would get the job, but does Mercury's combustion by the Sun override that?

Thanks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Horary & Electional Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated