CA vol I: ch.19 - aspects
Part VI of Deborah Houlding's annotated edition of Lilly's Christian Astrology, covering pages 105-114 |
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stanstar
Joined: 09 Sep 2005
Posts: 197
Location: Edinburgh Scotland
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 1:25 am Post subject: where is Anne's denture? |
 |
|
My wife Anne lost her dental plate. I cast a chart that had the hour ruler Venus in same triplicity as the Ascendant ruler Saturn. So Asc ruler Saturn in Libra in house 7 along with Mars but not in aspect. We also have Venus Lady of the 2nd House conjunct with Jupiter the great benefactor! Sounds good when you say it quickly! 
We have Moon in the 1st house but unfortunately Void of course. Not so good. We also have Neptune in house 1 clouding the issue I believe. Pulling the wool over our eyes and also mirroring my wife's absent mindedness. Or is it mine? I asked the question not her.
In favour of recovery we have Moon in house 1. Moon is in a separating trine with ruler of ascendant Saturn. Too bad it is separating.
Moon is angular, which is a plus.
Against recovery we have both the Sun and Moon under the Earth. Venus ruler of Second house is cadent. Not good. The Moon is disposed by an infortune Saturn. The Moon is separating from it own dispositer Saturn, doesn't bid well either. It also looks like 2nd ruler Venus separating from its dispositer Mercury.
Is there any point in looking any further here? It looks awfully certain it will not be found. My wife got it from the dentist about a month ago, she slipped and lost her front tooth and more often than not left it out and on the table as she found it uncomfortable in her mouth.  She thinks there is a great possibility she threw it in the trash cleaning the table. We haven't yet looked under the bed as it is very heavy but there is a slight hope it might be there.
Do I have any chance of finding it? She has made an appointment with the dentist for another one.
Stan
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Paul
Moderator
Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 818
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
stanstar
I find this chart difficult to see. Any chance you could just post the chart details so we can create our own chart? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tzadde
Joined: 07 Apr 2011
Posts: 137
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
On the chart, under the question, there is data:
6 July 2012, Fri
23:15:17 BST -1:00
Edinburgh (55N57, 003W13)
Regiomontanus
_________________
Amor ordinem nescit.
Love does not know order.
- Saint Jerome - |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Geoffrey
Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 254
Location: Scottish Borders
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Stanstar, a void-of-course Moon and Saturn in the seventh are both strictures against judgement which would advise caution about reading this chart. Does it otherwise describe your situation well enough for you to consider it a valid chart?
Geoffrey |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stanstar
Joined: 09 Sep 2005
Posts: 197
Location: Edinburgh Scotland
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Geoffrey That is the first things I noticed. Saturn in 7th and Moon VOC.
Maybe you are right. Stricture against judgement. I went for it as three times earlier in the week the hour ruler didn't conform to rules. So desperation took over when hour ruler was good.
Stan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stanstar
Joined: 09 Sep 2005
Posts: 197
Location: Edinburgh Scotland
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I will do another one later.
Stan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Geoffrey
Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 254
Location: Scottish Borders
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stanstar wrote: | I will do another one later.
Stan |
Hello Stan
When I get an invalid chart for a particular question, I often find that even when I "ask another question which will better inform" later on, I keep on getting strictures against judgement. That you keep getting this too is, perhaps, an indication that there is "nothing to be done".
Geoffrey |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johannes susato
Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1002
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
. . . but, following Lilly (CA, p. 112) and others, the Moon is not void of course, Moon separating from the trine of Saturn and already applying to the square of Jupiter. When there is application already, the perfection of the aspect or conjunction can be in the following sign.
Johannes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Geoffrey
Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 254
Location: Scottish Borders
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johannes susato wrote: | . . . but, following Lilly (CA, p. 112) and others, the Moon is not void of course, Moon separating from the trine of Saturn and already applying to the square of Jupiter. When there is application already, the perfection of the aspect or conjunction can be in the following sign.
Johannes |
You raise an interesting point Johannes. Lilly does indeed say that a planet is void of course when it does not apply to another while in that sign. Lilly would appear to interpret this as you do, where the Moon could make an aspect to another planet - that is come within an orb where an aspect is considered to exist - but the aspect does not become exact until the moon has entered the next sign.
There is a good example of just this in Lilly's chart on page 401 of CA (If his Excellency Robert Earle of Essex should take Reading) where the Moon in 27 degrees of Leo applies in sextile to Mars in 5 degrees of Cancer. The aspect does not become exact until the Moon has entered Virgo.
However, many astrologers would consider the Moon to be void of course unless it came to an exact aspect to another planet while still in the sign it was in at the time the chart was set.
Olivia Barclay certainly knew her Lilly forwards and backwards and every other way. Indeed, it was her original copy of CA that was used to create the Regulus edition. Yet look at her chart for "Blackberry the rabbit" on page 191 of "Horary Astrology Rediscovered". Barclay declares the Moon to be void of course where it plainly is in a trine aspect to Venus in Pisces, but the aspect will not be exact until the Moon has moved from Gemini into Cancer.
And Barbara Watters - nobody's fool - gives an example of a void of course Moon on page 13 of "Horary Astrology and the Judgement of Events". On 24th of February 1972, 21:01 EST, the Moon is square Uranus and, "from that moment until... it enters Leo, it makes no aspect to another planet." But clearly, it will apply in quincunx to Jupiter in Virgo before it leaves Cancer. (Watters did consider a quincunx to be a major aspect.)
So, I would be interested to hear how other people treat the void of course in this respect.
Geoffrey |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johannes susato
Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1002
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the quotes, Geoffrey.
The opinions of the astrologers are divided, I think. I know Ibn Ezra is of contrary opinion to Lilly, whereas Lilly follows Claude Dariot. (Quotations will follow tomorrow).
As far as I remember Olivia Barclay followed Lilly 1:1, but erred in his teachings as to void of course. If this is true at all, this error would be nothing compared to her merits having rediscovered Lilly at all! At any case, Lilly is clear in his definition and with the example you were so kind to quote.
Barbara Watters is 'modern' using the outer planets and the small aspects. I should like to know if and how she explains the use of these tools.
I think the forum reflects the opinions of the authorities and is more or less divided in this question.
Johannes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tzadde
Joined: 07 Apr 2011
Posts: 137
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Geoffrey wrote: | | I would be interested to hear how other people treat the void of course in this respect. |
I would except for Moon in Taurus, Cancer, Sagittarius and Pisces, just as Lilly wrote.
When Moon is in 29th degree of Libra and she applies to Mars at first degree Aquarius, I would say she is not void of course. But if Mars would be in 3rd degree, than I'd say the Moon is v.o.c.
The reason is that cusp between Signs is just like a short fence for planets. When the planets are close enough, they can behold each other, but further from the cusp are, the harder is for them to behold (aspect).
_________________
Amor ordinem nescit.
Love does not know order.
- Saint Jerome - |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johannes susato
Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1002
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tzadde wrote: | | I would except for Moon in Taurus, Cancer, Sagittarius and Pisces, just as Lilly wrote. |
As far as I can remember Lilly makes this exception if the Moon is void of course . But in the chart of your question the Moon is - with Lilly - not void of course at all as you can see by his difinition and Geoffreys quotation of one of Lilly's own examples.
Feel free to use other definitions of void of course, but you can't quote Lilly for your opinion, whatever its reasons may be. 
Johannes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tzadde
Joined: 07 Apr 2011
Posts: 137
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| johannes susato wrote: | | As far as I can remember Lilly makes this exception if the Moon is void of course . |
Yes, the background is Moon being void of course.
| johannes susato wrote: | | Feel free to use other definitions of void of course, but you can't quote Lilly for your opinion, whatever its reasons may be. |
I didn't quote Lilly in the given example. I hope it is clear now.
_________________
Amor ordinem nescit.
Love does not know order.
- Saint Jerome - |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Geoffrey
Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 254
Location: Scottish Borders
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| johannes susato wrote: |
As far as I remember Olivia Barclay followed Lilly 1:1, but erred in his teachings as to void of course. If this is true at all, this error would be nothing compared to her merits having rediscovered Lilly at all! At any case, Lilly is clear in his definition and with the example you were so kind to quote. |
I am certain it was not an error as far as Barclay was concerned. Nobody seems to refer to Barclay these days - I suppose because in general, as you say, Barclay usually follows Lilly completely.
Too, in common with many modern astrologers - including Watters, Barclay did not bother too much about the nature of the lord of the hour in deciding if a chart was valid, which was always the first "consideration before judgement" for "enlightenment" astrologers.
| Quote: | | Barbara Watters is 'modern' using the outer planets and the small aspects. I should like to know if and how she explains the use of these tools. |
Indeed she does. Watters uses the classical Ptolemaic aspects (though she does not state the orbs, so we assume the 'usual' orbs apply) for horary or event work. The outer planets are used as descriptors or commentators for what it going on in the background of the question, giving added colour and insight, but they are not significators themselves. The outer planets are not co-rulers of signs as used by many modern astrologers in natal astrology, but do have an "association" with some of the signs as would be recognised these days. Watters had obviously read the ancient astrological books, but rarely cites them.
I should state that Watters' example of a void of course Moon, where she gave Moon square Uranus as the last aspect before it left the sign, was not meant to be a horary example. It was how the planets happened to be at the time she was writing that part of her book and should not be taken to mean that Watters used Uranus or any other outer planet as a significator in horary or event astrology.
Geoffrey |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Geoffrey
Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 254
Location: Scottish Borders
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tzadde wrote: |
I would except for Moon in Taurus, Cancer, Sagittarius and Pisces, just as Lilly wrote. |
I think it should be remembered that Lilly never said that there were circumstances in which a chart could not be judged. The strictures were "cautions against judgement" and should be taken to mean just that. They are not a "stop!" sign, they are a "hazard ahead" sign.
Why should it be that the Moon should perform better in those signs, do you think?
Geoffrey |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
Skyscript on Facebook