If we forget, that the Moon is still at the very edge of her separation from the opposition with Mars and that she is still in her separation from the antiscion of Mercury

cor scorpii wrote: No ancient authority on horary I'm aware of mentions separation from/application to antiscia of a planet. Antiscia are points or degrees symmetrical to the solstice points and relate to the length of time during which a degree (or moira) of the zodiac is above or below the horizon.

Hence, planets are either in antiscia(degree - based) relationship with each or they aren't - there's no applying/separating orb.

I don't know if you would consider Coley (Clavis Astrologiae Elimata) "ancient", but he discusses antiscia on page 31...

"....a Planet be in the tenth degree of ?, he casts his Antiscion to the 20th degree of ? that is, he gives virtue to any Planet that shall there be placed, or casts any Aspect unto that point...."

And here is Luna, on the Burned Path, in Via Combusta(our querant is in a bad way with the separating opp), even if Luna in the 4th is her corresponding Natural House.

cor scorpii wrote:

Exactly the same wording as in Lilly's CA I, but the point is that it doesn't say anything about application/separation involving antiscia degrees.

Yes, orbs or aspects for antiscia, whether applying or separating, are not specifically mentioned by Coley, it is true, or any other text that I have read. However, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

I would still argue that both my Coley quotes (and others I could drag up) are consistent with a view that Coley did not regard the antiscion as having to be "exact". If the planet is "near" the antiscion degree, it is either applying or separating and "accordingly moderate your Judgment"

Geoffrey

Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree, Clinton - the Moon doesn't correspond to the 4th house in any way, that would be modern astrological thinking which characterizes the idea of an "alphabet zodiac" in which a particular planet is equivalent to a particular sign and particular mundane house of a chart.

The 4th is actually a solar house, because the Sun lands there when we follow the Chaldean order of the planets, starting with Saturn in the 1st - and which planet would be more appropriate to co-signify in the 4th than the natural ruler of fathers?

The Fourth House.

Giveth Judgment of Fathers in generall & ever of his Father that enquires, or that is born; of Lands, Houses, Tenements, Inheritances, Tillage of the earth, Treasures hidden, the determination or end of any thing; Towns, Cities or Castles, besieged or not besieged; all ancient Dwellings, Gardens, Fields, Pastures, Orchards; the quality and nature of the grounds one purchaseth, whether Vineyards, Cornfielfd, &c. whether the ground be Woody, Stony or barren.

The Sign of the fourth denoteth the Town, the Lord thereof, the Governour: It ruleth the Brest, Lungs.

Of Colours, the Red: It?s Cosignificator is Cancer, and of Planets the Sun; we call it the Angle of the Earth, or Imum Coeli; it is feminine, and the North Angle: In Nativities or Questions, this fourth house represents Fathers, so doth the Sun by day and Saturn by night; yet if the Sun be herein placed, he is not ill, but rather shews the Father to be of a noble disposition, &c.

Because Lilly also mentions "modern" aspects, but never uses them in his horary delineations. Should we deduce then that he did use them in his horary judgments but just didn't want to leave us any evidence of that?

Hardly probable. Why would he do that? He wanted to keep "the great secret" for himself?

If we accept that, we may read anything into Lilly(or any other author) then, whatever we like.