i am not sure if lilly is considered trad... maybe borderline or something...

i am reading chapter 7 on the 12 houses... it is interesting that although this concept of the houses as having a direct parallel with the signs is supposed to be coming from that bad boogie man called modern astrology, i see lilly saying that essentially the first house cosignifactor is aries and on and on with the other 11 houses.. would someone like to square this for me?? thanks...

another example is referencing the parts of the body via the houses and signs - same deal essentially... sounds very ''modern'' astrology to me, lol..

Discussing Lilly in the Traditional forum is fine, James, if that's what you're asking. His general approach to astrology (that is, what he was using it for) was very much of a piece with the 1700-1800 or so years of astrological practice that he had to draw on, although he did include early modern inventions such as the minor aspects introduced by Kepler.

Although Lilly lists one sign and one planet as 'consignificators' of each house, he only really elaborates on the planets. As far as I can recall, the only context in which he actually interprets signs and houses in parallel, as it were, is precisely melothesia (equating houses/signs with parts of the body). Zodiacal melothesia is an ancient concept; I can't say offhand when the houses were first used in the same way, but as the idea is present in the Sanskrit tradition as well, it would have been quite early in the tradition. So not a modern idea, no.

Are you aware of any other contexts in which Lilly equates houses with signs in practice?

Thanks for this interesting post James. Perhaps a misunderstanding of this use of planet-sign-house in melothesia led to the development of the various 'astrological alphabets', perhaps most notably in the c.20 by Zipporah Dobyns.

https://www.astro.com/astrowiki/en/Astr ... l_Alphabet

Joseph Crane, one of the early proponents and popularisers of Hellenistic astrology, has been critical of this attempt to rationalise astrology.

https://www.astro.com/astrology/in_twelveletter_e.htm

Ed

Hi again James - I'm assuming that you are reading Chapter 7 of Book 1 of Christian Astrology.

Lilly's co-significations are not the simple Aries-Mars-First House associations outlined by Dobyns. For the interest of readers, Lilly's co-significations are:

1st house - Aries and Saturn
2nd house - Taurus and Jupiter
3rd house - Gemini and Mars
4th house - Cancer and Sun
5th house - Leo and Venus
6th house - Virgo and Mercury
7th house - Libra and Moon
8th house - Scorpio and Saturn
9th house - Sagittarius and Jupiter
10th house - Capricorn and Mars
11th house - Aquarius and Sun
12th house - Pisces and Venus

As an example, the full text of Lilly's fourth house co-significations is: "Its cosignificator is Cancer, and of the planets the Sun; we call it the Angle of the Earth, or Imum Coeli; it is feminime, and the north angle: in nativities or questions, the 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 shows the father to be of a noble disposition, etc."

So although Lilly sets out a connection between the house with it's (numerically) corresponding sign (e.g. Aries=1st sign=1st house), the planetary co-significations are not straightforwardly the rulers of that sign.

The reference I am using is Deb Houlding's retyped and annotated edition of CA, Books 1 and 2. It is a student edition from the STA published in 1999.

As James felt his topic was being derailed, I have split the thread. The posts not related to William Lilly can be found in the new thread 'Numbering order of houses'.

thanks everyone, for chiming in..

my issue is with the observation anyone could make from reading chapter 7 of the direct parallel lilly is making with houses and signs, which is supposed to be something laid at the door of modern astrology, when in fact we see lilly doing a very similar approach here... and yes - body parts - melothesia - as both martin and ed refer to it - is clearly laid out in chapter 7 as well, showing that the direct relationship between the houses and signs is further emphasized in lillys writing... now, of course there are distinctions....

ouranos - thanks for the link on the article from anthony louis which directly relates to this, although i see martin removed your post here.... clearly louis was trying to unravel what lilly was saying in chapter 7 as well, and managed to deflect quite successfully by drawing attention to the planets... he still never addressed the consignifactors that lilly listed beginning with first house - aries and etc... he either avoided that, or it was at a loss or mystery as to what lilly implied in all of that..

fwiw - i don't see jb morin doing something similar and i suspect he was writing at a similar time in history..

james_m wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2025 4:36 pm my issue is with the observation anyone could make from reading chapter 7 of the direct parallel lilly is making with houses and signs, which is supposed to be something laid at the door of modern astrology, when in fact we see lilly doing a very similar approach here...

But as anyone can observe from reading the whole of CA, Lilly doesn't in fact use the houses to understand the signs or vice versa in general contexts. He just uses both in the context of melothesia.

well, why did he say this then?? explain that to me.. thanks..

We can't ask William Lilly why he wrote things the way he did, but we can see from his worked examples how he used the signs and houses.

yes, and either the 2 line up, or they don't.... in fact, as i think i said - anthony louis wrote an article on this because it appears he was mystified by lillys commentary in this regard as well..

Here is the initial link from Anthony Louis I had originally posted in the other link and another one on the same subject.

https://tonylouis.wordpress.com/2017/04 ... he-houses/

https://tonylouis.wordpress.com/2023/02 ... as-houses/

thanks ouranos!

i saw the first one you posted earlier, that you've posted here again, but i didn't see the 2nd one which is also interesting to read... here is a quote of the last line in anthony louis's post..

"Apparently, Lilly thought a lot more flexibly and analogically about signs, aspects and houses than many modern astrologers are accustomed to." yes and he could have included modern day 'traditional astrologers' in the comment as well..