Hi All

This is probably a simple question but I'm a little . What I need to know is:

Is it the "sign" the planetary hour ruler is in that is looked at to see if it matches the "sign" on the Ascendant?

Or, is it the planet itself without consideration of the "sign" it is in?

Also, whichever it is, if hour ruler is cold & moist and Ascendant is cold & dry is that of the same nature or do both have to be exactly the same?

Hope I didn't make that confusing. Any clarification would defintely be appreciated, thank you

Hello,

As far as I know, not many practicing astrologers use the planetary hour agreement to the Lord of Ascendant/(or others). Even if some of them write about it in their books/articles, they do it for the sake of completion. I doubt if they put much emphasis on it practically...

Ok, if you still want to do it...

First, find the planetary hour ruler.

Next, determine the Lord of the ascendant. If the planetary hour ruler is the same as the Lord of the ascendant - the chart is radical.

If it's not then,

Determine the in sect triplicity ruler of the ascendant. If the planetary hour ruler is the same as the in set triplicity Lord of the ascendant - the chart is radical.

If it's not then,

Determine the nature/primary quality of the ascendant (if the sign is hot and dry or hot and moist or cold and dry or cold and moist). If the nature of the ascendant agrees with the nature of the planetary hour ruler - the chart is radical.

Other astrologers add that as long as the planetary hour ruler says something about the querent or the quesited, the chart is radical.

Others stiil, add that as long as there is aspect from the planetary hour ruler and the ascendant, the chart is good enough to be judged.

Still others say that...

Astrojin

Thanks so much for the detailed explanation. Much appreciated.

MarG

Hi Astrojin ? I understand your point of view but there are few elements of horary that we could not do without if we chose to isolate them as the bit to be ignored. We could drop the via combusta, most of the considerations, the use of the nodes, antiscia, most of the dignities, fortuna (and the rest of the parts), the fixed stars, reception, or any number of techniques like this and a horary judgement for an important question would still hang together. On the other hand when we use them, they start to become increasingly reliable and important in the details that they add.

I view hour-agreement as a positive indication and sometimes I have found it to be an extremely helpful in the interpretation of the chart. But you are right that in many situations it is not necessary to worry about it, and there are lots of charts that are clearly sincere and radical, and yet reveal no planetary hour-agreement. I reproduce a comment from Bonatti below which I believe explains why this could be the case.


Hi Marg,

The three methods Astrojin has mentioned give the rules according to Lilly

Two links on the site that you might find useful are :

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/hourrule.html - shows the order of planetary rulers through any day of the week

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/hourmatch.html - shows Lilly?s comments and provides a table so you can easily tell which planet agrees with which ascendant, according to what Lilly says.

You can see from the table that if you have Aries on the ascendant, the only planets that could offer agreement are Mars, the Sun and Jupiter.

However, Guido Bonatti describes this differently. In his consideration on the method of approaching judgement (con 143), he writes:

The first way is whether the querent asks from an intention or not. For if the lord of the ascendant and the lord of the hour were the same, or the signs in which the aforesaid significators were, were of the same triplicity or the same complexion, the question will come to be from an intention. If indeed it were not so, or the ascendant were the end of some sign, the question will not be from an intention, nor rooted

The comment:

if the lord of the ascendant and the lord of the hour were the same, or the signs in which the aforesaid significators were, were of the same triplicity ?

Means that if you have the ascendant-ruler in Gemini and the hour ruler in Libra, then you have planetary agreement, regardless of which sign is on the ascendant. This increases the potential for agreement.

Bonatti seems to be the one who stressed the importance of the planetary hour ruler in horary; but I am fairly sure that he intended this to be in those cases where there was some cause for doubt over the importance or sincerity of the question. Elsewhere, he tells us that if the question relates to an emergency or something urgent, we can go ahead and judge without the need for planetary hour agreement. This was used as a means to test the radicality, not of the chart, but of the question. Bonatti was strongly opposed to the idea of using horary for flippant or insincere questions and his view of radicality was that it indicated the question was ?rooted? in the stirring of the soul that provided the impetus to seek guidance on something that was significant to the soul. Without this ?soul-connection? horary may be unreliable. So if you doubt that the question is radical, then you consider whether there is planetary hour agreement: ?If indeed it were not so, or the ascendant were the end of some sign, the question will not be from an intention, nor rooted.?

(If you haven?t read it already, I strongly recommend Ben Dyke?s article on radicality at http://www.skyscript.co.uk/roots.html )

Deb

Wowww. Thank you so much for the detailed information. I will certainly check out the llinks.

I've read so many different variations of how the planetary hour ruler was used that I was totally

Thanks again

MarG

Hi Deb,

Hi Astrojin ? I understand your point of view but there are few elements of horary that we could not do without if we chose to isolate them as the bit to be ignored.

Agreed!

Bonatti seems to be the one who stressed the importance of the planetary hour ruler in horary; but I am fairly sure that he intended this to be in those cases where there was some cause for doubt over the importance or sincerity of the question.

Yes. Usually, I make sure that the person who asked is serious about the question. If I have any doubt about that, then only I resort to this planetary hour agreement...

This was used as a means to test the radicality, not of the chart, but of the question.

Wow!. This is a co-incident. This is exactly how I put my horary notes together (for my students). The two things that I consider before attempting to delineate a horary chart is to check:

1) Whether the person himself is worthy of a sitting i.e. is the question radical?, is the person only curious?, etc.

2) Whether the question is worthy to be (or can be) judged by horary.

Hi astrojin,
The topic of planetary hours interest me greatly and I have been judging charts on the relationship between the lord of the hour and the radical ascendant and its ruler for almost 2 decades. My notes on the various relationships that these may form are found at http://www.astronor.com/hours.htm

Please feel free to check them out and post your response and experiences!