Greetings forum folk!

I have, today, launched my self-study of traditional horary astrology... armed with a copy of Christian Astrology and a rudimentary understanding of ye olde English. :-)

I also have all three Renaissance library CDs on order from Christopher Warnock. Of course, I cannot wait for the CDs to get started in earnest so I dived right into trying to understand Lilly?s guide to horary and ran into a conceptual problem. I hope the kind folks on this forum can help me resolve this problem.

Lilly states in volume one that a horary chart is radical, "when as the Lord of the hour at the time of proposing the Question, and erecting the Figure, and the Lord of the Ascendant or first House, are of one Triplicity, or be one, or of the same nature.?

He then gives three examples to illustrate his point.

1) The chart is radical with a Mars hour and a Water sign rising because Mars and the rising sign are of the same triplicity.

2) The chart is radical in a Mars hour with Aries rising because the hour Lord and ASC Lord are the same.

3) The chart is radical in a Mars hour with Leo rising because the hour Lord and ASC Lord are both hot/dry.

I have a couple minor problems with his stipulations and examples that stand in the way of my complete understanding.

First, he gives three examples but he apparently actually gives four stipulations regarding Lord of the hour:

1) It should be of the same triplicity as the ASC ruler...
2) or of the same triplicity as the rising sign...
3) or be the same as the ASC ruler...
4) or be of the same nature as the ASC ruler.

Second, is he only considering the domicile ruler of the rising sign as the ASC ruler? I came to conclude this possibility because of his second example. Is the Sun not stronger in the second 3rd of Aries than Mars in a Day chart since the Sun would have exaltation, triplicity, and face in that situation? Of course, the 4th stipulation would apply in this case because the Sun and Mars both share a hot/dry nature.

Still, this example leaves me wondering if he is only considering domicile when assigning an ascendant ruler.

Maybe I should just make a mental note and move on, but if anyone can shed some light on this I would greatly appreciate it!

Warm Regards,

-=[Ty]=-

Hi, Ty

Reading the chart is basically a process of elimination. I think Lilly is giving us several ways to validate the chart (well, Lilly and the ancients).

These rules are guidelines, and may allow the astrologer to pause before commiting himself to a prediction, or to excuse himself from reading a chart from time to time. Predictions can get messy, particularly if you practice as a professional astrologer; expectations are altogether higher. A querent may demand compensation if not satisfied, and may find ways to ruin the astrologer's reputation and livelihood in addition.

In other cases, the astrologer may not be qualified to offer a prediction due to lack of objectivity. I recently had to pass on reading a chart for myself, because I was too involved to be objective.

Sometimes the considerations point to a chart which is quite simply "unpredictable"; viz., Moon (action of the chart) in the Via Combusta (overruled by obsession).

The way we apply the considerations before judgment depends partly on our phase of learning, and what we intend to do with the chart. You want to be as diligent as possible when hired by a querent, and to be cautious when committing yourself to a chart. When you are learning, of course, start by looking at the considerations. Then I would suggest that you read the chart, regardless, make a prediction, and even if you do nothing else with it, write it down. The opportunity to learn will cost you nothing, and will provide priceless benefits.

I like to keep all the charts I study in a spiralbound notebook. I copy all the charts into the notebook by hand, in the traditional square format. I learn the chart while doing this; I am a "tactile learner." The charts fill the notebook in chronological order this way, and similar charts are grouped together. This is in itself a great learning tool. For example, we can easily compare how the meaning of two similar charts differs depending on the question asked, or examine the variable meanings of the New Moon, or see what a retrograde planet can mean in different situations. I make predictions for each chart, including time frames. Then I refer to them as time passes, and follow up to see what has happened to the querent and quesited. In some cases, I choose not to read the chart to a querent. But I keep track of it so I can learn from it.

In brief, in response to your question, I would suggest you move on and not get bogged down in too much detail in the beginning phases of learning horary.

"Make a mental note and move on" describes what most of us do with the considerations in practice. More experience results in more opportunity to develop understanding. Particularly if you are studying charts only for your own understanding, don't let anything hold you back!

I would be delighted if you would post us an example chart, and we can go through it together. Then we can look at the considerations last, and see whether it would make sense to read the chart for a paying querent or not. Finally, if you give us the outcome, we can see what those considerations might mean.

Best regards,

Pam

First, he gives three examples but he apparently actually gives four stipulations regarding Lord of the hour:

1) It should be of the same triplicity as the ASC ruler...
2) or of the same triplicity as the rising sign...
3) or be the same as the ASC ruler...
4) or be of the same nature as the ASC ruler.

This is how his comments have generally been interpreted. (However, see below.)

Second, is he only considering the domicile ruler of the rising sign as the ASC ruler?

Yes, as a rule, whenever Lilly talks about ?Lord (or ruler) of the sign? he means the planetary ruler of the sign and not the almuten. There are some places where he uses almutens but he points these out (and explains why).

Regarding the hour ruler: you?ve interpreted this as well as you can given what Lilly has said, but it looks like Lilly might have made a mistake in his translation of his source, (probably Bonatti here), taking the phrase ?of the same triplicity? to mean that both should be members of the same triplicity, whereas Bonatti allowed agreement between the ascendant ruler and hour ruler when both are in a sign of the same triplicity.

So, rather than Lilly?s example: Mars is a member of the water triplicity and so agrees with water-signs on the ascendant; Bonatti would find agreement when the ascendant ruler ? whichever planet it is- is placed in a sign of the same triplicity as the lord of the hour. So if say, Aries is rising and Jupiter is ruling the hour, then Mars and Jupiter being in the same sign or signs of the same triplicity offers harmony.

To understand the point I am making, compare what Lilly has written with the comment I underlined within Bonatti?s 143rd consideration (Ben Dyke?s translation):

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.

I think it is worth taking time out to at least make sure you understand what is being said, as you progress through the text. It might take a while before you personally realise when and where having hour-agreement matters in your own work, and there is no need to hold everything up whilst you think about that and get some experience. But students can rush through Lilly?s work feeling slightly confused, and then build one confusion on top of another. Take your time and savour it like a fine wine. It's not meant to be rushed.