I?m not knocking Lilly, I love Lilly.

He?s the only astrologer that I read that made sense to me. Though it made me unhappy that he didn?t have all of the facts, I mean some things were simply not quite there.

My question was regarding Lilly?s point scoring system which I follow slavishly. I accepted all of the dignities and debilities by accident. Except for the:

Partile Conjunction with South Node = -4

Simply because I don?t SEE the reasons for it, the reasons behind it. In finding the quotations that I have made from Lilly and I can find them all with page numbers if you want, they are accurate and exact, not something I am misquoting, because I was quoting and copying directly from the book; in quoting Lilly I was looking for his own thoughts on the Lunar Nodes, simply because I follow his writings. What I found was contradiction. Hence his system of dignities which I follow is under scrutiny, because I am following someone who didn?t actually believe in the South Node as a strict debility, yet who inscribed it into his system.


My agenda is to find astrological fact which is based on logic, of which Lilly has given me a framework that seems as far as I have tested it to be almost without fault. Obviously I lack other perspectives, so that?s WHY I?ve gone to all of this trouble.

I would if that?s clear now, to ask what you think of Valens? ideas on the Nodes? Because from what Romano says, he recognises both areas as alike in perhaps a more negative light, also with the Moon in contact to it, though I am still unsure of this.

Deb wrote:
Also Nightsky, I don?t see the central relevance of Lilly in this thread, and I find it hard to take some of your comments seriously because you don?t seem to understand how Lilly and other astrologers of his period worked. Comments like ?Lilly copied and pasted the bit about hunchback and crookedness directly from Ptolemy.?

I added that because I had just read Romano quoting Ptolemy about hunchbackedness, and had read the exact same line somewhere in Lilly, that made me laugh. It was out of context. It was just funny, because they both said the exact same thing to the word. It doesn?t matter.

To be honest though Deb, I don?t think you?ve actually read my question, so that?s why you may be confused, I?ve been told to justify my quotations, but just read what I posted at the beginning. If it?s not clear I can explain it to you again, perhaps read a second time and you?ll understand. : )

I waste my time trying to explain myself to someone who hasn?t read the question in the first place. But simply criticised without reason.

What I found was contradiction. Hence his system of dignities which I follow is under scrutiny, because I am following someone who didn?t actually believe in the South Node as a strict debility, yet who inscribed it into his system.

But I have to disagree. Lilly's work, in particular his chart work - not just in CA but in all his publications - shows a very strong and clear emphasis on the South Node as a difficult, malefic point. Even in the example quotes you offered in your first post, there are only two where the SN is not treated as an obvious malefic:

"Moon with North Node OR South Node shows Active spirits, prompt in any science..."

Of Mercury:

"When he is with North Node or South Node, he renders most accute and witty and good linguists, speaking many languages..."

The full quote for the first reads

"Moon with North Node or South Node shows active spirits, prompt to any science; best of all when she increases in light, and is not far from the full" (CA., p.544)

It is true that the SN is not treated as a malefic here, although it may be suggesting a sense of mental restlessness which prevents contentment. All in all, this is hardly balancing out all the many references to the South Node as a malefic.

In its full context the second quote reads:

"Fifthly, when he (Mercury) is not afflicted, especially of Mars, but is well placed, and in an airy sign, especially Aquarius, and with North Node or South Node, he renders most acute and witty men, and good linguists, speaking many languages..." (CA., p.545)

Again, the nodes seem to add to a 'sharpness of mind', but don't forget all the fortunate prerequisites to this aphorism. I am sure that any indications of affliction would be exaggerated by the presence of the nodes.

All of the other quotes you give in your first post show the SN being given an unfortunate meaning, and support Lilly?s designation of a -4 debility score.

Oh - just saw your last comment which you posted as I was replying. Of course I had read your post, but I'm happy to leave it at that. I have no desire to waste my time either.

Thank You Deb,


You are right in that perhaps only two of my quotes are relevant to my point, I was giving an unbiased proposition, by saying, that here is some information that may point to the contrary. And Lilly is pretty much confirmed in the fact that SN is malefic all the way throughout his writing, I don?t deny this either, I sifted through all of it in any case, to find those two little gems of quotes.

And when I read the Romano document on Valens I was provoked into thinking that perhaps there is someone else who thinks differently on the Nodes within the traditional historical context.

Romano quotes Lilly as saying that he didn?t know "why" it was so only that it was. Which to me is not good enough an explanation, his sources, primarily Ptolemy I do take with a pinch of scepticism, because I have read Tetrabiblos and find that work to be, despite accepting the Essential Dignity system, to be lacking in reason. Merely stating fact without saying why, (or that according to the ancients) is going to arouse all of my energy and questioning.


But I want to make clear to you here that I am not trying to disprove anyone or dismantle any particular text or person, especially not Lilly.


I want to know why the nodes work as they do. Thus far all the information that I have is that they are the interceptions of the Earth and Moon sort of like Equinox points, and where only Lunations may occur.

The equinxial nature of them is why I raised the issue of Aries Libra in terms of a polarity between North and South, since Solar Equinox takes place at these tropical degrees.


The fact of the matter is that on the equinoxes Mars holds the Northern side with Jupiter Aries-Pisces, while Venus holds the Southern Solar Node if you will with Mercury, on simple domicile rulership of the signs which are found at these declinations.


Looking at the finer details of essential dignity for the Equinox points you end up with:

0 Aries: Mars, Sun, Jupiter
0 Libra: Venus, Saturn, Moon

Those are the terms, rulership triplicity and faces for those two Nodal Degrees.


My thinking now, and I?m looking for logic, behind the fact, without quoting what anyone else states, or thinks or proposes, its only my idea;

Is that the Lunar Nodes must be treated in a similar way to the Solar Nodes, from which are gained the so called "aries point" and the Sun?s "bendings" equivalent to the Lunar bendings, at the solstice points, the basis of the tropical Zodiac itself.


I don?t have that much to back up my proposition, only to say that there are examples I can think of in which Nodes are neither Malefic nor benific in the sense that they do not deserve to be thought of in the same category as 12th house debility or of being under Sun?s beams debility.

If Venus is at Zero degrees tropical Libra it does not have accidental debility being in the Southern Node of the Sun-Earth interception, it has its powers greatly enhanced. Though Sun here is Fall.

Forgive my lack of clarity in other posts Deb, and I hope that this one is explains some of my reasons for questioning Lunar Node status.

Possibly also, I want to consider dignified planets with Nodes, Nodes conjunctions with Stars, dispositors; for example a planet in domicile with accidental dignity yet on SN.

Romano quotes Lilly as saying that he didn?t know "why" it was so only that it was. Which to me is not good enough an explanation

The fact Lilly doesn't claim to know all the answers gives him a humanity and humility which I really admire. He was also honest enough to lay out the traditional view but confess it didn't match his astrological experience. I dont know what more you really expect from one astrological source. I certainly wish some modern traditional writers would follow Lilly's example and make clear where they are diverging from the traditional understanding.

Moreover, Lilly is clearer on this issue than some of his contemporaries. For example William Ramesey, the 17th century author of 'Astrology Restored' admits he is not sure what the nodes mean due to the differing astrological views and leaves it up to the reader to explore. At least Lilly offers us the benefit of his actual experience.

Rather than turn this into 'The Trial of Wlliam Lilly' I suggest you look more widely throughout the whole astrological tradition to see what other sources have to say on this topic. You can then form your own conclusions after trying this out in charts.

My thinking now, and I?m looking for logic, behind the fact, without quoting what anyone else states, or thinks or proposes, its only my idea;

Good luck but perhaps you should be somewhere else on the forum if that is your approach? I dont think such idiosyncratic speculations really belong on the traditional page of the forum. People come to this part of the forum to share a better undertstanding of traditional sources not to set out their personal revisioning on the whole astrological tradition. There are other places to do that both on skyscript and on the web generally. This forum page is precious space for traditionalists. Please respect that fact.

MarkC wrote: I certainly wish some modern traditional writers would follow Lilly's example and make clear where they are diverging from the traditional understanding.

I agree and this is the only reason I like Bezza, even if I don't agree in many cases and I almost quarrel every Wednesday at my astrology course with his friend.
At least Bezza gives always quotes and references, so it's easy to check.
But many others don't do like that - for me sentences like "it's a mistake due to the transmission" or "nobody understands let alone me" are without any meaning.
There is a famous Italian astrologer - now dead and in peace- who repeated in all her books that Mercury is exalted in Scorpio and the exaltation in Virgo is a mistake of the copyist
For what I understand mistakes deriving from transmission are well known to scholars.

Moreover, Lilly is clearer on this issue than some of his contemporaries. For example William Ramesey, the 17th century author of 'Astrology Restored' admits he is not sure what the nodes mean due to the differing astrological views and leaves it up to the reader to explore. At least Lilly offers us the benefit of his actual experience.

The fact is that both versions about Nodes are in the Tradition. Rethorius thinks that South Node is benefic when it is with malefics and Alchabitius gives both versions.
So I believe that here there is room for personal choices and experiences, as Lilly did.

Margherita

Well, it?s better than what you?ve brought to the table isn?t it. What did you actually contribute to the discussion Marc C? Idiosyncratic indeed.

I think that looking at the Lunar nodes as Equinoxial points is logical and shows understanding of the dynamics of astrology itself, while still having a deep respect for the dignities used by the traditional astrologers.

It?s funny how to criticise some work gets flat out rejection, without consideration, when it?s an old piece of writing.

I?m interested to know what you yourself believe without reference to "the Babylonians" or "Ramsey". It?s like you asking me what 2 + 2 equals and me answering, well the "Babylonians" ... Or "my maths teacher would say"...

The Lunar Nodes are not open to interpretation, there is a right answer somewhere to be found... and I am sure that as you have suggested looking through the literature on the subject we can come closer to finding that truth, but to go around in pointless quotations with no aim except to prove how well read you are is intellectual chicanery, you get nowhere, least of all the logical factual truth.

I?ve read Lilly and Ptolemy, a bit of Valens, and various pieces that are in reference to various others, my bookshelf is limited. So I don?t claim to know the facts, I merely contribute what I?ve got and hope that other people will do likewise. Please don?t be offended by my apporoach, it?s in good spirit, and I give all that I have to the discussion.

Hi Night Sky

I?m not sure if you understand this or not, so excuse me if I?m stating the obvious, but the two traditions come from the same perspective of the South Node as a weakening point - of decrease and discharge - and the North Node as a strengthening point - of increase and augmentation. The idea that the South Node becomes ?fortunate? with the malefics is only because it is believed to have a weakening influence, therefore it decreases the influence of whichever planet it conjoins, whereas the North Node ?increases? and so makes any malefics it is joined to more influential. Lilly?s argument is that he only experienced the South Node as acting like malefic wherever it was placed. I understand the logic of why the South Node is considered beneficial with malefics, but my experience has been like Lilly?s. I have more difficulty relating to the North Node as a benefic, because (from a horary perspective) I?ve often noticed that charts relating to difficult or traumatic situations get asked when the nodal axis is strongly highlighted.

Sad to say I haven?t had time to read Clelia Romano?s document yet although it looks superb. I have to finish a piece of research I cam currently working on.

The South Node as with the North is simply a place where eclipses and Lunations can occur. In this light there is nothing to mark any difference between the two, apart from the fact that North is ascending into the Northern hemisphere while South descends into the Southern hemisphere.

I don?t subscribe to this. From a purely objective point of view, that?s correct, but astrology is not purely objective ? it is filled with symbolic associations and meaning applied to notions of ascension and descension. Anyone who sees things this way may as well argue that eclipses are simply places where the luminaries meet ? and the Sun is just a ball of light.

BTW - people are quite open with comments and views in this forum, and usually no offence is meant - we are used to arguing points back and forth.

Well, it?s better than what you?ve brought to the table isn?t it. What did you actually contribute to the discussion Marc C?

Civility and manners?

As for my view I already told you that.....try looking on one of the other threads you have generated about this.

However, your whole attitude is really objectionable as far as I am concerned so I have no intention of taking up any further time on this thread.

I'd been going through my files because it seems like me, all my friends, and many of my clients have conjunctions to the moon's nodes, and I came to pretty much the same conclusion that Clelia did - then read her article.

South seems to be just plain bad for most folks, and North, in my experience, does seem to bring some success but there's always an attendant loss that goes with.

I'm certainly willing to accept other people's findings, but that's what I've seen.

The nodes are eclipse markers - which often 'eclipse' the planet they're conjunct in one way or another, usually at a detriment to the person involved. Even Mercury/SN - which possibly brought some good to people in some ways, but took away a lot in other ways.