My understanding so far has been that its the applying aspects of the primary significators, designated by ascendant and houses, that rightly form the basis of judgement. The secondary, natural significators and the movement of the moon (as the secondary significator of the querent) should confirm or enhance those indicators, right?

So, when the primary significators seem to be making no contacts, but the moon and all the secondary significators seem to be - how does one judge?

Should I only be looking for confirmation from the secondaries? Or can one make judgement based on the movement of secondaries alone, and if so does it impact on the judgment?

The reason i ask is because in my head i want to clarify the hierarchy of importance between these, so that if in a chart the main significators seem to be making no major aspects that I dont just look for the next way to the resolution using the secondaries! That seems flawed to me.

Are my assumptions correct here?

What do you mean by secondary significators? Natural significators or?

Also, it i a lot more "complicated " than that generally- the main significators that are not in an applying aspect can be brought together by another planet. In Cristian Astrology,you will find some great examples of charts where the answer was not very obvious at the begining as well as Lilly's suggestions on how to approach different types of questions. Sometimes, it's the placement of one of the main significators that will "trigger" the positive outcome.

Here's an example:



Of Government, Office, Dignity, Preferment, or any place of Command or Trust, whether attainable or not? (CA,Chapter LXXXII, pages 444-445)

The lst house and his Lord are given to the Querent, the lOth house and his Lord shall signifie the Place, Office, Preferment, Command, Honour, &c. enquired after;
If the Lord of the ascendant and the Moon be both joyned to the Sun, or to the Lord of the lOth, or either of them, and the Lord of the lOth behold the lOth, or be personally therein, the Querent shall then have the thing sought after, but not Gratis; nay, he must bestir himselfe, and use all the friends he can about it:
If none of the Significators be joyned to the Lord of the lOth" see if the Lord of the lst or Moon be in the lOth, he shall then attain what he desires, if that Planet be not impedited:
The Lord of the lOth in the lst, so he be a lighter Planet then the Lord of the lst, though no aspect be betwixt them, yet shall he attain the Place or Office desired; but with more ease and lesse labour when the Lord of the lOth is in the ascendant, and is either going to Conjunction, Sextile or Trine aspect with the Lord of the lst.
If the Lord of the lOth be joyned to Jupiter or Venus by any aspect, and the Lord of the lOth be in the ascendant, it argues obtaining of the Office with ease and facility: If the Lord of the lOth be joyned to Mars or Saturn, and they or either of them in the ascendant, in their owne house or exaltation, and themselves Orientall and Direct, and not one opposite to another, this doth argue obtaining the Preferment, though with much importunity....

and so on, and so on. Mayn, many "if-s"

Similarly- the placement of the 5th ruler on the Asc and the presence of Jupiter on the 5th cusp are often very promising in pregnancy charts and a separation of the main significators (L1 and L5- children) does not necessarily mean that the querent cannot have children; quite the contrary- it can sometimes suggest that the Querent is already pregnant.

Many things should be taken into consideration! And, naturally- an undisturbed application of the two main significators will not often bring about a positive outcome.

Aldebaran wrote:My understanding so far has been that its the applying aspects of the primary significators, designated by ascendant and houses, that rightly form the basis of judgement. The secondary, natural significators and the movement of the moon (as the secondary significator of the querent) should confirm or enhance those indicators, right?

The quote of Lilly given by Aglaya shows very clearly in my opinion that you are not right according to the importance of the Moon, Aldebaran.

The Moon is co-significator or the querent and is not on the level of general or natural significators as you say in your text above.

Significator of the querent ist Lord or Lady of the first, and/OR the Moon who thus is equivalent to the ascendant ruler, on the same level like him or her, in my opinion.

Johannes

I have always thought planets in the 1st that are not rulers of the querent or other important cusp rulers may be said to be secondary significators, so perhaps that's what Aldebaran meant?

Aldebaran, if you meant secondary sigs as planets important to the question, i.e., a quiested, then I would say that they would need to be aspected as well. If someone asks a romance question and the Moon only aspects the querent and not the quiested, there isn't likely going to be any sort of future with the quiested.

I have also heard that secondary sigs may be those planets conjunct your primary sig or in the same house as your primary sig...

Thanks for your thoughtful response aglaya.

aglaya wrote:What do you mean by secondary significators? Natural significators or?

Yep, thats what I wrote above!

aglaya wrote: Also, it i a lot more "complicated " than that generally- the main significators that are not in an applying aspect can be brought together by another planet. In Cristian Astrology,you will find some great examples of charts where the answer was not very obvious at the begining as well as Lilly's suggestions on how to approach different types of questions. Sometimes, it's the placement of one of the main significators that will "trigger" the positive outcome.

Of course I am aware that there are exceptional rules for lost objects, pregnancies, apprehension of thieves and so forth.

What i am talking about is simply the core mechanism, or methodology by which we approach horary in general.

One assigns significators for querent and quesited, looking to rulers of the ascendant and houses to do so. Then secondary, natural significators are identified, based on the inherent nature of the planets - sometimes these are the same sometimes not. We look to the moon to see actions or events past and future - as co-ruler of the querent etc.

My question then is about whether the 'primary' significators are where the focus sits and the natural significators (which I referred to as 'secondary', using Derek Appleby's language) simply confirm contacts that the main players in the chart make. Or whether the natural significators are on an equal footing and if the main signficators make no aspects can we reliably look to these for judgment?

I do not know. And the different authors I am studying all say different things. So I posed the question here.

johannes susato wrote:
Significator of the querent ist Lord or Lady of the first, and/OR the Moon who thus is equivalent to the ascendant ruler, on the same level like him or her, in my opinion.

Johannes

That's exactly the kind of thing I wanted to clarify, thanks! Do you have some textual references that support that opinion?

And if the Lords of the Asc and Houses make no major contacts, would you confidently make judgment solely on the moons aspects?

I would be pleased to hear if you do because it would help me in my approach to clarify that that is the case.

Aldebaran wrote:

johannes susato wrote: Significator of the querent ist Lord or Lady of the first, and/OR the Moon who thus is equivalent to the ascendant ruler, on the same level like him or her, in my opinion.

Johannes

That's exactly the kind of thing I wanted to clarify, thanks! Do you have some textual references that support that opinion?

Let me repeat this qoute of Lilly given by Aglaya:

Of Government, Office, Dignity, Preferment, or any place of Command or Trust, whether attainable or not? (Lilly, CA,Chapter LXXXII, pages 444-445)

The lst house and his Lord are given to the Querent, the lOth house and his Lord shall signifie the Place, Office, Preferment, Command, Honour, &c. enquired after;
If the Lord of the ascendant and the Moon be both joyned to the Sun, or to the Lord of the lOth, or either of them, and the Lord of the lOth behold the lOth, or be personally therein, the Querent shall then have the thing sought after, but not Gratis; nay, he must bestir himselfe, and use all the friends he can about it:
If none of the Significators be joyned to the Lord of the lOth" see if the Lord of the lst or Moon be in the lOth, he shall then attain what he desires, if that Planet be not impedited:

Sorry that I forgot in ma first post to repeat Aglaya's quote now accented by me. You can see here that the quernt's significators are Lord 1 and the Moon or Lord 1 OR the Moon.

See also Lilly, CA, pp. 123, 124, 168, 457, 458, 459.

Aldebaran wrote:And if the Lords of the Asc and Houses make no major contacts, would you confidently make judgment solely on the moons aspects?.

If you add:The Moon's aspects to the signficators of the quesited, then Yes. As you can see Lilly is doing this why should we not dare to follow him?

Johannes

Aldebaran wrote:What i am talking about is simply the core mechanism, or methodology by which we approach horary in general.

I don't think there is such a thing, actually! Naturally, we do have the "list" of the rules of perfection/denial and they say- the rulers of the Querent and the Quesited and those would be main significators. But, every chart is complex, multi layered and needs a thorough examination. Additional planets are often additional influences IMo and offer additional informations, descriptions etc. And that's the best part, actually, as we can get a lot more than just a plain "predictive" answer. it only means that we need to study AND PRACTICE a lot in order to gain the routine (though- not sure if i have used the best word here) to put it all into a single picture. Our lives are complicated, the situations we ask questions about are complicated, they often involve more (different) people, options and obstacles...and what Horary charts have got to offer- is a better insight or an overview. Overviews don't fit into two words. Even the charts cast upon questions with negative outcomes will provide certain explanations and broader picture- if not; why not? There's more than one rule of denial and, different types of denial will have different development of the situation as a result. An interposing planet and prohibition will sometimes indicate an outer influence, refranation will sometimes suggest "a change of mind"...etc. The positive outcome and the goal can be obtainable but the chart will ocasionally suggest that it isn't nearly as desirable as originally thought. Or that it isn't within the reach in the nearest future, or that the situation will require many efforts from the Qerent .... it will maybe suggest potential beneficial influences or "advise" the Querent to stay away from certain activities, people...

There are, actually, very few rules of perfection and denial! We need the aspect and we need to examine the shape of the planets as well as the nature (quality) of the aspect that is bringing them together. But, that is exactly why I have posted this chapter of the CA in my previous post- it's a good example of the complexity of the delineation process and, as you have probably noticed- Lilly suggests that even a chart in which the main significators aren't connected by an aspect can bring about the positive outcome.

The Lord of the lOth in the lst, so he be a lighter Planet then the Lord of the lst, though no aspect be betwixt them, yet shall he attain the Place or Office desired;

Though, of course, when the planet is sitting on the Querent's ascendant- it is actually conjunct a very powerful and significant point of the chart, though the point is not actually a body. Also, in this chapter you can see as to how each of the signs of perfection can be explained and how descriptive they can be of the situation (it's not just a "YES" but there are plenty other additional and very descriptive details that can be drawn from each chart).

And, finally- it includes additional- natural significators (Sun is "honour" and "authorities"- very important in questions of this kind) and stresses the importance of the aspects with benefics (Jupiter, Venus).

That's exactly the kind of thing I wanted to clarify, thanks! Do you have some textual references that support that opinion?

It would take ages to find and paste all the relevant quotes from CA in this case but I don't think there's any need to find specific quotes for what johannes was suggesting- which ever Horary book or textbook you open- you'll find the rule that the Ascendant represents the Querent, that the Moon co-rules the Question and that the Quesited is represented by the ruler of the house (its cusp) significant for the matter inquired after written at the very begining. Of, course, you will also come across another Lilly's "rule"- the planet that the Moon has last separated from can be used as the ruler of the Querent while the planet to which She "doth applies to" - signifies the Quesited.

f course I am aware that there are exceptional rules for lost objects, pregnancies, apprehension of thieves and so forth.

I wouldn't say those are really exceptional rules but rather different approaches to specific questions. That's why studying Lilly's example charts is more than useful.

Or whether the natural significators are on an equal footing and if the main signficators make no aspects can we reliably look to these for judgment?

I don't think this can be answered in a nutshell!

Wow, thank you so much Johannes and especially Aglaya.

Your posts have had a profound impact on my outlook. I think it is going to change the way I think about horary, and certainly answered my question very thoroughly and thoughtfully.

As you say its, practice, practice, practice. With tarot it took me years to really grasp the cards interactions - and I think horary is a million light years more complex but that whats great about it.

thanks again
Aldebaran