What is the young woman really interested in? Is she interested in benefiting from her husband's death or is there a deeper issue

We must not lose sight of the social context in which this question was asked. This is the 17th century. Women were almost totally dependent on the men they married. In this case, the odds were she would outlive this man by far more than a few years, and what then? If he had no means, no estate to support her after he was gone, she would have a serious problem. She couldn't "get a job" or realize life goals, go back to school, or have a beneficient state to support her.

She was no mere gold digger. In fact she was looking at a deeper issue; she was looking at financial survival. If she were able to support herself in the event of her husband's death, I doubt she would have gone to Lilly in the first place.

I think she was simply using her head and taking a realistic look at her future. If contemporary young people did the same, the divorce rate might be quite a bit lower.

The use of horary in this case gives her the answer she wanted. Looking for some psychological motivation in the birth chart doesn't solve her immediate problem. And let's not forget, the prospective groom let her believe he had the means to sustain her in the event of his death. He didn't; in effect he lied to her. His motivations are more in need of examination than hers.

Tom

It is indeed unfortunate that women were so totally dependent on their husbands in Lily's time.

The woman in this case was looking at a deeper issue, and the presenting question that she asked masked a deeper issue, which I suspect Lily perceived because he changed the question. Perhaps the use of horary put her into a different frame of mind where she would begin to look at alternatives to financial survival maybe through her family or remarriage.

The approach, whether natal or horary, would be to help the young woman perceive the reality of her situation, help her release herself from some previous way of thinking, which had become an obstacle, and provide realistic ways of reaching her goal, which in this case was based on her needs.

The most practical way that astrology can attain accuracy without becoming too fatalistic is through helping people focus upon realistic and satisfying goals and helping to develop a schedule of attaining these goals.

KennethM

The woman in this case was looking at a deeper issue, and the presenting question that she asked masked a deeper issue, which I believe Lily perceived because he changed the question.

I've retyped the story in its entirety (as best I can. My reprint of this work is illegible in spots). I cannot see how Lilly changed the question. The question is stated quite clearly: "A Gentlewoman desired to know if she should have an aged man; yea or no." The answer was "No."

He suggested she obtain some kind of financial statement from the man, which would give her information she needed to prove his (Lilly's) assertion that something was wrong with the man's finances, and he noted she had desires for another man, but the question remained the same, and it was answered.

Perhaps the use of horary put her into a different frame of mind where she would begin to look at alternatives to financial survival maybe through her family or remarriage.

Different from what? We don't know her frame of mind in the first place much less what happened to it during the course of her meeting with Lilly. The marriage did not take place. She wanted information and it was given to her with the use of horary. Why complicate it?

The approach, whether natal or horary, would be to help the young woman perceive the reality of her situation, help her release herself from some previous way of thinking, which had become an obstacle, and provide realistic ways of reaching her goal, which in this case was based on her needs.

There is nothing in Lilly's tale to suggest she needed any help at all perceiving the reality of her situation. In fact the reverse is true. She well understood her situation, and the dismal future that awaited her if she was left without funds after his death. The purpose of the horary is to give her information she does not have but needs. She determines the needs without help from the astrologer otherwise the astrologer isn't "helping her "perceive the reality of her situation," he is thinking for her, which is pretty condescending.

Q: "Is it a good idea to marry this guy?"
A: "No, he's broke."

Why gild the Lilly? [Heh heh heh]

Tom

A Gentlewoman desired to know if she should have an aged man, yea or no

The querent hath Mercury only for her significator. Jupiter is for the aged man and party quesited after. Considering Mercury had lately separated from a sextile of Jupiter and the Moon [from a ] quadrate, I judged there had lately been some treaty about it (which was confessed) and that the old man did much importune it., because Jupiter, receives Mercury in his exaltation and causeth a friendly trine to the degree ascending this was so: seeing the Moon carried the light from Jupiter to Mars and Mercury was going to a quartile of Mars, I judged the maid?s affection was alienated from the old man, and that she desired such a man as Mars, viz, a Captain of Soldier, etc and that she should be
[ ]* therein by reason both Mars and Moon were in unfortunate houses: nor had Mercury or Luna any dignities where Mars was or in the sign, and [be _____*] where himself was: all that this was acknowledged with tears because I found Saturn and Mars in he 8th and that Mars was the impediting planet. I had the maid require a [____
____]* of the old man, and see what it would do, which at next meeting she did but when it appeared he could not make any there being an encumbrance upon his land, as Saturn with Mars in his second house of substance doth excellently signify. After this they broke off all terms of marriage directly as I told her.

*My reprint is illegible

Hi Tom

I've filled in the missing words (copied from Geoffrey's book).


The querent hath Mercury only for her significator. Jupiter is for the aged man and party quesited after. Considering Mercury had lately separated from a sextile of Jupiter and the Moon [by a ] quadrate, I judged there had lately been some treaty about it (which was confessed) and that the old man did much importune it., because Jupiter, receives Mercury in his exaltation and causeth a friendly trine to the degree ascending this was so: seeing the Moon carried the light from Jupiter to Mars and Mercury was going to a quartile of Mars, I judged the maid?s affection was alienated from the old man, and that she desired such a man as Mars, viz, a Captain of Soldier, etc and that she should be
[crossed]* therein by reason both Mars and Moon were in unfortunate houses: nor had Mercury or Luna any dignities where Mars was or in the sign, and [degree*] where himself was: all that this was acknowledged with tears because I found Saturn and Mars in he 8th and that Mars was the impediting planet. I had the maid require a [joynture]* (jointure: estate settled on a wife, to be enjoyed after her husband's death) of the old man, and see what it would do, which at next meeting she did but when it appeared he could not make any there being an encumbrance upon his land, as Saturn with Mars in his second house of substance doth excellently signify. After this they broke off all terms of marriage directly as I told her.

Thanks Tom and Ficina for providing the complete and accurate story. This will teach me not to try to illustrate an idea using such a tiny snippet of a quote. If only I had made up my own example instead!

Based on Deb's quote from Dennis Elwell:

the master dodges answering the young woman hoping to benefit from the death of her putative elderly husband. Instead he recommends a stratagem to find out if there might be an unforeseen obstacle to that outcome.

and not knowing any better, I misunderstood that Lilly did not change the question.

Based on what Tom wrote earlier, I was led to think not:
Q: "Is it a good idea to marry this guy?"
A: "No, he's broke."

but instead:
A: "No, he's lying to you."

My bias may be because I've seen the astronishment of some of my own clients who were misled by lies.

KennethM

I popped the chart into Ficina?s post above.

Kenneth, what you say about needing to explore the underlying issues of the question is sometimes appropriate in horary, sometimes not. In this case there are no hidden issues involved as I realise you now understand. If there had been, traditional astrology allows them to be explored just as easily as modern methods.

The issue here is whether traditional methods are fatalistic, and one of the points about the discussion of this chart is that it shows Lilly using the chart to consider the client?s best course of action ? not trying to establish a ?yes? or ?no? answer to her question. He?s not predicting what the woman will do, or even trying to tell her what she should do, just putting her in a more informed position about something unknown to her so that she can make her own decisions.

Unfortunately, if you compare this with the questions asked in the horary forum of this site or any other, what you will find is that the greater majority of them are attempting to answer the question ? will I? or will it? And sadly, many of them do seem to be all about getting an answer that involves ?yes? or ?no?. Not ?what can I do about this?? Or ?what hopes do I have of making this work?? We need to be asking, not only ?what does this tell us about traditional methods??, but also ?what does this tell us about many people who claim to be advocates of traditional methods??

Tom talks about a demoralising element of self-absorption, and I agree with him in general. But I don?t agree with this:

self absorbtion is rampant in modern astrology, and traditional astrologers are attracted to the tradition because they are less self absorbed than their modern counterparts and more interested in ideas.

Have you read the horary forum lately Tom? It seems that only a small percentage of the questions are coming from people that are not asking questions about themselves, and about things that either are or are not going to happen to them. I do understand that your notion of a traditional astrologer is not well represented here, and I don't believe most of these horary examples can be compared with the way Lilly worked as an astrologer. I wouldn't like to think that this sort of stuff gets so easily confused with what constitutes traditional astrology as a whole.

Could the problem be that horary techniques are becoming too widely accessible ? suffering from the same burden of popularity (and therefore simplification and a lack of in-depth appreciation) that we bemoan about with 'rampart modern counterparts'? Or is it just me being irritable tonight? I wonder what views people have about this?

If I may be so bold as to butt in.

The modern self-absorption is part of a bigger situation, that being that most people who go into the Occult (and yes I'm lumping astrology in there) are really trying to avoid reality. So when folks get into something like astrology, instead of using it for finding out What Is? (and the follow up What Can I Do About It?), they use it for What Can I Make Up? and How Can I Avoid My Real Life? The simplistic pop-psych approach is just symptomatic of that; so is the will-someone-please-tell-me-what-to-do-so-I-don't-have-to-make-a-decision? crowd. It's just regression to childhood, plain and simple.

A healthy degree of self-knowledge and self-understanding is a good thing. That does not need to lead self-obsession.

Deb said:

Could the problem be that horary techniques are becoming too widely accessible ? suffering from the same burden of popularity (and therefore simplification and a lack of in-depth appreciation) that we bemoan about with 'rampart modern counterparts'?

Absolutely!! I have found that horary astrology has become almost like a party trick in some circles. It is often treated as an easy adjunct to astrology rather than as a whole system in itself. I know of one diploma course in modern astrology that now includes three or four lessons in horary because they believe that horary is simple and requires no more than a couple of quick lessons to understand it once you have done natal astrology. The ?graduates? from this course have been told that they will legitimately able to call themselves horary astrologers. I find that offensive. I also know of a number of modern astrologers who have never done any horary study but continually draw up their own horary charts and try to answer them. I have friends who do this and it frustrates me when they ring me or email me asking what certain things mean. It is far too easy for people to think they know horary when the reality is they haven?t even skimmed the surface. Most people wouldn?t think they know natal astrology after a couple of lessons. Why should they think they could master horary after a couple of lessons?

I believe horary forums can serve a valuable role. I certainly enjoy some of the discussions that we?ve had and I have learned a lot. But I don?t think these forums should be seen as representative of horary or traditional astrology when so much of it is being used in a self-serving way. Sometimes I believe that people can be excused for thinking that horary is shallow if their only experience of it is through some of the forums and the endless stream of inane questions. It is the nature of the Internet to allow anyone to partake of almost anything and people continually drop in and out of horary forums to ask personal questions. But this is not traditional astrology. In fact it goes against everything that traditional astrology advocates. I have to admit that this has been a bit of an issue for me for some time and I find it frustrating that there is such a lack of respect for the real traditions of astrology. Horary astrology is not a party game. Nor is it an easy way of getting an answer to anything that pops into our head. Deb has mentioned before that if we are asking more than three or four of our own questions a year then we are asking too many. If we put this limit on ourselves then it would require us to think much more deeply about what it is we really need help with.

I don?t believe horary astrology becoming more widely accessible is the issue. After all, this is one of the reasons Olivia Barclay worked so hard to get Christian Astrology out into the public arena ? so that we can practice horary in the way that it is meant to be practiced. It is important that people have access to good quality horary information like the comprehensive course available on this site. This, of course, requires effort and judging by some of the questions asked on the forum and some of the responses, many people do not make the effort to study these courses in depth. The burden of popularity is only a burden when we start equating popularity with effortlessness.

Sue wrote: I have found that horary astrology has become almost like a party trick in some circles.

Is there a field of study that is not going in that direction? I know that I meet up with many people who feel that by watching a few television shows and reading a few magazines they are better equipped than I am to design their investment portfolios and advise them on their financial plans, when I have years of experience, designations, and continuous education in the field. Like astrology, visit any investment site online and see how cluttered it is with banal information. So I certainly understand the disdain that astrologers, who read and study and practise constantly, must feel when they meet up wth those those who just read a sun sign book while in the check-out line in the grocery store and think that they have it all down pat.


I wish all cinematographers were Connie Hall and all directors were Kurasowa, and all doctors in the USA were in the business for purely altruistic reasons. Not to mention attorneys. But this is not a perfect world. The fact that so many are studying and learning astrology for the "right" reasons amazes me. And the idea of so many of you being in this forum is downright delightful.

And Tom, I agree with you that the journey of any study should go well beyond the basics. Although I read and read and read and sit in lectures and ask questions, I still feel that I know very little of astrology. Do I think that everyone who has aquarius rising is as scatter-brained as I am, not at all. Am I self-absorbed, maybe. But there is a difference, even a small one, between those who want to know oneself and those who want to know nothing but oneself. But don't misunderstand. I do get your point and really don't disagree with you. I love the pure pursuit of ideas and wish everyone else did, too. You'd have a hard time convincing me that one could be a good astrologer never having read anything printed before 1970. Imagine being a philosopher who never read Aristotle!

In defense of those who are in this forum asking "silly" horary questions (myself included I am sure), I would like to say that perhaps we are just phrasing the question wrong. Speaking for myself, I usually phrase a question in the simplest way, yet I expect my analysis to be not necessarily "will I" but more like "what direction". For instance, when I asked if my son would be accepted to a certain school, I already felt before I asked that he wouldn't make it. I was really looking for direction inside a poorly formed question. I should have asked it differently.


As for the psychology of astrology, I must confess that this is the first I've heard of it. And I don't see any connection. I'm glad we got that Lily chart straightened out.

Have you read the horary forum lately Tom?

No, and you make a good point, but are all these folks traditional astrologers or are they asking traditional astrolgoers to give them answers they can't find? I don't know, but I'll modify my position and say there is a lot of self absorbtion to go around traditional and modern. I will not modify my position that I think most of it is still in the other camp.

And I base this on other forums where it is almost impossible to have a discussion without someone saying those four little words, "Well in my chart." And that includes the moderators. I have this pipe dream that I could start an astrology forum where discussion of any member's chart would be forbidden and grounds for immediate banishment. I figure there would be very few members, but at least the quality would be high.

Could the problem be that horary techniques are becoming too widely accessible ? suffering from the same burden of popularity (and therefore simplification and a lack of in-depth appreciation) that we bemoan about with 'rampart modern counterparts'?

I think interest in horary has increased, and that's a plus, but there is a lot of junk out there that passes for horary. There are people who think that horary can only answer yes or no questions, that one cannot ask about someone else except under very special circumstances, etc. But there is a lot of silly things that some people believe about natal astrology, too. We have to take the good with the bad.

Kenneth M writes:

and not knowing any better, I misunderstood that Lilly did not change the question.

Based on what Tom wrote earlier, I was led to think not:
Q: "Is it a good idea to marry this guy?"
A: "No, he's broke."

but instead:
A: "No, he's lying to you."

This is good, and I can certainly see why someone would read this little anecdote and draw this conclusion. However, and this may well belong on another thread, what I did and maybe what Ken did is read something that isn't there. As Deb points out, there is nothing in this anecdote that indicates Lilly made any kind of prediction. Geoffrey Cornelius goes into a great deal of analysis of this very short explanation, and I seem to have fallen into the same trap.

The fact that Lilly doesn't tells he said anything doesn't mean he didn't tell the querent anything. He just didn't tell the reader. This wonderful horary gets the most cursory treatment in The Prophetical Merlin,, which doesn't mean he gave a cursory reading, or that he gave an in depth reading and deliberately but subtley left our some things in order to have his readers draw some tacit conclusions. As I was told in my early introduction to CA, "Lilly is not Shakespeare." How many noticed that in the anecdote he made a few mistakes? One of comission one of omission?

Cornelius, too gives a whole lot of emphasis to Lilly''s mentioning of the "soldier," and then turns that into the querent's repressed sexuality. If Lilly had followed the rules he set down in Christian Astrology, which was published only six months after this horary, none of us woud have bothered making so much of it.

That takes us way off track. If anyone wants to we can dfiscuss this in full on another thread, or better yet, read The Astrologer's Apprentice issue No 20 "Towards Reading Lilly."

Tom

Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 1:14 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Have you read the horary forum lately Tom?

No, and you make a good point, but are all these folks traditional astrologers or are they asking traditional astrolgoers to give them answers they can't find? I don't know, but I'll modify my position and say there is a lot of self absorbtion to go around traditional and modern. I will not modify my position that I think most of it is still in the other camp.

And I base this on other forums where it is almost impossible to have a discussion without someone saying those four little words, "Well in my chart." And that includes the moderators. I have this pipe dream that I could start an astrology forum where discussion of any member's chart would be forbidden and grounds for immediate banishment. I figure there would be very few members, but at least the quality would be high.

I completely agree with you Tom.

I recently asked the forum if it was possible to earn a decent living as a Horary consultant. I received I think 2 replies from members of the forum and both were students of John Frawley, one of which was Susan Swan aka (Horary Queen). I knew I wouldn't receive many replies because there are just not many practicing Horary Astrologers out there; those that experience one on one consultations. There is far too much discussion on techniques and members own charts. I studied for a while with Mr Frawley and he encourages you to practically set yourself up as a Horary consultant from day one to enable you to get the practice and experience of working with people whilst gaining the knowledge. There's just no other way around it.

John Nelson Hall