But what supports the implication that Lilly changed his rules? His signification in the Prince Rupert chart is appropriate, and he begins the judgement by explaining that it is a chart scenario that "falls not under the notion of vulgar (ie., commonly applied) rules". This is because a prince is the subject of the enquiry; therefore he takes the 10th house to represent Prince Rupert and judge the expectation of him gaining or losing honour by his actions. This is not changing the rules - it's knowing them well enough to understand how to apply them appropriately within the context of each chart.

If someone, with good reason - whatever their motivation - asked me a question that related to the Queen of England, I would use the 10th to signify her, the opposing house for her opponents, and I don't believe anyone would find that controversial. Lilly says on p.55 of CA:

The Tenth House
Commonly it personifies kings, princes, dukes, earls, judges, prime ministers, commanders in chief, whether in armies or towns, all sorts of magistracy and officers in authority; ...

So I'm not seeing any inconsistency here in his choice of the 10th house to personify Prince Rupert.

Carol, comparing this to the different approach to signification taken in the 'Robert Earl of Essex' chart, you say
Quote:
Lilly is so inconsistent and enigmatic on this particular issue that we should take with a grain--or ton-- of salt whatever he says at any given time and not expect to find any hard and fast rules.

But the Prince Rupert chart is not an appropriate comparison to the Essex chart on p.473. The former is a horary asked by a supporter of the Parlimentary cause, the latter is a commencement chart, where the ascendant signifies the initiator of the action. As the title of the chart illustrates, the chart is cast for the time that Essex set off with his army. Lilly begins by explaining how the ascending sign "well represents his form and body" - this is a check that he regularly makes, to show that the symbolism is working appropriately. No astrologer should follow techniques or other people's experience slavishly, but every judgement Lilly records is well worth hesitating over.

Deb, glad you joined the discussion, but I guess I'm totally confused! I was apparently looking at this chart from a completely different standpoint. I thought the main concern in both of the questions was how these two opponents, i.e., Royalist Party/Prince Rupert and the Parliamentary cause/ Earl of Essex would do in their upcoming battles in the overall Civil War between the two. And it seemed in the 2nd question about Essex that it made perfect sense to give him the Asc. since he was on the same side (Parliament) as the querent.

And in the 1st question where Earl of Essex is also on the same side as the querent/the Parliamentary cause, and Prince Rupert is the opponent, it seemed that it would have again made sense to give Earl of Essex the 1st house along with the querent, and Prince Rupert the 7th/enemy, but instead he gives Prince Rupert the 10th house because he's a person of eminence, etc.

But even if this weren't a chart about opposing parties in war and we just looked at it from the standpoint of a querent asking about the fate of another person, it seems in the 2nd question specifically about Essex, Lilly follows his own rule about using the Asc. for the absent party (when there is no relation to the querent), but in the 1st question about Prince Rupert, he seems to break his own rule and use the 10th.

But when you say in the 2nd question about Essex, it's a "commencement chart, where the ascendant signifies the initiator of the action," is that because it's like an event chart actually timed to when Essex set off? And if the 1st question about Prince Rupert had been asked in that form, would he then have been assigned the Asc.? And if the 2nd question hadn't mentioned anything about time and just asked how Essex would do when he set forth, he would have been given the 10th because he too was a person of eminence?

Like I said, I guess I'm totally confused, and I apologize if I'm inadvertently just making things too complicated and more confusing.

Hi Carol

when you say in the 2nd question about Essex, it's a "commencement chart, where the ascendant signifies the initiator of the action," is that because it's like an event chart actually timed to when Essex set off? And if the 1st question about Prince Rupert had been asked in that form, would he then have been assigned the Asc.?

The reason this is not comparable to the horary is because with commencement (or 'event') charts we usually apply the rules that are part of electional astrology and fix the event to whatever is begun or initiated at that time. So the ascendant is taken to represent whoever initiates the action or causes the event to happen. This is the only chart of this type in the book and it comes as a sort of addendum after the material on 12 house matters (along with the tables and instructions on calculating the lord of the hour), before the section on nativities commences. Note that the text on the previous page ends with a lead in to the tables which follow this chart. It looks to me like this was inserted as a late addition for some reason.

And if the 2nd question hadn't mentioned anything about time and just asked how Essex would do when he set forth, he would have been given the 10th because he too was a person of eminence?

For that we need to understand the focus of the question and the extent to which the eminency of Essex is relevant. This is where we need to follow Lilly's reasoning based on his explanation of the situation involved.

For example, in the question about Prince Rupert, the title of the question shows that Rupert formed the focus of the question - it was about what would happen to him personally, in terms of his honourable position, and the implications of the war events are discussed in relation to that. This is consistent with Lilly's approach - note he does the same in the question on p.455, which concerns whether the king would get support (king is given to the 10th house) whether the queen would move her army (queen is given the 4th) and whether the two of them would meet.

A better comparison is with the chart on p.401, which concerns whether Essex would take Reading. Essex, though an earl, was fighting against the king, so Essex is signified by the ascendant and the 10th is used to signify the king (we can tell from the judgement that whoever asked the question was supporting Essex and identifying with his cause). Here, the fact that the 10th ruler was positioned in the 7th formed Lilly's judgement that the King would get involved and send whatever forces he could muster to oppose Essex as vigorously as he could. The 7th house is used to signify the opposition that Essex faces but it's not just a case of the 1st and 7th houses being used in this horary. Besides the 10th for the king a lot of emphasis is given to the 4th house to signify Reading as the city besieged, and the 4th ruler to its Governor, Sir Aston.

There are various ways that any astrologer could approach this chart but Lilly's judgements stand up well to close scrutiny because they are very descriptive in their details. For example the way that we have the royal sign of Leo on the MC, making the Sun the perfect significator for 'his Majesty', and the way that Aston is perfectly signified by the 4th-ruler Saturn in Aries, conjunct SN. He was supposedly rendered speechless after being struck on the head by a falling brick, though some think he feigned this so he wasn't able to do the traitorous deed of surrendering himself.

My point is that Essex is not personifying a position of eminence in this chart though in another he might. There's no hard and fast rule over whether someone like an earl should be signified by the 1st or 10th. The astrologer has to make a judgement on that, based on rules and reason and how it all fits into the full scenario. My honest advice to any horary astrologer is to give Lilly's judgements a lot of attention - we get good accounts of the theory of horary in many traditional works, but Lilly's charts have a lot of hidden gems. I'm not saying everything is shining with clarity but he really knew what he was doing in the practice of horary. The more I've learned about horary myself the more I've come to realise that.

Deb,

Thanks so much for your input and explanations. That helps a lot. I plan to go over everything more closely again, but it's already cleared up a lot of confusion, and I take back the aspersions I casted on Lilly.

But regarding Lilly's statement/rule about using the Asc. for the absent party, I get the feeling we were probably using it completely out of context in the discussion here. Indeed, my original understanding was that it was meant to be used for literally absent, i.e., missing people not related to the querent, to find out where they were and if they were dead or alive.

And the other case for using the Asc. for other people asked about was when the querent strongly identified with this person(s), as in being on the same side in a conflict, wanting the same thing, having the same goal, etc. Otherwise, if a mother is asking about her daughter's prospects for landing a new job such as in the original question here, the mother would be the querent, the daughter the 5th, and the job would be the turned 10th from the radical 5th/daughter. Would that be basically correct?

Thanks again,
Carol

It might help if I add two more points on that. The ascendant signifies the absent party if there is no other obvious choice of signification. If we refer to the missing party as brother they are signified by the 3rd, husband 7th, boss 10th, etc. So even in that situation, if asking about an absent king, prince or queen we could take their signification from the 10th. An unrelated celebrity, no; but a leader of state or other kind of person defined by rulership would fit the association of the 10th.

When there is no other way to establish signification we defer to the ascendant, but only for the person we empathise with and share concern for. A missing fugitive or someone we are trying to hunt down is given to the 7th house. For that reason I've noticed some horary astrologers suggest that all missing persons should be signified by the 7th house, but if we are following the traditional principles that only applies when there is antipathy for the missing person, not where there is concern about their health and wellbeing.

Deb, I see we crossed posts again and you already answered my latest question like you read my mind. Thanks again!

Well hopefully we ended up in the right place I should probably point out for other readers that the last three posts look like a strange conversion because of the way our posts overlapped, which led you to change your earlier post a little from how it was when I responded to it.

For a chart where a mother is asking a question about her daughter, I would take the mother as the querent and use the 5th for the daughter, but I would consider the radical 10th for the job - throwing in some consideration to the turned 10th. Basically the chart is about a daughter (5th) and a professional placement (10th), the main reason for turning a chart is to distinguish between one person's job and another?s'. So this is where I wouldn?t turn a chart as much as some other astrologers might. Think of a comparable situation: a question where the querent asks out of concern that his/her father may be dying. The father would be 4th, the prospect of death would be the 8th. I'd consider the turned 8th too, but would never ignore the radical 8th house - the turned 8th just helps to give more detail. There is a real 'art' in knowing when to turn, when not to turn, and how much significance to give to the radical and derived houses simultaneously.

Not saying I'm right about this but IMHO you should turn the chart only if the Querent is on the stage. Like, in Deb's example, the Querent is concerned about the wellbeing of his/her father. Or his/her brother, pet etc etc

The question here is will Amelia get the job? The Querent is not on the stage. If the question would be "Is Amelia OK?" then poof! here comes the Querent.

I asked a horary question about a hockey player when I heard the news about the plane crash I'm sure many of you heard about. There was nothing going on in the chart except L7 was in H8 which is, of course, death. I've never met the guy or anything but I was a big fan, yet he was not represented by H1 because there I was (ASC) concerned about him (DSC). If I would ask about his chances to win something, he would get ASC because I wouldn't be on the stage.

Deb wrote:Well hopefully we ended up in the right place I should probably point out for other readers that the last three posts look like a strange conversion because of the way our posts overlapped, which led you to change your earlier post a little from how it was when I responded to it.

For a chart where a mother is asking a question about her daughter, I would take the mother as the querent and use the 5th for the daughter, but I would consider the radical 10th for the job - throwing in some consideration to the turned 10th. Basically the chart is about a daughter (5th) and a professional placement (10th), the main reason for turning a chart is to distinguish between one person's job and another?s'. So this is where I wouldn?t turn a chart as much as some other astrologers might. Think of a comparable situation: a question where the querent asks out of concern that his/her father may be dying. The father would be 4th, the prospect of death would be the 8th. I'd consider the turned 8th too, but would never ignore the radical 8th house - the turned 8th just helps to give more detail. There is a real 'art' in knowing when to turn, when not to turn, and how much significance to give to the radical and derived houses simultaneously.

Very interesting! I hate to keep bugging you, but if you have time, could you comment on how you would interpret this chart in view of the outcome of the daughter not getting the job?

Using the daughter as the 5th/Sun and the job as the radical 10th/Saturn, the applying trine between them seems to suggest she would get the job, but does the Sun's detriment and Saturn being in Sun's fall override that?

And using the turned 10th, some would say the upcoming conjunction between Mercury/turned 10th and Sun/daughter would also suggest she would get the job, but does Mercury's combustion by the Sun override that?

Thanks!

I know the question is not meant for me -- and I hate to keep bugging everybody -- and this is a separate issue -- if the Sun is one of the principal significators, the combustion is not harmful. Otherwise, the poor Sun would not be able to bring anything to pass by conjunction.

Combustion means (1) not visible or (2) overwhelmed, overpowered by someone or something. But it is only effective if the Sun is not one of the principal significators. Like, being overpowered by your enemy, you are not able to get the job. But if the Sun is the job, the job cannot overpower you, you either get it or you don't. You can get overpowered by someone, or some kind of sickness, or an accident -- but not the job itself.

Yes, the traditional principle is that Saturn won't respond so positively to a trine that comes from the place of its own detriment. Plus Saturn is cadent, and the Moon is at the end of its sign and applying immediately to the square of Saturn (that hardly ever gives a good answer, or in my experince never); plus the turned signification is bad too. Hope that helps a little, have to be quick as I need to go now.

Thanks Deb, you've been great , and I'm sure I speak for all of us seeking to master this ever fascinating art of horary!