Clinton Soule wrote:Anyone got any insights as to what Lilly means by 'Disposition' in the section cited? I am having trouble understanding his usage of the King's English, yet figure it is referencing 'the depositor'.

To my knowledge disposition is different from the meaning of the today's disposition of the dispositor = ruler of a sign and thus of the planets positioned in this - his - sign. Disposition in the sense Lilly is using the term is the rendering of a lighter planet's vertue to the heavier planet aspected by him. (Without quotation, but I am looking for one . . . )

Johannes

Geoffrey wrote:.Does this take us any further forward? Is Clinton in such a state of concern that he can think of nothing else but the outcome of the Presidential election? If he is, then we can consider the chart valid and Obama should be given the ascendant and its lord, not the 10th. (As it happens, Jupiter rules both in this case). But from what Clinton has told us, aside from general philosophical concerns about what past leaders in Europe have got up to when unchecked and the proximity of Pluto in the US chart, he does not seem to loosing any sleep over this matter!

Geoffrey, perhaps you accept the quotation of this real recent Astrologer:

John Frawley, The Horary Textbook, p. 213 [here of elections]:
"A impartial American asks, 'Who will win?' Give Bush the 10th, because he is king, Kerry the 4th, because he is the king's enemy."

Bush and Kerry are history, but this quotation should work with Obama and Romney too. Then Clinton Soule is the impartial American, as "he does not seem to loosing any sleep over this matter", as you write.

Frawley in the same page (p. 213):
"The Moon is of extreme importance in horaries about elections. It is natural ruler of the people,* and so signifies the electorate."
* with Lilly,by the way

Johannes

johannes susato wrote: John Frawley, The Horary Textbook, p. 213 [here of elections]:
"A impartial American asks, 'Who will win?' Give Bush the 10th, because he is king, Kerry the 4th, because he is the king's enemy."

There are twenty million undecided American voters out there who will be asking that question over the next few weeks and have been asking that question for months past. They could all be considered 'impartial'. Which one should we take? Clinton Garrett Soule? Why him particularly....?

Geoffrey

Johannes wrote,

"It works!" this is as yet the only fundament of explaining the operation of astrology, isn't it?

No Johannes, it is not. I am sure you would agree with me that either astrology is a coherent, self consistent philosophical system or it is nothing but a collection of recipies: "In these circumstances, read the chart this way." If there is no foundation upon which the structure of astrology is built, how are we to use astrology effectively in the modern world? You won't find the significators for a gay marriage given by Lilly!

Now in the seige of Reading chart, and the case of "Whether the absent be dead or alive" on page 151 of CA, the ascendant and its lord are for the quesited rather than the querent. The other place where Lilly does this is in the matter of the safety of ships at sea, (see CA page 157), where he also gives the ascendant to the ship, rather than to the querent.

Now, I would like to find some coherent underlying reason why Lilly feels justified in breaking the first rule of horary astrology, which is that the ascendant and its lord are for the querent. This is a fundamental rule in the whole of astrology, that the ascendant is the primus mobile of the chart, where the chart has its roots and the point to where everything else in the chart finally relates. In a horary chart, it is the querent who gives the chart life by asking the question, and the chart shows how the question relates to the querent through the ascendant, both in the asking and the answering.

One clue is hinted at where Lilly discusses the safety of a ship at sea. Lilly says that in the past, this has been a 9th house question for obvious reasons. But, " ... in regard [that] the judgement concerning its safety or ruin is derived from the ascendant and his lord and the Moon, I thought fit to place this judgement as belonging to the first house." (CA page 157) Let us be clear, Lilly was the first person to give ships to the ascendant when their safety at sea was being discussed as Gadbury confirms.

Remember, in the case of "Whether the absent be dead or alive," this was also a matter safety which was given to the ascendant. So, where does he get this idea that matters of "safety or ruin" are naturally for the ascendant?

Lee Lehman attempts an answer by reminding us that "the three concepts most associated with the 1st house are health, longevity and happiness." (Martial Art of Horary Astrology, page 57) but that seems a bit weak. Unfortunately, neither Coley nor Gadbury are any help on this and I get the distinct impression that they could not figure this out either. They deferred to Lilly and passed on.

For Lilly to say, "It works!" for some new technique of his is one thing. But if what he really meant was, "It works for me," then that is something quite different.

Geoffrey

Geoffrey wrote:Now in the seige of Reading chart, and the case of "Whether the absent be dead or alive" on page 151 of CA, the ascendant and its lord are for the quesited rather than the querent. The other place where Lilly does this is in the matter of the safety of ships at sea, (see CA page 157), where he also gives the ascendant to the ship, rather than to the querent.

Now, I would like to find some coherent underlying reason why Lilly feels justified in breaking the first rule of horary astrology, which is that the ascendant and its lord are for the querent. This is a fundamental rule in the whole of astrology, that the ascendant is the primus mobile of the chart, where the chart has its roots and the point to where everything else in the chart finally relates. In a horary chart, it is the querent who gives the chart life by asking the question, and the chart shows how the question relates to the querent through the ascendant, both in the asking and the answering.

While I'm unable to answer the overarching question as to why Lilly sometimes feels it's better served to give something/someone to the ascendant besides the querent, I thought this was interesting and relevant. Bonatti quotes Sahl as saying a missing person is signified by the Ascendant and its lord, but then Bonatti goes on to disagree with this himself. So, it doesn't seem Lilly was the first to change this up on us, but I don't have Sahl's book myself so I'm unable to see if there's any specific reason given as to why he does this.

Regulus wrote: Bonatti quotes Sahl as saying a missing person is signified by the Ascendant and its lord, but then Bonatti goes on to disagree with this himself. So, it doesn't seem Lilly was the first to change this up on us, but I don't have Sahl's book myself so I'm unable to see if there's any specific reason given as to why he does this.

I would be grateful.

Lilly was not the first to give the ascendant to missing persons, that is stated by Coley who cites "the ancients". But Lilly was the first to give missing ships to the ascendant, or to be more specific, missing ships where there is concern as to their safety, to the ascendant.

But the principle is what I am after. "We give the missing person to the ascendant because...." Because why?

I have some ideas, which I might expand on later. It is worth asking in what other area of astrology accidents and the ascendant are closely linked....?

Geoffrey

Clinton Soule wrote:As in the Fertile Cresent where Anthony Louis's first book points out is the first gleanings or usage of horary, and latter Europe there were no elections for Monarchs or any records of Roman or Greek Senator horarys on their election, nor is there possibly any horarys to note on elections to delegates in the House of Commons, or anywhere to our knowledge, perhaps because those possible records were burnt when the foolish leader destroyed the library in Alexandria.

I think such speculation is not helpful. The library of Alexandria was burnt down before we really have any horary sources at all. We have records of astrological work in the very early centuries but none which explicitly cover horary - at least not to the level we might recognise today. Instead we have an evolution from the consultation chart.
With that in mind, the argument that "they probably existed in alexandria" is a bit flippant and not particularly helpful. We cannot simply say "I'm probably right but any evidence has been burnt in a library which existed hundreds of years prior to the main explosion of interest in horary".

Mark, you ought to know and others here that I deeply respect Deb's knowledge, wisdom, generosity in such a benevolent manner for the sake of a Divine science and art. I say Science because Lilly placed astrology within the 9th as a matter where he also put science, even if he calls it an art.

Again I think this logic is a bit loose. He also puts dreams and religion there too. It's no more a science than it is a dream or religion then.

And Lilly did advocate a concept that has rocked the minds of the most devout Traditionalists in his method of 'a planet can perfect if within orb to a planet in another sign and bring about a matter's end'; something that most find Lilly was in error today. Which devoted artists have argued heavily years ago on Angelicus Merlin Horary Forum owned by Dorothy Kovach.

They may have but an argument on an online forum is not particularly persuasive as some 'bottom line' conclusion. I don't know the reference particularly but from what you've quoted I'm not sure I see anything wrong with it myself. Also I'm not sure why Lilly is even involved. It is not that Lilly said and therefore we have to agree, that elections are not a fit question for horary. Whether one astrology did or did not say it isn't particularly the point. Although we can assume that had there been a vibrant tradition of such questions Lilly would have included it, and its absence is conspicuous, we do not need to relay on Lilly. We have, as you implied earlier, NO records of questions like this, unless in such instances where the querent is personally involved in the matter - Lilly or no Lilly.

Paul within the medical profession they hypothetically believed the squat exercise was the culprit that damaged the knee back in the 70's when a noted physician presented his research upon the knee injurys. At present the Medical Profession has been pushing the concept that it was not the squat exersize yet the leg extension as it's an unatural movement.... In truth many times the physicians Do Not know as they are practicing medicine just as we are practicing astrology built upon the premises of the Masters or Ancients who laid our foundations.

Right, but I'm not arguing the point from its historical 'weight'. I'm arguing it from the fact that it is not sensible - as I understand horary at least. Ironically the argument by 'history' is actually one which you introduced here, relating back to the library of alexandria for example. My argument seems quite reflective of the argument that Mark has quoted from Lee Lehman. There is a time and a place for natal astrology, mundane astrology and horary astrology. In my view unless we're closely affiliated to the individuals involved or have some deep personal stake then the question does not seem fit for a horary. If on the other hand we do have some personal stake it is more preferable to ask the question in such a way that it highlights what that stake is "Will I lose my job?" when your job is dependant upon Obama staying in power for example.

Regulus wrote:While I'm unable to answer the overarching question as to why Lilly sometimes feels it's better served to give something/someone to the ascendant besides the querent, I thought this was interesting and relevant. Bonatti quotes Sahl as saying a missing person is signified by the Ascendant and its lord, but then Bonatti goes on to disagree with this himself. So, it doesn't seem Lilly was the first to change this up on us, but I don't have Sahl's book myself so I'm unable to see if there's any specific reason given as to why he does this.

Hello Regulus,
does Bonatti quote Sahl also as to the Moon (topic of missing persons)?

Johannes

Hello Geoffrey,

I must admit that I begin to feel a little uncomfortable to discuss the "why" of missing persons and ships ascendents in this thread of "President Obama re-elected" this seemeing to be a bit too far off topic here in the broadth and depth the matter requires.

What do you think then of you opening a new thread concerning the more fundamental and general questions you ask in your last two texts? You could begin the new thread with these last two texts, or paraphrasing them or with whatsoever.

I should like it very much to discuss these new topics furthermore and everywhere, here too of course, if nobody feels offended !

Johannes

johannes susato wrote:
What do you think then of you opening a new thread concerning the more fundamental and general questions you ask in your last two texts?

Hello Johannes

We have been pursuing the idea of asking horary questions of mundane events, which is how Clinton started out this thread - with a horary question on a mundane event. I have been seeking to find some justification for this form of astrological cross-dressing, to establish - ultimately - if Clinton's chart has merit. In this way, I had convinced myself that the continuation of this theme here was legitimate.

However, since you express your concerns, I have to admit that Clinton's thread has been highjacked somewhat and is heading in a direction other than he intended, and perhaps this discussion belongs properly in the Traditional & Ancient Techniques forum.

I will start a thread over there and look forward to your company.

Best wishes,

Geoffrey

Thus the danger is banned, that we - entrapped in hot debates about sinking ships and missed persons with or without the helping Moon - miss president Obamas re-election here.

I don't know whether the Traditional & Ancient Techniques forum is the proper place, so modern horarists are closed out - but we look for the very roots of unturned charts for "third parties" - and we shall meet the ancients . . .

Thanks for the invitation, Geoffrey, I'm already there
Johannes

Mark said:

I have also been discussing this topic on another traditional forum.

I thought some of you might be interested in the reply from I got from Lee Lehman, who is a noted authority on horary astrology:

Quote:
I have been wondering for years: why is there this reluctance to admit that certain questions just aren't legal horaries? If you are not going to use horary to replace natal, or natal to replace horary, or natal to replace electional, or mundane to replace natal, why cant we simply agree that expecting a horary asked by one person among hundreds of millions (if US citizens) billions (the world) simply doesn't cut it for a global event? This isn't about your client not understanding the niceties of horary, this is about you explaining that when you want to dig a hole in the ground, you don't use a pie plate, and when you want to bake a pie, you don't use a shovel.

Mark as I stated I respect the accepted authoritys and their oppinions but as I also have stated via this thread even our horary mentor and icon Lilly misunderstood concepts as students since have noted. It's like just because one is the Pope or a protestant authority upon Biblical scripture doesn't mean they totally understand the documents they hold so dear.

IE. Authority Carol Wiggers on one of her web pages states '...that Lilly didn't actually beleive in Christianity nor was he a Christian but was cloaking it under the name for his own protection and that of the art'. Now in studying Lilly's CA, espeacially the Preface and other comments Lilly makes through his great work I do Not understand how a Contemporary Horary authority like Carl could make such an assumption and pass it to others to read unless she has some documentation that Lilly wrote upon this or someone recorded this from conversations with Lilly unless like many have 9th house religious or philosophical oppinions about various religions.

Why do I state this?

Because Lilly as I understand hated the Charlatans of his day that possibly he saw John Gadbury's deviations as Modernistic and heredical as far as Traditionalism is concerned.

Lilly being a Taurus with Jupiter as his ruler being a Pisces Asc., was not your hypocritical type of individual. If he claimed Christ as his Lord, he meant it as much as any of the Islamic horary artists he studied had alleigience to the Quran and Mohammed.

IE. Recently Dorothy Kovach stated that she '. . prays to the gods when doing horary work...' via her Traditionalist forum dedicated to Lilly for the most part. Was she joking as if she were a Paegan in Greece, Rome, or Egypt in ancient times? For in studying Lilly as devout as he was she would get a 'psychological whooping or thrashing' if Lilly heard of her blaspheming what he had laid down as a horary foundation even if she does not particularly care for the Bible.

So in listening to devoted students like Geoffrey and Johannes and their studious replies there is great conjecture about if one can ask about their King, Mayor, President, Govenor, etc.

Mark your authority may be right but listening to the testimonys on this thread there is evidently more doubt whether such a question can be asked than my own hypothesis.

Clinton Garrett Soule

Wise men know how little they know