Paul stated:

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".

My premise or rather argument is Paul that we actually do Not know of all the records that were burnt in that library fire and the valuable scrolls that disapeared from humanity's records.

IE. As I understand from that incident so many mathemaical documents were destroyed that in Europe for centurys astrologers had little education in geometry til Sir Issac Newton re-invented it. That may be a factor why directions and progressions was not so widely utilized til it was again regenerated by artists after Newton's re-invention.

What was wrote in Greece and Rome, stored in Alexandria, is like the lore of the Outers that Plato wrote of from the Atlantis mysterys; very hard to find the evidence. So unless the Mesopatania dates are totally correct we actally don't know what was practiced earlier that lead to horary's invention and usage.

Clinton Garrett Soule

I remember the posts from the 2008 elections. When people start to make it personal it's downhill from there.

I threw my chart into the discussion because I felt the chart proved that horaries can be used for mundane questions by the common people. It wasn't until after the election I started seeing the depth of what this chart revealed. A story like Lilly tells with his chart. I'll keep it to a few very obvious aspects that go beyond just saying who will be president. The date of the chart was

March 12, 2007
10:11 AM
Aiken, SC
Regio house

The question was Will the Republicans win the 2008 election? I'm Republican and so Asc. symbolizes this party and 7th house the Democrats. The first proof I'd like to offer that this is a valid chart is
Mar's sextile to Jupiter in the 8th house. This man broke records in the amount of money his campaign collected. One analogy was comparing it to Bush's and Gore's combined take, even counting money accumulated during their primaries. It was extraordinary!

Second proof this is a valid chart is the Moon, 4th house ruler, making a conjunction with Pluto in the 8th house. Debilitated Saturn in the 4th opposing Neptune/POF conj and Jupiter squaring this opposition and here we have a symbol of the housing crash. Party is over!

We can philosophize whether or not horary can be used for mundane questions but to me it is the proof of a horary chart to show beyond a yes or no answer that it's a valid tool for mundane questions. Why am I wrong?

Thank you for your consideration.

kali wrote:
We can philosophize whether or not horary can be used for mundane questions but to me it is the proof of a horary chart to show beyond a yes or no answer that it's a valid tool for mundane questions. Why am I wrong?

Thank you for your consideration.

Hello Kali

As I understand it, there were also charts presented which were deemed to be just as valid, and which showed a Republican victory. This would seem to show that horary questions on matters to which the querent has a vague and ill defined connection will give vague and ill defined answers.

Most horary astrologers take care to spend a little time exploring a horary question with their client, to find that direct and personal connection to the quesited and so find out what the real question was. For example, a client asks his astrologer if the horse Green Grass will win the 10:30 at Doncaster on Saturday? That would seem more like a mundane sporting type question and the astrologer would probably ask, "Why do you want to know?" If client replies, "I have put a hundred pounds on Green Grass to win," it suddenly becomes a very different and more personal question. The question was never about a horse race at all, it was about a bet.

Now, I think it is fair to say that this election - like most presidential elections - is a two horse race and if you are looking to find the winner of this race, then mundane methods would be most appropriate. The argument then shifts to the best place, date and time for the chart to describe that race.

That argument also applies to any horary question about the presidential race. Why is the place, date and time of your question any more valid than the place, date and time where other people have also asked essentially the same question?

Or, to put it simply, why were you right? Having 20-20 hindsight on the detail of your chart is not an answer....

Geoffrey

kali wrote:We can philosophize whether or not horary can be used for mundane questions but to me it is the proof of a horary chart to show beyond a yes or no answer that it's a valid tool for mundane questions. Why am I wrong?

You are not wrong and you hit the point: of course "we can philosophize whether or not horary can be used for mundane questions"! But please not within a thread with the discussing of a very concrete question, the permissibility of which at least a part of the horary sect members within the astrological community is convinced as you, Kali.

In my opinion it is not to accept, that the querent perpetually must feel obliged to justiy his question.

Who wants to question mundane horary questions should do it in another thread. Not even would it be necessary in my opinion to evade to the Philosophy Forum but it is better to stay in the Horary Forum: Of course it is a matter of special concern for horarists and such a thread could certainly meet with great interest.

Johannes

This thread has just been opened:

"Horary in Mundane?"
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7024

Johannes

Johannes: It is fine if you'd like to move the question to another topic, good idea. But, I'd like to point out there are several posts in this thread on this topic.

kali wrote:Johannes: It is fine if you'd like to move the question to another topic, good idea. But, I'd like to point out there are several posts in this thread on this topic.

Might be a good idea to keep this thread for those wishing to comment on this horary and Johannes' thread for discussion of horary for mundane more generally.

Even though I hope that our artist, Johannes is correct in his analysis about Obama staying in office, it's worthy to note that Lilly took part of his beleif in Rx significators from Bonatus.

http://www.astro.com/cgi/chart.cgi?cid= ... fix=1&ast=

What did Bonatus say:

http://astrolibrary.org/considerations- ... tus-91-98/

94. The 94th is to Consider, In Questions, &c. whether the Significator of the thing inquired about be Cadent from the Ascendant, or other Angles, or from the house that signifies the thing or business sought after, or its Lord? Or whether he be Retrograde, or in a bad condition with the Sun, or whether there be in the said house, signifying the thing inquired after, a Planet Cadent, or Retrograde, or in such ill condition with the Sun, or in an ill place from him, or ill aspected by him; for any of these things signify a hindrance to the thing, although otherwise the Question seems good and probable.

Though Lilly does Not mention the Sun in CA in regard to Rx significator, it is a seems to spell ill in the quesited.

It is my understanding from other Forum discussions that prior to Lilly it was thought that Kings were actally gods, and when they asked a horary an artist looked at the 10th even if the King was the querant. Lilly was one of the first to change this viewpoint, making the King a mere mortal If he asked a question.

But could the King's Wittan Council ask a question about the King, or a relative, or even a citizen of one's own country? For in Lilly's CA it appears many besides the King are asking horarys of which Lilly answers.

It would be good to hear more about what Coley says about Lilly's insights upon this as from what Geoffrey has shared, Coley may be one of Lilly's students whom understood what Lilly meant more than Contemporary Traditionalists do today.

Clinton Garrett Soule

Wise men know how little they know

kali wrote:Johannes: It is fine if you'd like to move the question to another topic, good idea. But, I'd like to point out there are several posts in this thread on this topic.

Thank you, Kali. I know these posts and wished them to be in the thread "Horary in Mundane" together with the new posts there. But this seems to have been come to pass already, partly at least - your contribution included.Thanks for that!

Johannes

If we look at the horary that I asked about the Bush Re-election as President of the USA that Siraxi commented on it should shed some light as to whether this horary was valid due to the debate on this issue.

If you don't enlarge the horoscope and do not re-calculate the chart from astrodienst it tends to stay there:

http://www.astro.com/cgi/chart.cgi?;lan ... 1351981210

This was addressed a few years back via this Forum in:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewt ... 11e1211ca6

Where Siraxi said:

I've seen a horary on the US presidential elections published on Oct 15 by an astrologer named Clinton Soule on the email list HoraryHour:

QUESTION: Will Bush be re-elected as President in 2004?
TIME: 5:44 pm PLACE: Reno, NV DATE: 10 / 14 / 2004

He delineated this horary chart correctly...

I asked a similar question last year on the presidential election in my country and the horary chart was accurate. I didn't delineate the chart at that time, only afterwards, but the chart was quite clear.

So there seem to be no problem in asking political horary questions as long as the interest is genuine.

I'll get some of the details off of Horary Hour Forum soon and re-walk through that horary. If it was Not valid certain things within that horary should Not have happened as noted from that discussion.

Clinton Garrett Soule

Wise men know how little they know

Geoffrey said:

"Ya-but, the "one" referred to by Lilly in, "If one shall continue in the Office or Command he is in?" is the querent, so creating the necessary link to the 10th house, being the position of Office or Command that the querent currently enjoys.

Clinton, the only way this Lilly reference makes your chart valid is if Clinton Garrett Soule is actually a pseudonym or alter-ego of Barack Obama himself.... so now we know the truth. "

Thanks Geoffrey, having only done two horarys on elections, one can get rusty and forget the methods to be utilized.

In the above horary that I recieved much help from the Horary Hour artists it was decided that since Bush was in office as my President the 10th represented him with Capricorn there and Saturn was cjt the 5th house, which as I understand describes the Presidential election in question in that horary. Bush's office that he sought to keep is the 10th of the 10H, or the actual horary's 7th. The 7H had Libra on the cusp as one can see from the chart in the above post, with Luna in sextile to Venus lord of the derived 10th. But Frawley advocates may include the influence of the Moon first squ Neptune, as the horary's 5th is the election as I came to understand as the fraudulent deception in the election. So as I stated via this thread Congressswomen Boxer and Jones iniated a hearing on the fraudulent election in Ohio which was televised on C-Span that pretty much brought out the fact that Bush was Not re-elcted though he retained his position.

In this particular horary shown in the chart below of Obama's re-election:

http://www.astro.com/cgi/chart.cgi?cid= ... fix=1&ast=

If we use as Geoffrey was trying to say and wake me up that the President's office is the actual question and Not mine(doesn't that ring of Pisces rising Rx Jupiter) then we rotate the 10th to the asc. as the derived house here is actually the horary's 7th with Mercury cjt the N. Node and separating from a 6 minute sextile(Lilly allowed 7 minutes separation) to Venus. And Venus is cjt the derived 10th(Lilly's five degree rule). See Lilly below as he states on page 448:

"If one shall continue in the Office or Command he is in.

You may judge in the same manner if the Lord of the ascendant be joyned to the Lord of the 3rd or 9th, or to a Planet therein, and after separation from him, be joyned to a Planet in any Angle except the 4th."

The Moon then becomes in the derived 3rd and Mark since you have read Anthony Louis, and I don't know where Loius read this but he claims that the planet can connect before either leave a sign. So in Traditional lore does the Moon make that trine to Mercury as it's out of orb as Lilly used Al Buruni's tables of orb or moeitys. For in re-investigating Lilly on this he seems to say Yes Obama will retain the office providing the 6 minute separation and/or the wide trine has an effect.

Lilly also says:

"If the Lord of the 1st or 10th, or Moon commit their disposition to any Planet in an Angle (except he be in the 4th) and that Planet be slow in motion, he shall not be removed from his Office or place of trust, untill that Receiver become Retrograde or approach to Combustion, or goe out of the Signe wherein he is; for much about that time will be removed,..."

Note the derived 10th, the horary's 7th is cjt Venus, and Lilly puts the 'virtue of that planet' in the house by his five degree rule.

Lilly also says in this matter:

"If the Moon be joyned to the Lord of the 10th, and he in the 10th, the Governour or Officer shall not be put from his Office or Dignity."

So if Anthony Louis noted something from the Ancients or Lilly on this that supports the Moon trine Mercury(lord of derived 10H, Obama's office) then Obama should be elected.

So having opened my eyes on this one, I'm going with Johannes and saying Obama retains his office. Yet this is a very tricky one as Rx Jupiter shows which represents myself and Obama who won't have an easy Presidential term due to Transiting Pluto oppositioning the USA Sun.

Clinton Garrett Soule

Wise men know how little they know

Clinton, as you turn the wheels and charts and Presidents over and over, I should like to resolve your question again following once more the as clear as simple rules Frawley gives in The Horary Textbook, pp. 212-215.

You said you are American and not really a follower Obama or Romney, so president Obama gets the 10th, Romney the 4th house.
The Moon is not given to the querent but she "is natural ruler of the people, and so signifies the electorate."

At the first glance the Moon does aspect neither Jupiter, Lord 10, nor Mercury, Lord 4, and thus the "Moon's receptions become important." And as Jupiter is in the house/sign of Jupiter people will reelect Obama.

But there are more testimonies for Obama in my opinion:
1. The square of the Moon with Jupiter. The earlier square of the Moon with Mars seems to hinder this. But as this election chart accords with the usual allocation of state-charts (president in 10), the square of the Moon with Mars does not prohibit her square with Jupiter, because Mars as Lord of the intercepted Aries is Coruler of the ascendent, the people of the USA. Furthermore Moon and Mars will be in mutual reception when they are in square aspect, Moon in the Triplicity of Mars, Mars in the Face of the Moon.
2. Very interesting (Frawley: "Imminent changes of dignity [...] can be crucial"): On the second of November the Retrogradation of Jupiter brought him back into the dignity of his terms - at the same time when Obama managed Frankenstorm Sandy in his Commander in Chief blouson, Jupiter then still receiving the Moon (the voting people. the electorate) in the dignity of his domicile.

As to Mercury / Romney: before the Moon perfects her Square with Jupiter, she enters the terms of Mercury. This would be a small chance for Romney, but this dignity cannot compete against the reception of the Moon in the house/sign of Jupiter.

So Obama should be reelected coming Tuesday.

Johannes