Hi Susan,

I've fixed the link. I'll come back to the other point tomorrow if you don't mind as my connection is playing up, plus a good program is about to start and I don't want to miss it

Thanks again Deb,

This looks fascinating reading but it is getting past my bedtime! Hope you enjoyed your programme - whatever it was it couldn't POSSIBLY be better than 'Judge Judy'! If anyone has her birth data I'll gladly kiss them.

I don?t know about Judge Judy sorry. It was the program about David Blunket I wanted to watch. It was very good. Political scrambles are so funny.

Anyway, the point about why I don?t necessarily use the Sun and Venus as secondary significators in relationships charts. I?m not sure if you read my earlier comment in the thread where I wrote:

I think they are only applicable under certain circumstances. For example, the Sun is the natural significator of honourable men, husbands or husband material; so I don?t think it would be appropriate to take it as a secondary significator in, say, the earlier example we looked at where the married woman is asking about the dubious character who was supposedly being blackmailed. I don?t believe that it necessarily helps to include these planets as significator (my own opinion), or that Lilly used them as a constant. Having said that, I accept it?s an arguable point.

One thing to realise about Lilly, is that whether he personally recommended a technique or not, he tended to include reference to it if it was a principle used by the older sources. Sometimes he might add a little note alongside saying something like ?this is an Arabic rule and not to be over-trusted? if he listed something really bizarre. But generally he was very courteous to his sources

Although Lilly suggests on p.302 to join the Sun with the man?s significators and Venus and the Moon with the womans, this is only one of many general aphorisms that Lilly gives regarding questions of marriage. He also offers the view, predominant in the works of Dariot, to use the planet the Moon is separated from for the querent, and the planet she applies to for the quesited, but he doesn?t appear to use that rule in practise and nobody argues that he should.

On page 304 Lilly explains that Venus is ?the natural significatrix of women?, but elsewhere in CA he is more specific about the type of women Venus would signify. It?s obviously not every woman. I would say the natural symbolism of Venus has to be relevant to the chart for it to be usefully employed as a secondary significator. Venus is usually young or desirable women, or women of attractiveness, sweet disposition, emotional softness or charm. If our querent?s nature and physical description doesn?t tally with the symbolism offered by Venus? position in the chart then there is no reason to signify her by Venus. To apply this without discretion, we might be kicking Venus out of a much more telling signification of ?the other woman?.

Equally, why apply the Sun as a secondary significator for the ?aged? man? Doesn?t make sense to signify an old man by a planet that is the natural significator for men in their prime. If solar qualities are evident by other means, (for example, if he is presidential or a captain or leader), he might still be displaying solar symbolism regardless of whether he is ?aged? or not. But it doesn?t make sense in this chart so I think Lilly was sensible to ignore it, particularly since he demonstrates how the primary significator works so well.

The real value of Lilly?s teachings comes across, I believe, in his chart examples. We have so many traditional texts full of theory, but it?s the charts that bring the theory to life. That?s why Christian Astrology has become so important as a precedent to horary astrologers, whereas other texts that are just as comprehensive on theory ? such as Ramesey?s ?Astrology Restored? or Coley?s ?Key to Astrology? fail to capture the same interest. In CA we see the work of an astrologer who really knew his theory, and knew how to apply it and sculpture it in practice as well.

Hi deb, you wrote:

>>>BTW, Whilst I was away I listened to one of Rob Hand?s taped lectures on reception and he places great emphasis on the dispositor, (when aspected by a planet in its sign), becoming the receptacle of the visitor?s influence.<<<

Thanks for the reply, and I wanted to mention that I have heard Rob's discussion on the subject and did enjoy it, but I think a much simpler approach can be taken to the subject that the Aristotelian one.

Using my previous real estate analogy, we can look at dispositorship as a one way reception, disregarding the aspect criteria. I use it primarily for analysis of the effects of planetary periods in Hindu astrology due to my many years of experience with that subject, but in western traditional astrology it provides invaluable insight into the way that profections, time-lord systems and other predictive methods work out.

If Mars were in Taurus and Venus anywhere other than Aries, Scorpio, Capricorn etc. and not aspecting Mars (more precisely, if there is no application or perfection possible between Venus and Mars by way of speed, translation, collection etc.), this would be read as Venus being Mars' dispositor. Consider having a tenant in one of your houses who you are not sure about (no aspect; you don't really know what they're doing - no mutual; you don't know a lot about their background) - you would have more of a tendency to check on them than other tenants who you feel more comfortable with (those whom you receive).

Or for that matter, imagine going shopping and leaving the unruly nephew you were saddled with at home - you worry so much about the condition in which you may find your stereo, blender and telephone bill that you rush through the store, forgetting essential items, are unexpectedly crabby with your friend you meet along the way, or have an anxiety attack because of the slowness of the traffic - in other words, a planet is affected by a planet in its house, to a lesser degree than reception, but affected none the less. But then, if Venus was dignified although Venus will be more comfortable with Mars being left alone, this could lead to overlooking problems that develop later - all depending on the chart and its' dynamic situation.

I've found that in horary charts, this often works out as a slant in the direction of the essential nature of the planet disposited (Venus being more impulsive as above, acting slowly if Saturn is disposited, acting inconsistently if the Moon is the disposited planet, etc.), while in electional astrology it may be more important because it could be a factor that, if overlooked, could represent an unnoticed or misunderstood problem in the thing elected. It can also be very handy in medical charts when the cause of a problem is not obvious - especially when working with the humors and temprament, or the oriental models.

Roy