Yes, it is the hour of Mercury. How embarressing. It must be all the exercise I am getting. It could not possibly be the hour of the Moon until the Sun had crossed the Merdian. I do see what you are getting at now. It is that little word 'of', isn't it?

Bonatus - Astrologer's Guide:
If the Lord of the Ascendant and the lord of the Hour be the same or the signs wherein those significators are placed be of the same triplicity.

Well, while Lilly released Christian Astrology in 1647, he edited and released 'The Astrologer's Guide' (Bonatus) in 1675, some 28 years later. I do not see why Lilly would translate and phrase his understanding of Bonatus' definition of radicality in such simple terms if this was not his opinion. Did he change is mind after 28 years additional experience? I would, as you point out, still hold the chart as radical on these grounds. Difference of opinion accepted.

However, if the lord of hour aspects the ascendant by trine, it is radical according to Barclay, ref. A Natal Astrologer's Guide to Horary Astrology, Part 5.

The planet of the hour agrees even if it is in accord by trine to the ruler of the ascendant or to the ascendant, or to the lord of the triplicity of the ascendant.

Mercury is trine the ascendant and the chart would be granted radicality also on these terms. This is most disturbing, the chart is radical - and yet you got the right result, Ficina. I hope everyone is still friends at the end of the day.

Did he change is mind after 28 years additional experience?

Who knows? It's possible, or maybe it was a mistranslation as Deb suggested. Well done for keeping those notes, Gem. I'd been searching the forum myself but couldn't find it either. I thought there was some mention also of the hour agreement table being wrong, or at least misleading - which it is! Fortunately in this instance I was "misled" to the correct result Funny how things turn out isn't it?

It is that little word 'of', isn't it?

Yes, it's probably all Lilly's fault for getting his prepositions in a twist!

Now this is getting to be off-topic, but not entirely because it relates to the matter and technicalities at hand. You have got me all confused, Ficina. Has it got something to do with my understanding of the English language? If I consider your view, it seems to have certain implications.

Subtracted from Christian Astrology page 121:
The question shall be taken for radical when the lord of the hour and the Lord of the Ascendant, are of one triplicity.

As far as I can work out, either the lord of the hour rules the ascendant by triplicity, or it does not. Is there any other way that the lord of the hour and the lord of the ascendant can be of one triplicity than through bodily placement, i.e. being located in the same triplicity? The only other alternative I can think of relates to sign rulership within the triplicy:

Fire - Mars, Sun Jupiter
Earth - Venus, Mercury, Saturn
Air - Mercury, Venus, Saturn
Water - Moon, Mars, Jupiter

The trouble with this is that it would imply that the chart would not be proven radical by the lord of the hour ruling the ascendant by triplicity, but by that planet possessing rulership of a sign belonging within that triplicity. Some examples would be as follows;

1) The chart is radical by night in the hour of Jupiter and Aries asc.
2) The chart is radical in the hour of Mars with Sagittarius asc.
3) The chart is radical by night in the hour of Venus with a Cap asc.
4) The chart is radical in the hour of Jupiter with a Scorpio ascendant.

In my mind, this does not make sense. What say you?

Quote:
Subtracted from Christian Astrology page 121:
The question shall be taken for radical when the lord of the hour and the Lord of the Ascendant, are of one triplicity.

I think Lilly has been a bit sloppy here because having said this, he then goes on to give the following example:

"Let the lord of the hour be Mars, let the sign of Scorpio, Cancer or Pisces ascend, this question is then radical because Mars is lord of the hour and of the watery triplicity or of those signs Cancer, Scorpio or Pisces."

Obviously this shows that the lord of the hour should rule the Asc by triplicity. Very confusing!

In Deb's Ascella transcript of CA she lists the following criteria for radicality:

1) the hour ruler rules the Asc sign
2) the hour ruler rules the Asc sign by triplicity
3) the hour ruler is of the same nature as the Asc sign

To which should presumably be added:

4) the hour ruler and the Asc ruler are located in the same triplicity in the chart

So do (2) and (4) both stand or did Lilly get it completely wrong and (4) should actually replace (2)?

In Olivia Barclay's 'A Natal Astrologer's Guide to Horary, Part 5', which I previously quoted, she says:

1. The ruler of the hour should be of the same triplicity as the ascendant.

She does not say in her introduction that the chart is radical if the Lord of the asc and the Lord of the Hour are in the same triplicity, although she does refer to 'The Astrologers Guide', 'Coley's translation by Lilly, anno 1667, republished in 1953, 1986, which does say exactly that. Although Olivia did not quote the 'Astrologers Guide' (Bonatus, para 143) on the chart being radical when the Lord of the asc and the Lord of the Hour are in the the same triplicity, she does say:

The planet of the hour agrees even if it is accord by trine to the ruler of the ascendant or to the ascendant, or to the lord of the triplicity of the ascendant.

I am not sure where she got this from, but it could be derived from how Lilly applied the rule in his practice. It would require the Lord of the hour and the ascendant being in the same triplicity. I am sure that while studying with Olivia, we also had an example chart where the chart was proven radical by the lord of the hour being in opposition to the ascendant. I think we agreed that the chart would work, but with some difficulty. In my work since, re. my article from 1994, I took the matter further to see whether the different combinations provided meaning rather than simply proving a chart fit to be judged or not. That is my experience - and by large, a chart can be answered and resolved by carefully noting the relationship between the lord of the hour and the radical ascendant and its lord.

Forgive me for saying this, but it was rather entertaining to see Yellow and Red cards flashing between you two yesterday

I've found the source of Deb's quote in my earlier post and have quoted the full passage there.

There's football for you!
I will probably get carried off on a stretcher for inflicting self-injury before it gets down to penalty kicks! (Fancy getting the planetary hour wrong in the first place!)

Gem, I?m also pleased you took some notes because I remember writing about this somewhere on the forum but I can?t find it now. It was around that time that I took down the tabulated hour-agreement table, because this, and the footnote in the Ascella version of CA, were both written before the realisation that Bonatti explains this differently.

This is something that I explain in more detail to my correspondence students, and I have just uploaded a pdf extract that leads into a discussion of radicality by looking specifically at this issue. Anyone not sure of what the difference is will find this small document helpful. As you will see, I am currently allowing hour-agreement if it qualifies by either definition, and I leave it to my students to make their own mind up whether they prefer to follow one or both of these authorities.

http://skyscript.co.uk/hour_agreement.pdf

Ultimately, the issue of radicality is ? for me ? much less about hour-agreement than appropriateness and need to know. I have a ?radicality issue? about all horaries that are essentially third party curiosities on ?who will win?, but I?m sure that many in this forum will disagree with that! But hang on, the chart which started the discussion was an event chart and not a horary chart and so, (as Lilly explains CA p.122) because we are considering the time of an actual event, we don?t need to eliminate the concern that the chart is based upon nothing more than a ?light motion of the mind?. In this case, hour agreement doesn?t matter

Hi Deb! Nice to see you!

The theory and question which I impose is whether a radical chart is an advantage for the favourite and when the chart lacks radicality then whether this is a condition that pushes the result away from the favourite.

In my entire career I can hardly recall turning away a chart because it lacked radicality. There was always meaning there. I turn questions down from the wife, occasionally, but that is because I sense that the moment isn't right, not because the chart lacked radicality according to the conditions we agree upon.

I do think that the planetary hours could be applied to the mundane, and certainly in 'civil' events.

Deb
Thank you so much for the link Very useful and helpful

I think Andrew's use of the concept of radicality in judging football charts is based on the idea that initiating event at the time not 'right' for the AC is a disadvantage for them; that the project not likely to proceed in thier favour.

Thanks for joining in, Deb, and providing some clarification. I shall read the pdf document in a minute.

When Andrew first suggested the idea of applying radicality to sports charts, Gem and I objected on the grounds that this wasn't necessary in event charts and only applied to horaries. However, we have now been exploring this in the context that Andrew has suggested (described in his post above), i.e. it's not to verify that the chart is "fit to be judged" or "capable of being judged" but it's to bring out additional meaning.

This has proved interesting and is particularly useful when we find that there are no testimonies for either side. Radicality is an additional factor to take into consideration.

I see. Sorry for not being fully informed before commenting - it is great that you are doing this kind of research in the forum. Andrew, I agree with you that there is meaning in everything, and it will be interesting to see how your theory stands up to scrutiny. Of course, anciently the hour ruler had a lot more significance in charts than it does today, and not just horary charts. Today it seems that most astrologers don't buy into the philosophy enough to use the planetary hours with good effect, and don't know whether it would be better to give them more attention, or to scrap them altogether. Personally I'm not sure whether they can be expected to reflect an objective rather than subjective reality, so the question of whether they show an effect in mundane or civil matters is doubly interesting.

Good luck with this,
Deb