Konrad said:

I'm pretty sure Lilly does this many times throughout Christian Astrology, so again I'd look for the general trend of his examples rather than taking a single sentence or remark as a full outline of his practice. If you are just looking for some reassurances in using them yourself, why not just use them and see how you get on?

Yes, Konrad it's like Lilly cites the hour ruler rule yet Does Not always follow it by his horarys within CA.

But this particular horary had I not put the quincunx in my mind in the trash can could have possibly have been answered as inconjuncts are readjustment aspects and that is what went down in the outcome of said horary.

I trully think Lilly may have looked at thease minor aspects and most likely like many of us after he found himself wrong on the outcome. And we have to consider Lilly being a Taurus Sun, they hate admitting they make mistakes, ..but Lilly did not put all the Horarys he ever attempted within CA.

Clinton Garrett Soule

Clinton Soule wrote:Konrad said:

I'm pretty sure Lilly does this many times throughout Christian Astrology, so again I'd look for the general trend of his examples rather than taking a single sentence or remark as a full outline of his practice. If you are just looking for some reassurances in using them yourself, why not just use them and see how you get on?

Yes, Konrad it's like Lilly cites the hour ruler rule yet Does Not always follow it by his horarys within CA.

But this particular horary had I not put the quincunx in my mind in the trash can could have possibly have been answered as inconjuncts are readjustment aspects and that is what went down in the outcome of said horary.

I trully think Lilly may have looked at thease minor aspects and most likely like many of us after he found himself wrong on the outcome. And we have to consider Lilly being a Taurus Sun, they hate admitting they make mistakes, ..but Lilly did not put all the Horarys he ever attempted within CA.

Clinton Garrett Soule

No, of course he didn't, but he must have put the charts in which he felt illustrated the tradition as he knew it most succinctly.

Lilly did not use Kepler's aspects in any of his horaries, in CA or elsewhere. He doesn't mention them when he introduces the aspects (pp.26-27) but where he is explaining how to read the notations in the ephemeris, which includes their symbols. It is surely self-explanatory that he says of them, within this context "I only aquaint you with these, that finding them anywhere you may apprehend their meaning" (p.32)
He does make occasional refrence to the traditionally known semi-sextile, but only as a supporting factor - he doesn't use this as a testimony that can promise perfection unless there is more positive support from other chart factors.

Deb,

I've heard or read others mention how Lilly dismissed Kepler's aspects, and I've heard how Lilly misunderstood the Table of Terms in Ptolomey's work.

But I've Not read anything officially on either. Would love to read it from other's studies.

Read through CA I pp25-27 again and didn't catch mention of Kepler.

Could someone cite a reliable document that states 'Lilly totally dismissed Kepler's minor-aspects?

Not being a Traditionalist heretic, but other artists via other Traditional Forums, such as Angelius Merlin have pointed out they have found Kepler's aspects helpful.

And I'm sure, positive, ...did I say positive(?) that the aspects put forth by Ptolomey have the weight of horary understanding. But Lilly's word 'seldom' in CA I as already cited makes be think he listed Kepler's work as to be referenced as he may Not have had enough experience in judging Kepler's 'out on a limb' philosophy of horary.

We know Lilly rejected much of the Moslem horary practices as well as deviated some from what he wrote as facts to be noted; namely the 'lord of the hour' concept.

Other than reference to his tables it baffles me why He would bother with Kepler's minor aspects unless it was a mystery he was not totally certain of.

Clinton Garrett Soule

Could someone cite a reliable document that states 'Lilly totally dismissed Kepler's minor-aspects?

Lilly wrote an 800 page text book, not to mention numerous other works, and he didn't use the minor aspects in any of them. He noted the semi-sextile as did other authors, but we won't find the use of this minor aspect or any other minor aspect as stand alone testimony. What possible difference could it make if another author made this observation or if no author did? As Deb said, Lilly's position is self explanatory. Some will agree with it; others won't, but Lilly explained his position quite clearly with his work. If anyone thinks we are misstating Lilly's position, provide the example chart that demonstrates it. Affirmation by others is superfluous.

Clinton Soule wrote: Could someone cite a reliable document that states 'Lilly totally dismissed Kepler's minor-aspects?

Can you cite a reliable document that shows that he isn't an alien?
It's harder to prove a negative. Fact is that in ALL the literature we have of Lilly, we see NOWEHRE that he actually bases any testimony on the strength of the minor aspects.

If you're looking for a reliable source, then you have one. Deb already said it. Is she not a reliable source? Would she be more reliable if she published it in a book instead?
One need only read Christian astrology and tally up how often a main testimony is found by their use. You won't find as easily someone proving a negative, we can only go by what we have and see if in practice he did or did not.

Deb has studied Lilly and concludes that he did not. Others who have studied him agree.
If you find a horary where the main testimony is found by the minors then we can disprove the notion, instead we'll likely find where he casually offers them as supporting testimony.

Lilly did not use Kepler's aspects in any of his horaries, in CA or elsewhere.

It seems that he did use the minor aspects though, namely in book 3 in the directions

In the aspect lists from p. 765 and further in the directions the symbols of the minor aspects are used endlessly, and on p. 830 of the facsimile of CA,
http://www.astrologiamedieval.com/tabel ... rology.pdf ,
Lilly mentions quincunx, semiquintile, quintile, sesquiquintile, biquintile, and compares their effects with a weak sextile or trine. The semisquare and sesquiquadrate are mentionee too wich effects are said to be of a square like effect. These are pretty much all the new aspects that Kepler introduced and it appears that Lilly didn`t reject their use in directions.

Its not just Lilly that seriously examined Kepler's ideas in the early modern era. For example, the Italian 17th century astrologer Placidus de Titis (I: Placido de Titi) (1603-1668) who developed (or re-discovered) the Placidus house system also utilised many of Kepler's new aspects.

I have taken the following quote from a footnote in Michael Wackford's article originally from The Traditional Astrologer magazine entitled 'Placido and the semi-arc method of house division'. The link to the full article is below.

Placido followed Ptolemy in his use of the conjunction, sextile, square, trine and opposition aspects. To these he added the parallel, which he considered an aspect in its own right, and the 'new' aspects of 72? (quintile), 135? (Sesquiquadrate) and 144? (bi-quintile). A later thesis by Kepler included 30? (semi-sextile) and 45? (semi-square) but Placido specifically rejected them. The eight geometric aspects he used are related to ratios found in prominent musical resonances. It has recently come to light that Placido also composed music.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/placido.html

One might have thought the English 17th century astrologer John Partridge (1644-1714) , as an enthusiastic advocate of Placidus houses, would support Placido on the new aspects. From what I can see though he was less tolerant than Lilly on Kepler's innovations. No doubt because these were a deviation from Ptolemy and Partridge sought to reform astrology of what he perceived as erroneous accretions.

For example in his book: Mikropanastron: Or an astrological vade mecum.

'There be other aspects, which because I think Kepler did invent them rather to puzzle than instruct the ingenious, I wholly omit them. 'Mikropanastron (1692)

Mark

Lilly did not use the minor aspects in his horaries so that's good enough for me. Besides, there has not been any need for me to introduce the minor aspects in any horary but maybe that's just me.

People examine new things, that's just normal. I'm not against the minor aspects or anything, I just don't use them and don't need them. I personally think that people should not use the minor aspects, we can't even decipher all charts with major aspects. Using minor aspects just adds to the confusion.

You can shoot me but so far I haven't seen any good astrologers that can predict things using the radix. It's all yadda yadda he's like this and he's like that but no one can really tell anything until it happens, i.e., after the fact. "He's dead. Why? Oh yeah, he's alcocababibazon is cadent which means he will die young. ... In his chart everything is cadent, afflicted and combust, yet he's rich and famous. Why? Apparently the sig of his money is less combust than it is." I mean, come on.

And what about the major accidents or disasters? Thousands and on several occasions tens of thousands of people die at the same time (like Hiroshima, God bless their souls). Are you telling me all those people have a testimony of death on the same day on each and every nativity?
I've been told that there is a radix for the whole country that's what it is. Great, so what is it? Where can I get it? Maybe we all should be living in Germany, some Russian astrologer said that Germany "has a great chart"?

Maybe I will eat my words some day but right now I think the minor aspects are just a trendy thing and just adds to the overall confusion. Hey, something does not work, let's use quincuncx.

If there some kind of "hierarchy of charts", then how can we use the nativities? OK, another age-old tragedy, the Titanic. 1500 or so people from all over the world died when that ship went under. Do they all have testimonies of a tragic death in their nativities? I really doubt it. So maybe we should use the radix of the ship? But when it was "born", exactly? Or should we use the time of the beginning of the first -- and last, tragically -- trip? But that's an event chart, not a nativity.

Even if we did have the birth chart of the ship and it depicted danger and ruin, does that mean the ship's birth chart is more important than the passengers'? In that case analyzing the nativities would be absolutely pointless, if some charts are important than the others. Someone with a great chart goes sailing with someone who has a not so great chart on a boat that has a terrible chart, what happens? Should we refer to the mundane astrology, then? Look for some general good or bad things? Again, it's would not be a nativity.

What about people who migrate to other countries? In this manner a person can supposedly "move" planet(s) out of a malevolent house in his/her nativity. So we also have to take into account the current location of the native?

Should we combine the nativities of the person and the ship? Should we use transits or directions? Or both? And, above all, we're not even sure we have the correct time of birth of the person. There is a possibility we need to rectify the chart to begin with.

Look, I am not knocking natal astrology, people study it hard etc etc but unless I can get some results not just some general guidelines, it's not for me. So maybe I am an annoying prick by nature but I don't need a fancy astrologer to tell me that in a roundabout fashion on 40 pages using a big font -- so that I can come to a conclusion that I already know that and it does not help me in any way.

Look, I am not knocking natal astrology, people study it hard etc etc but unless I can get some results not just some general guidelines, it's not for me.

Yes you are and you're reading way too much into a comment I made. You're also setting up straw men and knocking them down such as the idea that a hierarchy of charts means natal charts are useless. That has nothing to do with what Carter meant.

And general guidelines are available in all the texts but I think you want hard and fast rules, preferably in short bites, that are applicable 100% of the time. Wouldn't we all. You need more than cliches to unravel a human life. You don't like the subject? Fine. Stay away from it.