Hi Johannes. Absolutely! Both views show a no. My question is: what of the occasions where one view shows yes, but the other no? Mindy asked for peoples perspectives, and I use Whole Signs, besides, it is always good to contrast perspectives. But of course I respect your choice, and am aware that you have been at this for years.

Page 415 is one example, 'Whether a man or his wife shall die first'

In this chart Lilly chooses Saturn as signifying the wife more, because Saturn is more apt in describing her. I believe there is another example of putting more weight on a planet in a house as opposed to the ruler, but I would have to rack Lilly to find it.

The reason I find this hard to square away, is because Saturn is in his wives domicile: in her house. If Saturn is in her house, it would make sense if Saturn afflicted her house, or signified certain things weighing down on her by the houses he rules, as he is in her house. Saturn can also indicate her appearance. But why on earth should Saturn take over her house simply because he is placed there? This house is Aries territory ruled by Mars not Capricorn territory. Saturn is in Exile here in fact.

The same with Jupiter. Jupiter is in the house of Mercury (Gemini) so why would Jupiter take over simply by being placed in Mercurys House? This is gemini territory, not Sagittarius, and jupiter is in Exile in this chart as well.

The beauty of the triplicty rulers is that they do not comprise the Status of the domicle ruler, and the ruler gets to keep its home. I tend to view the triplicity rulers as planets living in the home, but not owning the home (Domicile) in the sense that the Domicile ruler does.

Personally I wonder if Jupiter in gemini could be indicating the husband may have a low sperm count.

I wonder if anyone has considered looking at this chart from a whole sign perspectve?

Yes, that's an interesting point and nicely illustrates some important horary tenets as expounded by Bonatti(and he got them from earlier sources - Sahl/Masha'allah, of course).

I only briefly mentioned one of those but now I'm going to expand a little bit on this.

Venus as the ruler of the 5th sign and natural ruler of children/pregnancy issues is the first planet to receive the Moon's application but she doesn't have the last word in this case because she in turn applies to(commits its disposition) Jupiter in the 1st - and that's why he's the one deciding on the outcome of the matter as the last planet in the chain of applications, the final receiver of the disposition.

Since Jupiter is in detriment and afflicted by a close square aspect of a superior, contrary to sect malefic, he's in no position to signify good conclusion of the matter which also happens to fall within the scope of his natural rulerships(giving children/signifying conception).

Moreover, he doesn't provide a true reception to Venus - his authority only goes as far as participating triplicity ruler in that part of Aquarius. According to the "ancients", this is not enough.

You are most probably right - thanks for mention it!
But what does it mean exactly: "the Moon giving vertue, or rendring her light to a Planet"?

"The Moon giving virtue to another planet" should signify the application of an essentially dignified Moon to a planet, thus denoting a strengthening influence and "rendering her light to a planet" simply designates an application.


Goran

Clinton Soule wrote: I know it's often done using a planet posited in the first house, as called co-ruler or co-lord, but Paul could you cite a traditional source of where this is done?

And I know there are those Ultra-Trads, whom the Outers Do Not exist in any form or area in astrology, who the hair stands up on their neck when his name and work is mentioned. But as I understand unless it was the prior Moderator, that you study John Frawley devotedly as do many on this Forum, is there a Frawley citation that one may be aware of that one might post this method?

Hi Clinton

Yes, I could provide a traditional source for the idea of using planets tightly conjunct the ascendant as a ruler of the querent - if I get time I will do so.

As for Frawley, I do not study John Frawley devotedly, though I have studied John Frawley. Tanit also did not study John Frawley devotedly - I know her outside of this forum and still communicate with her from time to time. I'm not sure where this confusion is from - the best I can think of is that I have recommended his book before for beginners - though I must say that his use of reception really confused me for quite a long time, in fact even now if I read too much of his stuff I'll have to really stop and rethink about receptions to clear my head.

Clinton Soule wrote:Is Lilly telling us from this horary that Mars is being cjt by Mercury though Hermes has to change sign to perfect this cjt and that Mars is' accidently exalted'

Hello Clinton,

it seems to me to be rather doubtful, that Lilly should have used the term "accidentally exalted" instead of "accidentally dignified" or more likely:"accidentally strong".
And probably it is more safe to say, that Mercury is applying to the conjunction with Mars than that he is in conjunction with Mars.

Johannes

. . . and as to Frawley's opinion: he denies applications beyond the signs ends, and Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are relevant in his opinion, but only tight at the angles.
All this without a quotation and to the best of my remembrance.

Johannes

PS: He strictly forbid to take Planets in the relevant houses as significators. Whether with or without threatening with the famous branding iron - who knows . . . ?

Clinton Soule wrote:I truly hate it when Lilly says "...Co-Lord...", as many through the centurys may have taken that term 'Co-Lord' as emphasizing *Equal Ruler*; but then that is the term Lilly chose to utilize and it continues today throughout astro lore! Wish he had said *assistent ruler*.

Clinton, there is no need to hate Lilly's words, for he has never (?) said that. The term he choses is: Co-Significator and that is the Moon, and only for the querent.

Johannes

Tyler wrote:Page 415 is one example, 'Whether a man or his wife shall die first'

In this chart Lilly chooses Saturn as signifying the wife more, because Saturn is more apt in describing her. I believe there is another example of putting more weight on a planet in a house as opposed to the ruler, but I would have to rack Lilly to find it.

Hi Tyler, thanks for this example. I'm glad that we seem to agree that this is in the teachings of Lilly only one (!) (and perhaps there is really still one other, as you say) exception.

But I dobt, that this is really an exception . . .
I try to find a proper quotation for my opinion

The concept that a planet posited in a house acts more immediately/directly than the ruler of the house(especially if it also has any authority there) goes as far back as Valens and is also heavily emphasized by Morin de Villefranche.

Masha'allah(whose work "On Reception" was of enormous influence on horary practice in the following centuries) is no exception in this regard:

M?sh??all?h tells us that a planet in the ascendant or in the house of the question has a share in the outcome. If a planet in the house of the question commits its disposition to a planet in the Ascendant and the lord of the ascendant is not harmed, then we have perfection. This is especially the case if that planet in the ascendant has some authority there by having dignity in the sign it is in. The rulers thus situated will perfect the matter under the following conditions:

? If the application from a relevant house is to a fortune, the matter will be perfected, whether or not that fortune receives it, and it need not have any dignity in that house.
? If the application is to a malefic planet which has dignity in that place, the matter will be perfected and reception is again not necessary.
? If the application is to a malefic planet which has no dignity in that place, and it receives the lord of the Ascendant, or the Moon, the matter will be perfected.
? If the application is to a malefic planet which has no dignity in that place, and it does not receive the lord of the Ascendant, or the Moon, the matter will be destroyed.

http://www.horaryastrology.info/2010/02 ... short.html


As for Lilly, his very first example of horary judgment demonstrates this principle - lord Coventry was judged to receive honor in Ireland because the Moon applied to a benefic Jupiter(the natural ruler of honor/fame) in Taurus in the 10th by trine.

Goran

cor scorpii wrote:As for Lilly, his very first example of horary judgment demonstrates this principle - lord Coventry was judged to receive honor in Ireland because the Moon applied to a benefic Jupiter(the natural ruler of honor/fame) in Taurus in the 10th by trine.

Would you mind to give the page or the number of the chapter of this Lilly quotation? Thanks in advance, Goran.

Johannes

Here it goes Johannes - the horary analysis begins on p. 135 of the second volume of the "Christian Astrology"(second edition, 1695.)

Goran

cor scorpii wrote:Here it goes Johannes - the horary analysis begins on the p. 135 of the second volume of the "Christian Astrology"(second edition, 1695.)

Goran

Thanks again, Goran. Lilly's "very first example of horary judgment" is NOT Lord Coventry - at least in the FIRST editon, 1647, that I checked yesterday night in vain !!!
I shall read the second edition tonight.

Johannes

Goran,

I recently found upon a thread/discussion, that if one posts again that one can edit a prior post or just add a letter or word like Deleted Post

Pass it on, save our Moderators from the chore!

Clinton