Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hello:
I've just begun reading Lilly and during his discussion of the division of the signs he said... "The right knowledge of these in Astrology is much, and you must understand it thus; In the Question or Figure of Heaven, if the Planet who is Lord of the Ascendant be in a moveable Sign, and the Sign ascending be also one, it denotes the person to be unstable, and of no resolution, easily mutable, perverted, a wavering unconstant man."

My son has Capricorn rising and Saturn is in Cancer and this discription couldn't be further from who he is. What might I be missing from Lilly's teachings?

Kali

Hi Kali,

Could it be that Capricorn and Cancer are Cardinal and not Mutable? Does he make a distinction between the divisions and what the others may be like?

I haven't studied Lily except reading excerpts here and there, but when he states "a moveable Asc. or Lord of the Asc", and that the person is given to being "mutable" it may mean that literally. Like a Gemini or Pisces Asc. for example of which I am one of those. Perverted? No. That sounds archaic as a general description. But changeable, yes, esp. when one is younger and not experienced certain transits yet like a Saturn Return.

Perhaps others will add to this or contridict my interpretation of what he's saying.

Keri

Hi Keri,

"moveable" means "cardinal" in old astrology. Lilly I, Ch XVI:

Moveable. The Signs again are divided into Moveable, Fixed and Common, Aries, Cancer, Libra, Capricorn are called moveable and Cardinal: moveable because when the Sun enters into Aries and Libra, the Weather and Season of the Year quickly varies and changes; they are called Cardinal, because when the Sun enters into any of those Signs from that time we denominate the Quarters of the yeer.

Hello:
Let me describe facts about my son that I feel show him different than Lilly's description. Maybe I'm looking at his character different from what Lilly intends.

In 11th grade he decided he'd join ROTC and prepare to enter the Marines when he graduated as he saw little opportunities in civilian life for him. He finished his three year duty with an honorable discharge and honorable recognition from the men in his unit. He's had 2 jobs since leaving the Marines and the current one suits him as he travels to different plants in the US for his company. The friends he's made he's kept. And to think, his sun sign is Aries, a moveable sign.

I could go on. What I've see is a responsible, traditional, practical, hardworking man coming from this planetary combination.

Do I need to look at different areas of his life to see Lilly's traits in action?

Kali

The little that I know about natal astrology always tells me to first to figure out the person's temperament. Without that, all the rest does not make much sense.

-deleted-

I must say that most of the reliable people I know have earth ascendents, so I can't see a Cap rising being wishy washy. I'm not looking at the book now so I cant say what he may have been thinking, but that doesn't seem very sensible to me???

though I would think one would need to know a lot more about the chart than just rising and sun to make any judgement.

Granny

I think the problem you're having with this is that you've taken two bits of info from a natal chart (ASC and ASC ruler) and one bit of Lilly's technique and then you're surprised when it doens't match up.

One thing you can't do is read just part of Lilly. It's in his examples that he really shows how he works. Look at how he figures out the profession of his merchant friend in Book III. He gives all these rules and techniques in his earlier sections then when he comes to an actual chart, he uses a different method. The bottom line is to have a basic technique - look at the whole chart, figure the temperament out, strongest planet, etc.

Also, as I struggle to learn natal, what I'm finding is that it's just like horary - you have to do lots and lots of charts before you are any good at it.

About Lilly's technique for figuring out the temperament by adding up all the testimonies, that has its place too I think. To figure out the temperament is an art, not a science and some charts need more thought, which is where I've used Lilly's way as a supplement to the one Frawley uses.

I have my theory as to why Book III of CA has some problems - Lilly says it himself - that he rushed the book to the publisher because of the plague. In his examples for the merchant's solar returns and directions there are a lot of mistakes. And I don't mean just where his ephemeris is different from ours. There are several places where he's say that some planet is in a certain house when it's not, things like that. His tables are incomplete, and one table in particular skips a number; it goes from number 26 to 28 while skipping 27, something like that. Still, it's a really good book, and the more I got into it, the more I liked it. The mistakes amount to small typos but his overal technique is clear, and as usual he gives lots of useful ideas to try out.

And what's wrong with reading between the lines? If you mean that Lilly will give a certain formula, say for the signs of wealth or signs for many children without explaining why this is so, then yeah, he does not explain the rationale. But he gives so many of these that of he did explain them all the book would be 800 pages long. I've also come to think that's Lilly's intended audience for Book III in particular was intermediate and advanved students who would already know his rationale for these things.

I do think that Lilly has become somewhat over relied on. But he's better than most that are out there. I'd love to see more books translated or republished. Chris Warnock sells CD's of a lot of facsimiles of other 16th and 17th century authors. And Ben Dykes says that his translation of Bonatti will be out in March.

Hi Kali

Just to be clear, this isn?t a principle that Lilly originated. He is relating a traditional understanding of the cardinal, fixed and mutable signs in horary and electional charts that you will find in many other older works. As with all general principles, we can?t rely upon them without a sense of discretion and judgement, because each will be tempered by the specific details of each chart.

The principle is this:
Cardinal signs are called moveable because they are quick to bring movement, action and change. Fixed signs dislike change, and are slow to move their position. The mutable signs are called ?common? because they have qualities that are common to both groups, they tend to respond to pressure, whereas fixed signs resist pressure and cardinal signs create the pressure.

That is the general principle, but of the cardinal signs Capricorn is the least likely to act rashly because of the influence given to Saturn. Aries is the most likely to act rashly because of the influence given to Mars.

That is why, in the traditional electional rules given for warfare ? where it is always important to have Mars powerfully placed and offering support, it is good to have Scorpio on the ascendant but not Aries. Cardinal signs are avoided for situations where damage would result if an initial impetus to fight quickly wanes into disinterest. However, if we are forced to use a cardinal sign, then we are advised to opt for Capricorn because of the greater stability of that sign. But of the two signs ruled by Saturn, Aquarius would be better than Capricorn in a situation where enduring determination or a resistance to give away any ground is required ? here (on the general principle of this), the army would be more likely to continue the fight to the death rather than yield an inch!

On the other hand, movement, and the ability to instigate pressure, is important in many situations where there is a desire to advance, hence the reason why the cardinal signs are often considered ambitious (they are not regarded as ?wishy washy?, far from it!). What you want is a healthy mix between impetus and determination; otherwise, if it is all desire and no ?follow through?, you get the wavering inconstancy that Lilly refers to, of someone who is always wanting to start new ambitious projects but disregards them too quickly. In this sense Capricorn is very effective - because of the healthy mix between its planetary ruler and steady earthy qualities, and the stimulating inclination for change. But overall it?s important to realise that these aphorisms are intended to be of more immediate value in electional and horary work. It is not that they are invalid in natal work, they certainly still apply, but there are better and more comprehensive techniques to get a full appreciation of the character.

Hope this helps
Deb

Thank you for your time in sharing your thoughts. Firstly it was Lilly who took two bits of info and made the determination he did. And I don't think it's a big stretch to expect to find some semblance to the person. My Asc. and ruler are fixed and there is no doubt it's a strong aspect of me.

What I have learned here is if it doesn't fit then you have to look further for your answers. My son's Saturn opposes his Asc. and Aquarius is intercepted in his 1st house.

Could there be strong indicators in the chart that the person will not act in accordance with it's cardinal, fixed or mutable leanings?

Please forgive this novices ignorance

kali

would it be possible to see the data? I know some people are not inclined to give it so I would understand if you dont want to, but since we dont know him, city, time of birth and date is not likely to tell us who he is, even if he is a famous person.

that way you could get a few traditional thoughts from some folks. Mine are generally non traditional so I'll try to keep my fingers still.

for instance Mark might consider running you through the temperments.
I'm thinking cool dry myself but we'd have to add everything up.

Granny

Sure, I can give my son's birth data. I had him take an online test for temperment and I would be curious if it matches how it's figured astrologically. He tested as Phlegmatic/Sanguine. wet/cold wet/hot

April 6, 1976 2:30 a.m. Rochester, MI Asc 20.41 Cap

kali