I would appreciate input from anyone familiar with Lilly's use of antiscions, and especially to the extent that an aspect to the antiscion of the Moon could compensate for the Moon being void of course.

Did Lilly (or anyone else, for that matter) advocate the use of the antiscion of the Asc or MC?

How about midpoints in horary or event charts? I have been experimenting with them in game charts and have seen several instances that lead me to suspect they are valid.

Thanks,

Bob

Hi
As far as I can remember (I haven`t actually checked) Lilly looks at the anticia of planets only(I`ll be pleased to be corrected if wrong).

Midpoints are generally considered to be a modern technique as Ficina pointed out elesewhere and are not generally used by tradtinal astrologers. No one seems to be sure of its origin:
www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2861

The idea of the Moon`s anticion being able to `compensate` is interesting but I`m not sure if it`s strong enough to indicate actual events/perfection in Horary charts without other testimonies/confirmations. I hope more experienced members will be able to commnet on this.

Hi Bob

Just to build a little on what Gem has written... Lilly left no evidence of using aspects to or from the antiscia. That is, he uses antiscia where they fall directly upon a planet or cusp, but not where they fall upon the trine or square of a planet or cusp as older authors such as Firmicus did. Obviously, the contra-antiscion is tied into the opposition of the antiscion, and he did use that, but again only when it fell ?upon? a planet or cusp; he didn?t leave any evidence or implication for considering their aspects.

From his comment on p.186, it seems that he expected the correspondence to be very close. He says:

Antiscions of the Planets could be made little use of in this Figure, because none of them fell exactly either upon the cusp of any material house, or with the exact degree of any Planet; only I observe the Contrantiscion of Saturn falls near to the degree of Jupiter; from whence I judged?

Saturn?s contra-antiscion is within 3? of Jupiter; so it seems that he is prepared to allow about that kind of distance.

Since he considered antiscia connections to cusps, then obviously he would have considered antiscia connections with the ascendant or Midheaven. But overall he doesn?t make much use of antiscia throughout his work, and they don?t appear very often in his judgements.

I have seen the odd use of midpoints with horary, and I?m sure it?s a valid technique to apply BUT keep in mind that to some extent it is unnecessary, and counter-productive, to throw too many techniques at a horary. For example, it is generally considered best to stick only with the major Ptolemaic aspects, rather than include all the minor aspects too, because otherwise we start to fill the chart with superfluous details and a potentially confusing myriad of planetary connections that have no clear meaning.

Hi Deb
Glad you`re here
I think what Bob is referring to is what John Frawley does in Sports Astrology. I haven`t read it but I hear he uses the anticia points of non-physical points such as the angles, the nodes and the POF and I wonder if it has any traditional origins?
I`d also love to hear what you think about Bob`s question on the VOC making aspects to anticia?

I think what Bob is referring to is what John Frawley does in Sports Astrology. I haven`t read it but I hear he uses the anticia points of non-physical points such as the angles, the nodes and the POF and I wonder if it has any traditional origins?

Every astrologer has their own way of working but that is something I personally feel very wary of. I think that when start to build in relationships between one mathematical point and another we start to place the focus on the sidelines of the chart, instead of what is happening at the heart of it ? ie, the planetary connections. If the antiscia of the ascendant falls on a planet, then the antiscia of that planet falls on the ascendant because it is a two-way relationship; so in that case we are talking about a planetary connection. But I would never consider something like the antiscia of a node falling on an ?Arabic? part or house cusp. I wouldn?t trust such a thing to give a reliable meaning in that way that I trust the planetary connections

I`d also love to hear what you think about Bob`s question on the VOC making aspects to anticia?

I didn?t answer because he asked about Lilly?s opinion, and Lilly didn?t leave enough information (or give enough attention) to antiscia for us to know that for sure. But I wouldn?t view it as negating the VOC status because I think that traditional aspects are much more reliable and direct in their influence than antiscia connections. Traditionally, the Moon is said to become charged with the influence of the planet that it moves towards (in orb); but I have never heard anything said like that about antiscia. There is a kind of reflected relationship between the two planets that brings some meaning and connection, and I see that as at least descriptive, but for the antiscia to count it has to be more or less exact; so more often than not it will still be the case that the Moon is moving towards nothing significant, giving a sense of things ?drifting nowhere? in the upcoming future. In case that confused you, my short answer is ?no?

Deb
Thank you very much for the clarification.
Much Appreciated

My thanks to both Gem and Deb for their helpful response.

Gem is correct in that I am working with Frawleys methods as applied to American football. I have a post in the Sports section titled 'Results of an experiment, part 1', which may be of interest. Due to the limited response I doubt I will post any further results, as it's too much trouble to write them up.

Frawley uses antiscia of the planets and Fortuna only, as far as I can tell.
I can say from my experiments that the antiscion of Fortuna certainly appears to be valid, and quite powerful.

As to midpoints, I was lead to use them when many of the charts I was looking at simply could not explain the results of the game under consideration. See my experiment post for further info. I am limiting the midpoints to those involving the angles and the rulers of the angles, otherwise there are so many of them it becomes impossible to tell which are valid and which aren't. I haven't found midpoints to be present in every chart, but then no one of Frawley's factors are operating in all charts either. I would say, offhand, that they are are present about as often as any other single factor.

Bob

Bob
I just want to say first that I read the results of your experiments with much interest and appreciated your posts. I coudn't make any comments because I don't know anything about American football.
As a student of traditional astrology, it never occurred to me to look at midpoints till I read your experiments.

I was lead to use them when many of the charts I was looking at simply could not explain the results of the game under consideration

I have loads of unexplanable charts in my file so I'm certainly going to look at them in my football charts though I don't use them in natal charts.

Let me give you a tip: If you haven't read Frawley's book, do so. Especially chapter 2, which deals with game charts.

Off the top of my head I would say that if you try to interpret one of these charts using the standard horary methods, then about 2/3 of the factors you will be looking at are irrelevant. And there are several factors which you probably won't look at at all that are very relevant indeed.

BTW, I am now working on my fourth 'experiment', and I am increasingly coming to suspect that the examples in Frawley's book were selected because they work according to his methods. I am finding quite a few charts with dramatic differences in scoring where there seem to be few 'Frawley factors' operating. When they are present they work very well, but there are many charts where I get the very clear impression that there is something missing.

Anyone have any experience with the Uranian planets in horary?

Regards,

Bob

I am increasingly coming to suspect that the examples in Frawley's book were selected because they work according to his methods

I agree with you, but wouldn't that be the case with any astrologer using examples to illustrate his or her particular methods? In the extremely unlikely event that I were to write a book or give a talk about my own methods of predicting football results, I would certainly illustrate it with charts where the methods worked, even though I have several in my collection where they didn't. Hopefully I'd be honest enough to admit that I wasn't 100% successful. As has been said a couple of times elsewhere, 60%+ is a fair target to aim at.

I am always on the lookout for "missing factors" and wish you well with your experiments. I'm only too aware from my own experience how much hard work this entails.

Yes, that's usually the way it is done, and it's all right as an illustration of the method. But I think it should be required by law that authors include a selection of charts where their method didn't work, just to keep them honest. With game charts, for example, there is always the vexed question of which team to put in the first house. The favorite works well if they are heavily favored, but if the teams are fairly evenly balanced then it is a much more risky proposition. A couple of samples of an analysis that work but was backwards would be of value.

I just think it would be beneficial to require examples of how the system can not work as well as working as predicted.

Bob