Skyscript Astrology Forum

Bonjour,
I'am new on this forum and very pleased to be with you.

Sorry for my english, I am french speaking.
I red last week Deborah Houlding's book "The Houses:Temples of the Sky.
In the chapter related to the second house, she mentionned Lilly's note:"Sun and Mars are never well placed in this house, either of them show dispersion of substance, according to the capacitiy and quality of him that is either born or asks the question."

I tried to find more about this note, but did not. And I do not understand the "why" of this assertion.
I would be very greatfull if somebody can help me in understanding this matter.

Thanks in advance

Bonne journ?e

Hi Suzanne

The comment comes from William Lilly?s Christian Astrology, p.52 ?Questions concerning the Second House?. I have seen a similar comment in the 16th century text of French astrologer Auger Ferrier (1513-1588), who wrote in his Judgement of Nativities (p.15):

Saturn, Mars, Mercury depraved, the Sun and the Tail of the Dragon within the second, destroy the man and disperse his goods, except when they have at least four dignities or be received.

The comment is not explained, and whether Lilly condensed the rule from Ferrier or not, I would expect that something similar can be found in earlier sources.

As for the why, I have always related to the idea that the Sun and Mars can ?burn up?, so when they are in this house they dry up the resources by too much expenditure. I have found it to be reliable that way, not necessarily horribly, but even the Sun in the 2nd seems to correspond with times when expensive purchases are made, and then afterwards finances have to be treated very carefully.

Auger Ferrier BTW was the astrologer to Catherine de Medici. The English translation is by Thomas Kelway and I have it from the Renaissance astrology CD III.

Hello Deb

Thank you for your answer. Yes I can understand that.

Thank you for the reference of Ferrier. I will have a look on Renaissance Astrology III. I hope I can find the book in french.

I'm guessing, but the idea that the Sun would "burn up" resources is probably the reason, but then we might have to say that same thing about the Sun in every house,

And of course, the Sun isn't seen as being too friendly when he burns up a planet that gets within 8 degrees of him. In fact in the Vedic system, which I'm just beginning to study, the Sun is seen as a malefic planet when he conjoins or opposes another, precisely because of it's excess of heat and dryness. Perhaps this idea has some merit: that the Sun's influence on a house has this "burning up" quality that somehow might harm the signification of the house it occupies. It's worth bearing in mind that the two other planets that astrology considers harmful are Mars and Saturn, and the one malefic quality they have in common they also share with the Sun: an excess of dryness.
====
Pete