The fundamental rule in the whole of astrology is that the ascendant is the primus mobile of the chart, where the chart has its roots and the point to where everything else in the chart finally relates. In a horary chart, it is the querent who gives the chart life by asking the question, and the chart shows how the question relates to the querent through the ascendant, both in the asking and the answering.

However, Lilly gives us a number of instances where he gives the ascendant to the quesited rather than the querent. I am not talking about a question concerning - for example - my son's wife's brother, where we start off in the time honoured way by giving the ascendant and its lord to the querent and end up back in the radical first house for the quesited.

In Lilly's chart, "If his excellency Robert Earl of Essex should take Reading..." (CA page 401) there seems little doubt that he has been asked a horary question by someone who is a total stranger to Robert, Earl of Essex. That being so, there is way to relate the querent to the quesited through any of the houses, so Lilly gives the ascendant and its lord to Robert, Earl of Essex, the subject of the question, leaving the querent himself totally unrepresented in the chart. In effect, Lilly was setting a mundane chart on the basis of a horary question. He gives us no justification for this sort of astrological cross dressing, where he breaks the first rule of horary astrology, namely, 'the ascendant and its lord is for the querent.'

There is some precedent for this, when Lilly discusses the case "Whether the absent be dead or alive" (CA page 151) where he gives the ascendant, its lord and the Moon to the missing person. Again, there is no justification for this. Coley (Key to the Art of Astrology page 151) gives the missing person to the house which signified the relationship of the missing person to the querent, but in the case where the question is being asked of a total stranger, Coley says he would rather give the missing person to the 7th than follow Lilly (and the ancients) in giving him to the ascendant.

While there is evidently some ancient precedent to giving the ascendant and its lord to the missing person who might be in danger, there is no such precident when Lilly gives the ascendant to ships at sea which may be in danger (CA page 157). Lilly says that in the past, this has been a 9th house question (for obvious reasons). But, " ... in regard [that] the judgement concerning its safety or ruin is derived from the ascendant and his lord and the Moon, I thought fit to place this judgement as belonging to the first house." It is clear that Lilly was the first person to give ships to the ascendant when their safety at sea was being discussed, as Gadbury confirms.

Clearly, Lilly is giving ships at sea and missing persons to the first house because of the 'safety or ruin' aspect of the question. At a stretch, we might apply this to Robert, Earl of Essex, who was involved in a dangerous enterprise.

My question then, why did Lilly feel justified in giving the ascendant to the quesited in matters where 'safety or ruin' were concerned?

Thankyou

Geoffrey

Hello Geoffrey,

as to missing persons there should be answers given to your question by the Ancients, first of all.

As to Lilly's practice with ship questions: The English language has a very strong affinity to ships, calling a ship a "she". Thus by the Englishman Lilly too a ship is obvously seen or is felt not like a mere thing but like a living something, being. In truth as a "Person"?

Beyond that a ship is like a swimming island, a little world for itself, and thus it gets the ascendant.

From a practical point of view the asking person is not really relevant for the situation of the quesited after - lost or absent and in no relation. So why loosing the so very important Moon to a person of lesser or no importance in the matter and not saving her informations for the topic or subject of the question?

Obviously the Ancients decided very practically.

And Lilly too as you can see by my former references (in the other thread)to him where he allots also the Moon to the third party.
Lilly, CA, p. 151
"Whether one absent be dead or alive.

If a Question be demanded of one absent in a generall way,
and the querent hath no relation to the party; then the first
House, the Lord of that House and the MO shall signifie the ab-
sent party; [..]"

And in p. 156:
"Whether one absent be dead or alive, by the preceeding Scheame
of Heaven.

In the Figure abovesaid, let us admit the Question to have
been demanded for one absent:
The Ascendant li, JU therein, VE and MO are Significators of the
absent Party."

Johannes

Hello Johannes

You are taking a very romantic view of "ships". The English merchants who owned the ships and their cargo would not have had such emotional attachments to their ships. They were built, bought, sold, used and finally broken up as the economic need dictated. Emotional attachments are economically inefficient - as any married man will know!

However, if you wish to treat a ship as a living entity, there are plenty of houses to choose from depending on how you might view the relationship. Business partner? Servant? Slave? More practically, you can simply choose to treat the ship as a 9th house matter, which seems to have provenance, or 4th house, or even 2nd house (a ship is, after all, a "moveable possession") rather than remove that relationship altogether by giving the ship to the ascendant.

And with respect, the point you have missed is that Lilly was giving the ship to the Ascendant because its safety was a matter of concern. Many authors since have given ships - and in their turn, cars today - to the ascendant in a general way no matter what the question. But I would argue that this is to mis-understand Lilly.

If the querent has no relevance to the situation being asked about then there is strong argument that the question is a frivolous one and has no merit. It is conceivable that there is a deep concern over another, which dominates the querent's thoughts even though the querent has never met the quesited, such as if a local girl goes missing and her whereabouts is the talk of the town. But there are other approaches to such a question. Coley's preferred route was to give the quesited to the 7th - though this has obvious problems. You could treat it as a rumour question, "Is the rumour true....?" and so look at the 3rd.

But I suspect that there is some underlying tradition that Lilly is tapping into, where the ascendant (and its lord and the Moon) is given to matters where danger is suspected. Where there is no clear house designation, as in the case where the quesited is totally unacquainted with the querent, Lilly could well be falling back on this tradition to give the ascendant to the quesited. I ask the luminaries here assembled if they know of such a tradition?

Geoffrey

Hello Geoffrey

Geoffrey wrote:You are taking a very romantic view of "ships". The English merchants who owned the ships and their cargo would not have had such emotional attachments to their ships. They were built, bought, sold, used and finally broken up as the economic need dictated.

It is not my taking a very romantic view, Geoffrey, but I referred to the English language treating a ship not as an 'it' but as a 'she'. In another place Lilly let a ship be living (p. 162, "What I thought of the Ship, if sunk or living?").

Geoffrey wrote:However, if you wish to treat a ship as a living entity, there are plenty of houses to choose from depending on how you might view the relationship. Business partner? Servant? Slave? More practically, you can simply choose to treat the ship as a 9th house matter, which seems to have provenance, or 4th house, or even 2nd house (a ship is, after all, a "moveable possession") rather than remove that relationship altogether by giving the ship to the ascendant.

Again, it is not me but the English language and Lilly treating a ship as a living entity. And just as a ship is of essential importance and value and she is (I repeat my words) "like a little world for itself" it is coherenter, instead of turning the chart, to give the ascendant to the ship - whoever would ask the question. For example: "A Friend of the Merchants propounds the Question unto me, What I thought of the Ship, if sunk or living?"
And then giving the ascendant to the querent, then going ot the eleventh, and then to what specific of all you mentioned above: Business partner? Servant? Slave? 9th house, or 4th house, or even 2nd house"?
Really? No, I prefer to follow Lilly.

Geoffrey wrote:And with respect, the point you have missed is that Lilly was giving the ship to the Ascendant because its safety was a matter of concern.

And thus you agree with Lilly, contrary to your argumentation above?
Lilly, CA, p. 157:
"THE Ancients doe put this Question to those concerning
the ninth house, and I conceive for no other reason, then
because it must be granted, that all Ships are made for Travell
and Journeys: however, in regard the most part of the Judg-
ment concerning its safety or ruine is derived from the Ascen-
dant and his Lord, and the MO, I thought fit to place this Judg-
ment as belonging to the the first house.
Generally, the Signe ascending and the MO are Significators of
the Ship, and what Goods are in her, the Lord of the Ascen-
dant of those that saile in her:"

Geoffrey wrote:If the querent has no relevance to the situation being asked about then there is strong argument that the question is a frivolous one and has no merit.

I really can't imagine that you are of the opinion William Lilly asked "frivolous questions"!

Johannes

johannes susato wrote:I really can't imagine that you are of the opinion William Lilly asked "frivolous questions"!

Johannes

Of course not Johannes, hence this thread. But I am not prepared to just follow Lilly and give the ascendant to the quesited in these particular cases without question, simply because Lilly said so. That goes contrary to the methodology generally accepted in astrology today. As I said earlier, that would be to treat astrology simply as a collection of recipes instead of a coherent philosophical system.

Perhaps you feel that Christian Astrology is similar to a book of spells, revealed to us by a great prophet whose revered name was William Lilly (may His name be forever praised!) and which is perfect in every way. As someone who trained as a physicist and spent many years in academic research, I am afraid that is not an approach I can contemplate.

There is no doubt that Lilly cast a huge shadow over 17th century astrology and there is also no doubt (in my mind) that his reputation stifled a lot of creative research into the traditions and history of astrology - in England anyway. Let this not also be true in the 21st century.

Now, tapping into the huge resources available on this website, it is interesting to look at the chart set up by Palchus in 479AD "The Safety of a Ship at Sea"

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

This is an 'enquiry' chart, an ancestor to the modern horary chart, delineated in the days of pure Hellenistic astrology; before the Islamists recast it in their own way; before it was coloured and flavoured by re-imported Indian astrology; before the resulting texts were translated and disseminated throughout Western Europe; long before Lilly undertook his great synthesis of these texts in the form of Christian Astrology.

There are a number of points that stand out.

First is that the astrologer did not feel it necessary to know the question being asked by the querent. It was enough that a question was being asked and so the chart itself should show the nature of the question and its answer. This approach means there is no need to have a connection between the querent and the quesited. It does not matter who asked the question, or even what the question actually was. All that mattered was that a question had been asked.

This is quite contrary to horary astrology as practised by the time of Lilly, where the exact question is all important and firmly links the querent to the quesited, through the assignation of the question to a house relative to the ascendant. In this way it is possible for the same chart to show the answer to any number of quite unrelated questions posed by different people at the same time and place. For Palchus, that would not have been tenable and shows a fundamental shift in the world view between the days of Palchus and Lilly.

Because the querent was not integrally important to the chart, it was not necessary to have the ascendant as the way into the chart and instead, we find the chart being analysed through the five hylegicals; the ascendant, the MC, the Sun, the Moon, the Part of Fortune, and their dispositors.

It will be instantly recognised that the methodology for these (or anyway, this) enquiry charts was much closer to what we would call mundane astrology today. So, we have what we would recognise as a horary question today, being answered by what we would recogise as mundane methods today.

I suggest that in the particular case of ships in danger at sea and in the general case where there was not a clear link between querent and quesited, Lilly was reaching back to a far older tradition in astrology than that which he was expounding in the rest of his book.

Given that there appears to be a fundamentally different philosophy between the two methodologies, was Lilly valid in taking this approach? Does the fact that Lilly did it this way make it wrong to try and find a way to a house assignation, as Coley suggests could have been done in the case of missing persons?

I stated earlier that Lilly was the first to give the ascendant to questions about ships in danger at sea. But Partridge quotes from 'Haly' where he gave the ship to the ascendant in such cases. I do not have access to Haly and I have not been able to find it available anywhere. Does anyone know where Haly might be had?

Thanks

Geoffrey

Just to briefly comment on this issue.

I wouldn't say it was a 'fundamental rule' that the Moon and Ascendant are given to the querent (for whatever reason), and say it's more a 'rule of thumb' that works in the majority of cases.

Rather than seeing it as the ascendant being querent because they give life to the chart instead I think the importance is that ascendant references those things familiar to the querent - including of course himself and his body. The Moon on the other hand is the focus of the horary, perhaps even the horary itself. As most questions concern the person asking, it often as a result co-signifies them.

However we also have the normal significations of the houses and planets. Just as the 7th house rules romance, well so too do the Sun and Venus have a say on romance questions. In a similar way the ascendant, the Moon and the Lot of Fortune all play a role in descriptions of the body - the vehicle which ensouls the individual.

As a result of this connection to the body, we can say that the ascendant relates then to issues pertaining health, the appearance, and of course safety. So really the issue of a question that is actually asking about personal safety being made from the ascendant makes perfect sense. It is said that Lilly is the first to do this, well strictly speaking that may be true, but not without good precedent.

Bonatti for example lists questions about how a journey will go and he also uses the ascendant lord and the moon to show any potential problems or safety/health concerns - whilst he may not explicitly state that this applies to a ship the idea behind it is the exact same.

In addition to this, the first house may not signify the querent at all, there are cases where it will happily (and justifiably) signify the quesited. There are examples of this throughout the tradition stretching back to at least the persian astrologers like Sahl and Umar Al Tabiri. It's worth noting that the persian astrologers also linked the 1st house and the Moon to health or safety of the querent as well - so really it's no huge jump for Lilly to adapt this.

So really the assignation of safety to the 1st house has always existed. Lilly may have been more explicit about linking it to the idea of being the ship that you sail in but the rationale behind it is that such questions are really often about how a journey will go, which in those days really often meant in regards the querent's safety.

Paul wrote:In addition to this, the first house may not signify the querent at all, there are cases where it will happily (and justifiably) signify the quesited. There are examples of this throughout the tradition stretching back to at least the persian astrologers like Sahl and Umar Al Tabiri.

Paul, it would be rather interesting, if you could quote some sources, allotting the ascendent (and the Moon perhaps) not to the querent but to a not asking third party the querent has (or has not) a relation too.

Johannes

johannes susato wrote:

Paul wrote:In addition to this, the first house may not signify the querent at all, there are cases where it will happily (and justifiably) signify the quesited. There are examples of this throughout the tradition stretching back to at least the persian astrologers like Sahl and Umar Al Tabiri.

Paul, it would be rather interesting, if you could quote some sources, allotting the ascendent (and the Moon perhaps) not to the querent but to a not asking third party the querent has (or has not) a relation too.

Johannes

Yeah if I get time I will do this, but right now I've very little free time. I should probably add that there are other examples where the first house rules the querent but not necessarily the lord of the ascendant, particularly if it does not behold the ascendant (a different matter but worth mentioning). Also in some of the examples I was thinking of the quesited isn't necessarily a person - for example where the first represents the current situation rather than the querent themselves. In some medical horaries as well the querent isn't listed as the ascendant.

I'll try to find some examples with sources if I get some time, but may not be for a couple of days. I sometimes struggle to remember exactly where I read something so it can take me a while to dig out a reference.

Take your time, Paul!

Geoffrey, I begin to loose your problem out of sight.

If you allow I try to spin a thread of our points in this discussion as yet:

1. You: no question without direct interest
2. You: the ascendant (and the Moon) not for a third party
3. my quotations, that Lilly allows questions concerning men, the querent has not relation with, and that Lilly then allots the ascendant and the Moon to the third party and not the querent.
4. your quotations of Lilly's ship horaries, his 'Essex in Reading', Coley, Palchus.

In my opinion points 3. and 4. show clearly that points 1. and 2. are not supported by all authorities and thus point 3. may be represented or argued for rightly with Lilly and other authorities:
In questions, where the querent has no relation with the third party, the latter gets the ascendant and the Moon.

Kind regards

Johannes

Geoffrey,

for easier understanding my text above, with its reference to Coley in point 4., I cite your quotation (out of the other thread) if you will kindly approve.

Geoffrey wrote:Henry Coley, Key to the Art of Astrology (KAA), page 151:

"The rules of the ancients are briefly thus. If the party be related to the querent, take the house for the quesited that signified him or her, as if a brother or sister; the third house and its lord, of a husband or wife; the seventh house and Lord thereof, and so vary the houses according as the relation requires. But if the party enquired after be not related, then let the ascendant and moon signify the absent party. (I must confess, I should rather take the lord of the seventh, or the eleventh house if the party be an acquaintance, but if the question is asked in a general way, "What is the condition of the absent party?" And the querent is altogether a stranger to the quesited, then the ascendant and his lord and the moon may be accepted for proper significators.).....
..... My honoured friend Mr William Lilly affirms he has ever found in his practice the party alive, notwithstanding it were reported to the contrary, if he found the lord of the ascendant in the 9th, 10th or 11th houses, see Christian Astrology page 151...."*

* I have gently edited the punctuation for easier reading.

Johannes

Hello Johannes

You seem to be saying that "the authorities" all give the ascendant to the quesited in the case of missing ships, and other cases where there is no clear connection between the querent and the quesited. Why is that not good enough for me?

I think I have outlined all the reasons why I am not happy about this approach here and elsewhere, and to answer this would just be to repeat myself.

Actually, this topic properly belongs in the philosophy forum. In my view, astrology underwent a revolution in world-view from the essentially mundane methods used in Hellenistic times to the development of horary as we know it during its Islasmic revival. Echos of that change are shown up in Lilly's handling of ships at sea and cases where the querent has no obvious relationship to the quesited.

This is too big a topic to cover in a posting here, so I will reflect further on this matter and present a more detailed and fully argued case via some more appropriate organ of communication at a later time.

Geoffrey