skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Did Lilly Use Out of Sign Aspects?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Horary & Electional Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3463
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 6:27 pm    Post subject: Did Lilly Use Out of Sign Aspects? Reply with quote

Hi Deb,

On another thread you wrote:


Quote:
Lilly used out of sign aspects (see p.385 as an example).


That caught my attention so I went to page 385, which is one of my favorite horaries, and found the words:

Quote:
" ... finding the Moon separated from void of course, and applying to an opposition of the Sun, it did argue therewas small hopes of effecting her desire, because she herself, by her own perverseness, had done herself so grand a mishchief."


For those who wish to follow cast the chart this way: June 27, 1646 [NS] 7:33:50 am LMT, London 17 Leo 11 rises.

The Moon is at 27 Sagittarius and the Sun is at 5 Cancer 30, clearly an out of sign opposition. The Moon's next aspect is this opposition to the Sun, is this all he means when he says "applying" or is he approving out-of-sign aspects like Ibn Ezra did?

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I think this is more of a case of Lilly's sometimes lack of clarity than an endorsement of out-of-sign aspects. In this case the querent had rejected the man's advances and later regretted it. This is something in the past. This opposition has yet to occur.

Regarding the opposition, on page 125 Lilly says:


Quote:
I have rarely seen anything brought to perfection by this way of opposition; but the Querent had been better the thing had been undone.


Yet in this case the lady gets the man and lives happily ever after.

Quote:
My counsel was followed, and the issue was thus: by the Gentleman's means and procurement the matter was brought on again, the Match effected, and all within twenty days following, to the content of the sorrowful (but as to me unthankful) Lady, etc "


If there was an actual application of an out of sign aspect, this should not have been the case. She should have been sorry all over again after she was reunited with the man she deisred. So, unless there are other examples, and perhaps there are, I'm going to believe that although he said "applying" that he simply meant "Moon's next aspect," which is accurate.

On the other hand, he does note that the Moon was void of course and states it now no longer is as the Moon applies to the Sun. This is consistent with his understanding of a void Moon, i.e., the Moon is void when it is no longer within "orb" (moiety) of an aspect sign barriers don't matter. The argument could be made that Lilly therefore means the Moon is currently in opposition to the Sun. Horary doesn't use aspects as qualifiers, which is the way they are used in natal astrology. The application is what is coming; the separation is what has happened. More precisely, the next aspect is what will happen; the last aspect is what has happened. The Moon's last aspect was an opposition to Mercury, perhaps indicating the lady's breaking off with another gentleman. But since she will not break off with the quesited, this "application" cannot mean what it means when the application occurs within the same sign.

At least, that's what I think. If there are other examples of out-of sign aspects in CA, I'd like to know about them.


Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Tom,

I’m a bit tied up at the moment but I hope to get back to this. I can give you a number of examples where Lilly (and other authors such as Culpeper) do this with the Moon but I’d like to go through Lilly’s charts and look for examples where he does this with other planetary contacts, which might be more useful in terms of looking at the general principle involved.

One point worth considering is that although Lilly would identify the Moon as Void of Course if it was out of orb of its past and future aspects, that wouldn’t stop him gathering descriptive significance from the Moon’s last and future contacts even if a change of sign was involved. The ‘another ship’ chart on p.165 is a classic example. He describes the Moon as “lately separated from a square of Saturn” even though Saturn is at 15 Taurus and the Moon is at 11 Virgo. They are separated by 26 degrees and the Moon has moved a third of the way into its new sign since that previous Saturn contact and in fact it’s only within 4 degrees of its next aspect, which is the trine to Saturn. But the square to Saturn was the Moon’s last aspect and so Lilly still considers its significance and judges that this shows that the ship was lately in danger of death (shipwreck). The Moon was void of course after the square to Saturn, which he says represented a time of no news (nothing happening), but the upcoming trine to Saturn and opposition to Mercury would bring news, although it would involve damage because Saturn ruled the 8th and the Mercury aspect was hostile.

Lilly actually describes the Moon as “ at the time of the Question void of course”, even though it is only 4 degrees from the applying trine of Saturn and 6 degrees from the opposition of Mercury. I don't know of any modern horary astrologer who would describe the Moon in that position as VOC, being so close to perfecting aspects. Was this a mistake in Lilly’s terminology? Possibly; or maybe he just expected his reader to understand that he considered it void because, having made a full separation from its previous planetary contact, it wasn’t carrying any other planet’s virtue forward. But that didn't sop him judging the chart; he just brought that into his interpretation of it.

One notion this horary does knock on the head, is the suggestion that – in Lilly’s use of horary at least – the only previous aspects that relate to the background of the question are those that perfected within the current sign, or even those which remain in orb. And that seems to suggest that Lilly was less likely to view sign boundaries as capable of fully terminating the effect of an aspectual contact, although it's clear that he regarded a change of sign as an indication of a major change in circumstances.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3463
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Deb,

This is really interesting, but don't trouble yourself, too much. Find what you can when you can.

I read the horary on page 165 and understand your point. Lilly does handle this a bit differently than he does the question on page 385. In that question he ignores (in print, I don't know what he did in his mind) the previous opposition, (in sign) to Mercury, but here he clearly cites the out-of-sign square to Saturn. I tend to think his calling this moon "void" simple sloppiness. He does that now and again For example on page 401 he remarks that


Quote:
"We have Mars his Excellency's Significator excellently fortified laboring under no one misfortune (except being in his Fall) ..."


That's a pretty big "except."

I re-read the horary on page 385 and I'm still a bit puzzled by it. Lilly says:


Quote:
The ascendant and Sun are for the querent; Saturn Lord of the seventh is for the man quesited after."


No Moon for the querent? Back to the out-of sign aspect:

Quote:
I said the Gentleman had no inclination or disposition to her, finding the Moon separated from void of course, and applying to opposition of the Sun.


He isn't using the Moon to signify the querent, but rather the querent's self undoing. Moon is the lady of the 12th. But this self undoing has yet to occur at the time of the question. I suppose the void Moon means nothing will come of the matter, but I'm still puzzled by his stated use of the applying opposition to the Sun in or out of sign. The previous aspect to Mercury (in-sign) is not mentioned, perhaps because it isn't necessary to mention it.

Then, in order to help the querent Lilly makes note of the reception between Jupiter and the Moon and The Sun and Moon, and the Moon and Saturn (quesited). Moon is now being used as significator of the Querent, not her undoing. (page 387)

This is an endlesly fascinating example of horary astrology that is a must study even if no modern computer program will show Jupiter as applying to Saturn as Lilly's calculations show it is.

So Lilly did use out-of-sign aspects in horary involving the Moon. I accept that. But did he use slower planets the same way in horary, and did he use out-of-sign aspects in natal astrology at all? I'll look too, as time permits. I'm also going to spend some time on the horary on page 165. Thanks Deb.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Tom,

I’ve only looked at half the charts so far – I’ll do the rest next week. A couple that are relevant in the ones I’ve looked at are:

p.287 – A Sick Doctor; what disease? Lilly considers the last aspect of the main significator – Mars - which occurred when Mars was in the previous sign. (In the horary Mars is at 1.59 Leo; Saturn is at 28.15 Aries – Lilly refers to the square between Mars and Saturn when Mars was at 28 Cancer and says that Mars is “but lately separated from a square dexter of Saturn” from which he draws judgement of the disease).

p.440 – If Presbytery Shall Stand? Lilly refers to Jupiter, a general significator of the quesited, at 28.24 Cancer, moving into Leo, and states “after his transit out of Cancer he enters the fixed sign of Leo and into the terms of Saturn, but in the first six degrees thereof he meets with several obnoxious fixed stars, and thence passes into the terms of Mercury [who is powerful but detrimented]”
The only aspectual contact referred to outside of the current sign is the conjunction with the fixed stars, but it demonstrates Lilly continuing to assess the meaning of Jupiter as it begins its progression through the next sign; rather than seeing the end of its current sign as a termination to its influence in the horary. This is something that I’ve noticed Culpeper and other contemporary authors do too.

I’m always wary of pulling up references from Lilly’s judgements as a means to prove technique though – it’s worth bearing in mind that what he does in the specifics of his interpretations sometimes only seems justified within the context of the chart he is working on, where he is guided by a wider set of influences.

I'll let you know if I find anything interesting in the remaining charts later. It's a good excuse for me to go through his judgements again - which always turns up something interesting that I've been looking out for.


Deb
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Horary & Electional Astrology All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated