16
Pete wrote:
I have to admit that whilst looking at this horary I overlooked the fact that Taurus 7 refered to 'X' as a "friend". This, imo, would definately place him under the aegis of the 11th house and not the 7th. Therefore the sig' is the Moon, and not Jupiter.
Sorry for the confusion, but 'X' is 7th house - not because I referred to him by name, but because he is a former "significant" other. This is the reason why I went along with the sabian symbols as they related to the 7th.
Hard to see then, how using the sabian symbol for a degree on an intermediate house cusp can be of any real value?
--
Siraxi, what do you think?

17
I have been trying to remember where I have heard this idea of giving the 7th house to anyone who is named. I now recall that I came across it in Anthony Louis. He uses it quite frequently but does alternate at times with the more traditional method. But my memory of it is that he is following Joan McEvers and quoted her as his source. She uses this rule and states it quite clearly in her book on horary. She does say that people should investigate both ways and make their own decision though. I wasn't able to find it in my quick look through Ivy Jacobson but she may well have used it.

Lee Lehman suggests the use of the 7th house if the relationship is confusing or there isn't one that stands out over the other. So Debra, in your question about what house to use for someone who is a friend, a co-worker and an employee, Lee would probably put it on the 7th. I haven't really seen this work before so I don't know.

Personally, I don't like this idea of anyone named being on the 7th. It makes no sense at all. Houses are there for a reason. Lilly makes it very clear that siblings, for example, belong to the 3rd house. He doesn't say that if I ask a question about my brother I use the 3rd but if I ask about Steve (my brother's name) then I give the 7th. He is still my brother no matter what I call him. Putting him on the 7th house negates the relationship I have with him. Logically, it makes no sense at all and makes even less sense when you read Lilly.

As for Sabian Symbols, I have been to a couple of talks by Lynda Hill and have her book. The symbols in themselves are quite interesting and Lynda is very good at what she does with them. But I doubt very much that they were ever meant to be incorporated into horary. I've seen an interesting increase in people using the Sabian Symbols in horary lately. One person who taught me astrology in the past told me that he has been looking at this very thing and uses it in his chart readings. I realise that most people who use them are using them as an adjunct to the rest of the chart but it seems a little superfluous to me. And I agree with Deb's point that they can be interpreted in so many ways. To me it would be more likely to detract from the clarity of the chart than to contribute to it.

18
Sue,

I looked again in Ivy Jacobson's book and she says on page 207 of Simplified Horary Astrology, "If the person asked about is not known to the querent as in the chart opposite concerning 'this woman', take the 7th house and its ruler to represent that person."

I take this to imply that Ivy Jacobson uses the traditional houses and retreats to the 7th when there is no known relationship.

I am still not sure who I would chose in a question about "Joe" who is both my friend and my boss. He used to work with me but then went into management. Was he my friend first? I think that is the one I would probably chose since friendship might be the stronger relationship - at least at the moment.

Thanks.
Debra

19
taurus7 wrote:
Hard to see then, how using the sabian symbol for a degree on an intermediate house cusp can be of any real value?
--
Siraxi, what do you think?
I use the symbols for any cusp, not just the main axis. Actually an angular house may be much less important than a cadent house, but which represents the quesited.
The only problem is the house system choice. I have started with Regiomontanus and have seen in very many charts that is functions very well, actually the symbol of a Regiomontanus house cusp it never fails to describe the house. So I go with it.

One more thing, it's siraxi, not Siraxi. It's just a nick, not a real name. 3 years ago when I had to choose a nickname for the chat, I went to my tarot deck and it came out six of swords - a 'mercury in aquarius' influence - I was content with it. The swords are associated with the air element. So, six of air, anagramed: siraxi.

20
Hi Debra,
I am still not sure who I would chose in a question about "Joe" who is both my friend and my boss. He used to work with me but then went into management. Was he my friend first? I think that is the one I would probably chose since friendship might be the stronger relationship - at least at the moment.
It depends upon the context of the question and in what way you are trying to evaluate Joe?s situation. For example, in ?will Joe sack me?? he is considered from the angle of being your boss and signified by the 10th. But even though he is your boss he would be signified by the 7th house if the question was whether he loves you or will ask you to marry him. Similarly, if you are viewing him as a platonic friend and you are asking about a situation where you are thinking of him as a friend, then take the 11th house. In most situations you will be exploring a relationship between the two of you that corresponds to the symbolic nature of the angle between the house involved and the ascendant, (a sextile for a friend, an opposition for an equal partner or adversary, a hovering square for a boss).

If ?Joe? wasn?t your boss and you really felt that he was best defined as a ?work colleague? on equal status to you (a higher status would place him on the 10th; a lower on the 6th), then you could signify him by the 3rd house which governs neighbours and our local community. I recall one horary where I was looking at a professional matter for a querent and saw problems related to the 12th as describing difficulties from work colleagues who sat nearby (turned 3rd from 10th). But that was a derived signification because they presented themselves in the chart incidentally. It?s very unlikely that a querent will ask a question concerning a work colleague where the colleague isn?t capable of being primarily defined as an enemy, friend or potential lover ? if they are none of these they are not going to occupy the querent?s mind to the extent that they feel inclined to ask questions focussed upon them.
"If the person asked about is not known to the querent as in the chart opposite concerning 'this woman', take the 7th house and its ruler to represent that person."
It is worth giving this some thought because a lot of students get confused over the apparent contradiction regarding whether someone unrelated to the querent, (or where the relationship is described as ?general?, or where it doesn?t naturally associate with any of the house designations) should be assigned to the 1st or 7th house. For example, Lilly tells us on p.151 to use the ascendant to signify one absent in a general way, ?where the querent hath no relation to the party?.

There?s no real contradiction. In the chart Ivy referred to ?this woman? described someone who may become a family member so there is a potential relationship between the querent and quesited and a need to maintain the assignation of the ascendant to the querent (who could have a personal influence upon the matter or be affected by its outcome). But if we are asking about a celebrity or someone we have heard about in the news, there is no relationship between querent and quesited, so no need to regard the querent as an integral component in the astrological assesment. We can effectively take them out of the question, place the quesited on the ascendant and read the symbolism directly from the radical chart.

(I know you didn?t ask about this, but it?s bound to come up sooner or later. :) )

21
Hi Deb,
You wrote:
(I know you didn?t ask about this, but it?s bound to come up sooner or later.


Okay, so now you are reading my mind. :lol:

I went back into Lilly and compared with Ivy. I see the difference in the relationships, between knowing someone wth a potential relationship such as "that woman" and no potential relationship such as myself and Jeremy Irons. :(

I also see that the question once again dictates the forming of the relationship. And also that the relationship has the upper hand over just stating the question using the name and sticking them in the 7th automatically.

Oddly, this has been more of an eye opener than you may imagine. It has forced me to recognize the many complex relationships I have with people, and clearly, I now realize that who they represent in the particular question is most important. But it does get cloudy sometimes. Joe has never acted like a "boss" but then I never asked a question about him in that way. I can see it coming up, however.
:P

Bottom line, Thank you. This is most helpful to me.
Debra