If at all the Chapter (p. 445) "Of Government, Office, Dignity, Preferment, or any place of Command or Trust, whether attainable or not?" is applicable, this qoute (p. 445) seems to fit very well too:
"If the Lord of the tenth receive the Lord of the first or the MO
by any reception, or in any house, the matter will be effected
with much content and profit."

Johannes

Ya-but, the "one" referred to by Lilly in, "If one shall continue in the Office or Command he is in?" is the querent, so creating the necessary link to the 10th house, being the position of Office or Command that the querent currently enjoys.

Clinton, the only way this Lilly reference makes your chart valid is if Clinton Garrett Soule is actually a pseudonym or alter-ego of Barack Obama himself.... so now we know the truth.

Sir, if I was an American citizen, may I say that my vote would be for you.

Your humble servant

Geoffrey

That William Lilly seems to be not so strict as you, Geoffrey, concerning the querent's identity you have seen in your owm example (Essex in Reading). And if you cannot follow Mark's arguments that Essex very probably not has been the querent himself, please read this:

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

Actually, it was me that argued that Robert, Earl of Essex was not the querent in that siege of Reading chart. Mark agreed with me.

With regard to your reference to Lilly on "Whether one absent be alive or dead", on page 151 of CA, Lilly is somewhat misleading here. Should we always use the ascendant and its lord for the missing person? Lilly talks of someone who is absent being asked for "in a general way" which might lead us to suppose we should - but we must be careful!

When reading Christian Astrology, I find it very handy to have Henry Coley's Key to the Art of Astrology (KAA) within easy reach. Henry Coley was Lilly's friend, student, and chosen successor and his book follows very much along the same lines as CA. One can look upon KAA as "CA re-written", but from a slightly different perspective, and so treat KAA as an authoritative commentary on CA by somebody who knew and studied with Lilly. When Lilly's explanation is absent or confusing, Coley often fills in the blanks and answers questions. This instance is a good example of what I mean.

If we turn to "Of the condition of an Absent Party" on page 151 of KAA, (the same page as CA...) it is worth quoting what Coley says.

"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...."*

We see here that Coley gives a much tighter constraint on the use of the first house for the quesited, and leaves us in no doubt that even then, he is not happy about it. Lilly's final trump card was, "It works!" so Coley goes along with it - but under protest.

Does this take us any further forward? Is Clinton in such a state of concern that he can think of nothing else but the outcome of the Presidential election? If he is, then we can consider the chart valid and Obama should be given the ascendant and its lord, not the 10th. (As it happens, Jupiter rules both in this case). But from what Clinton has told us, aside from general philosophical concerns about what past leaders in Europe have got up to when unchecked and the proximity of Pluto in the US chart, he does not seem to loosing any sleep over this matter!

Geoffrey

*I have gently edited the punctuation for easier reading.

Hi again,

I have also been discussing this topic on another traditional forum.

I thought some of you might be interested in the reply from I got from Lee Lehman, who is a noted authority on horary astrology:

I have been wondering for years: why is there this reluctance to admit that certain questions just aren't legal horaries? If you are not going to use horary to replace natal, or natal to replace horary, or natal to replace electional, or mundane to replace natal, why cant we simply agree that expecting a horary asked by one person among hundreds of millions (if US citizens) billions (the world) simply doesn't cut it for a global event? This isn't about your client not understanding the niceties of horary, this is about you explaining that when you want to dig a hole in the ground, you don't use a pie plate, and when you want to bake a pie, you don't use a shovel.

I prefer the word radical to legal but I go along with her logic.

Mark

Geoffrey wrote:Actually, it was me that argued that Robert, Earl of Essex was not the querent in that siege of Reading chart. Mark agreed with me.

Hello Geoffrey,

thank you for the Coley quote and sorry for confusing these sentences of yours:

Geoffrey wrote: The obvious answer to my quandry is that Robert, Earl of Essex, was himself the querent, so giving him the ascendant as of right.
[...]
It would seem most probable then that the querent was not Robert, Earl of Essex.

But as you gave in your point of view, that with this allotment of the significators (ascendant and Moon for a third person) "Essex in Reading" could only be an election or event, we should simply agree in the fact, that Lilly gives ascendant and Moon (!) to a third person who did not ask the question.
Incidentally Lilly's aproach is consitstent in itself and in accordance with my qouting him given above (CA, pp. 151, 156).

Geoffrey wrote:With regard to your reference to Lilly on "Whether one absent be alive or dead", on page 151 of CA, Lilly is somewhat misleading here. Should we always use the ascendant and its lord for the missing person? Lilly talks of someone who is absent being asked for "in a general way" which might lead us to suppose we should - but we must be careful!

We should always be careful! I fully agree with you, Geoffrey.
Your reference to Coley is very interesting and helpful indeed. But even though I do not see a real constraint in Coley's remarks, and in the end he accepts the teachings of Lilly as to this topic.

"It works!" this is as yet the only fundament of explaining the operation of astrology, isn't it?

Johannes

Geoffrey said:

When reading Christian Astrology, I find it very handy to have Henry Coley's Key to the Art of Astrology (KAA) within easy reach. Henry Coley was Lilly's friend, student, and chosen successor and his book follows very much along the same lines as CA. One can look upon KAA as "CA re-written", but from a slightly different perspective, and so treat KAA as an authoritative commentary on CA by somebody who knew and studied with Lilly. When Lilly's explanation is absent or confusing, Coley often fills in the blanks and answers questions. This instance is a good example of what I mean.

Fellow Forum members, set back and reflect upon the facts that so many Moderns have read Lilly and misunderstood him through the past few centurys. How grateful I am that Coley left such an imprint in Geoffrey that he avidly studies both CA and Coley. Praise God, Lilly had such a devout disciple to carry the torch!

Clinton Garrett Soule

Wise men know how little they know

Johannes said in the 'Will we win the Court Case"', a recent thread quoting Lilly:

It is this quotation of Lilly (CA, p. 299) which I just found and which I should like to add to my above text:
"13 A Retrograde Planet, or one in his first station, Signficator in
the Question, denotes ill in the Question, discord and much contra-
diction."

Johannes, I have been pondering this for several days and I must ask does this apply as Jupiter lord of the 10H and Asc. is in it's Station?

But what does Lilly actually mean by first station?

This query seems to be ringing Loudly as Lilly says "...denotes ill in the question, discord and much contradiction." In that look at the contention and disagreements we are having about whether one can even answer, or should answer such horarys and what house is actually President Obama!

I mean using the tenth for Obama, being Rx and in the degree of it's station, it doesn't look good for him. Or maybe it is only showing that if Obama wins, or retains his tenth house office that it will be a harder and rougher Presidency than the past four years with his blunders and trying to untangle what the Bush family and Reagan fostered in that thay gave the USA a stranglehold reputation on the Middle-East for Oil and illegal narcotics trade from that region, as if we were runner-ups to Nazi Germany's conquest in Europe or the former Sickle and Hammer invasions by the USSR, a threatening reputation for foreign policy! Consideration of that very opposition from Transiting Pluto to the U.S. Radical Sun being the culprit; Not a great time to be a President.

Anyone got any insights as to what Lilly means by 'Disposition' in the section cited? I am having trouble understanding his usage of the King's English, yet figure it is referencing 'the depositor'.

Clinton Garrett Soule
Wise men know how little they know

Clinton Soule wrote:Johannes said in the 'Will we win the Court Case"', a recent thread quoting Lilly:

It is this quotation of Lilly (CA, p. 299) which I just found and which I should like to add to my above text:
"13 A Retrograde Planet, or one in his first station, Signficator in
the Question, denotes ill in the Question, discord and much contra-
diction."

Johannes, I have been pondering this for several days and I must ask does this apply as Jupiter lord of the 10H and Asc. is in it's Station?

But what does Lilly actually mean by first station?

Sorry Clinton, that I overlooked your question - but let us meet in in the "Will we win the Court Case" thread to dicuss Jupiter's stations - hopefully tomorrow.

Johannes

Clinton Soule wrote:Anyone got any insights as to what Lilly means by 'Disposition' in the section cited? I am having trouble understanding his usage of the King's English, yet figure it is referencing 'the depositor'.

To my knowledge disposition is different from the meaning of the today's disposition of the dispositor = ruler of a sign and thus of the planets positioned in this - his - sign. Disposition in the sense Lilly is using the term is the rendering of a lighter planet's vertue to the heavier planet aspected by him. (Without quotation, but I am looking for one . . . )

Johannes

Geoffrey wrote:.Does this take us any further forward? Is Clinton in such a state of concern that he can think of nothing else but the outcome of the Presidential election? If he is, then we can consider the chart valid and Obama should be given the ascendant and its lord, not the 10th. (As it happens, Jupiter rules both in this case). But from what Clinton has told us, aside from general philosophical concerns about what past leaders in Europe have got up to when unchecked and the proximity of Pluto in the US chart, he does not seem to loosing any sleep over this matter!

Geoffrey, perhaps you accept the quotation of this real recent Astrologer:

John Frawley, The Horary Textbook, p. 213 [here of elections]:
"A impartial American asks, 'Who will win?' Give Bush the 10th, because he is king, Kerry the 4th, because he is the king's enemy."

Bush and Kerry are history, but this quotation should work with Obama and Romney too. Then Clinton Soule is the impartial American, as "he does not seem to loosing any sleep over this matter", as you write.

Frawley in the same page (p. 213):
"The Moon is of extreme importance in horaries about elections. It is natural ruler of the people,* and so signifies the electorate."
* with Lilly,by the way

Johannes

johannes susato wrote: John Frawley, The Horary Textbook, p. 213 [here of elections]:
"A impartial American asks, 'Who will win?' Give Bush the 10th, because he is king, Kerry the 4th, because he is the king's enemy."

There are twenty million undecided American voters out there who will be asking that question over the next few weeks and have been asking that question for months past. They could all be considered 'impartial'. Which one should we take? Clinton Garrett Soule? Why him particularly....?

Geoffrey