Judging Profession accorrding to Lilly: Learning Astrology

Originally Posted by William Lilly, Christian Astrology, Book Three, Chapter CXLVIII

Of the Magistery, Exercitation or Profession of the Native.

Astrologers name the Magistry of the Native, a Study or Delight, an Art or Action wherein anyone leads his Life, gets his Living, preserves his Estimation, and wherein he spends the principal part of his Life, whether it be public, as of Kings or Princes, whereof some administer Justice; others Military Exercises; others Huntings; others delight in other actions; others in Philosophy and Theology; others in the Mathematics.

Or whether his Profession be private, either learned from another, or attained by his own industry, or mechanical, laborious, and for pleasure; for doubtless every man has inclination more or less to some one Quality, Profession, &c. or another.

Three things are wont to be considered in this Judgment.

First, Whether the Native is to have any Magistery at all, viz. any Trade, Study or Profession; or whether he shall be without any.

Secondly, The kinds of his Art or Study, what it may be.

Thirdly, What fortune he shall have therein, and whether he shall prove famous therein yea or no.

The Significators are taken in this manner.

[1.] You are to consider Mars, Venus, and Mercury; Mercury shows the Wisdom and parts of the mind; Mars the strength of the body to endure; Venus the Delight; If then any of these is posited in places of Heaven fit to design Magistery, that is, in the tenth, first or seventh, in their own Dignities, not combust, or under the Sun's beams, that Planet so posited, or those Planets, shall have signification of the Art, Profession or Magistery the Native is inclined to.

[2.] If no one of those Planets is so posited, consider if any of the three be Lord of the Sign of mid-heaven, and placed in his essential Dignity; for if he be Peregrine or in his Fall, he is not capable to undergo this signification.

[3.] If this consideration take not place, see if any of these three Planets behold the Moon in partile, if two or all three do behold her, prefer the strongest, and him that has the best aspects, and that aspect which is most partile, and the sinister before the dexter.

[4.] If none of three before named Planets behold the Moon, see which of them aspects the Moon, within the moiety of her Orbs and with a powerful aspect, that Planet shall you take to signify the Child's [Native's] Magistery, so that he be not afflicted of the malignant Planets, either by corporal conjunction or square or opposition, for if he be so, you must not accept him..

[5.] If none of these considerations will hold, take him of the three Planets who according to the first mover [diurnal motion] antecedes [precedes] the Sun, and give to him dominion of the Profession.

You must observe, if none of these three Planets shall signify the quality of the Native's Profession, according to the first or second rule, but according to the third, fourth, or fifth; such usually handle some ignoble Profession, and manage it negligently, or else lead their life without any Magistery or Art at all.

I have ever gathered much knowledge concerning the Trade of any that came to me, from the Sign of the tenth, from the Sign and house wherein the Lord of the tenth was placed.

Ptolemy his judgment was, that the Lord of one's Profession was to be taken two ways; from the Sun, and from the Sign of the mid-heaven, and advises to consider that Planet who rises next before the Sun in the Morning, and the Lord of mid-heaven, or Planet therein, if he behold the Moon; and if it chance that one Planet does not only rise next before the Sun, but shall also be Lord of the tenth, or posited in the tenth, this Planet shall be Master or Significator of the Actions and Arts of the Native: if one Planet perform not both these works take him that does the one.
__________________________________________________


I am going to assume that you are an advanced beginning student or at the intermediate level, and that you have read and understood what Lilly has to say about ascertaining a person’s profession from the chart. Now, if you are like many other students of astrology, you are qualified to go out among your brethren and teach them how to determine a person’s profession.

Or are you? In the first place, have you tested Lilly’s teaching to see if it works and works consistently? Just because Lilly is a Great Man does not mean he is without error, that his words should be taken at face value, as gospel. Test him before you sign on to what he says. Have you practiced the method enough to “have it down” so that you can apply it to any and all horoscopes and come up with the right answer? (If it really works.) There is a huge difference between learning (by rote) what some famous author says and accepting it as “the law,” and putting it into practice.

So let’s take a famous person at random, look at their profession, and see if Lilly’s approach gives us accurate results. We will test Lilly and at the same time develop our skill – we seek mastery – in the practical application of the method to the lives of real people. We will learn what we can and can’t say about profession by using this method; how fine is it in describing the profession?

Who should we choose for our example? What if we start with Lilly himself? He was “an astrologer.”

In the chart of Lilly,
We find the MC in 20 Sagittarius, in the term (according to the Egyptians) of Mercury. Of the three personal planets (Mercury, Venus and Mars) which Lilly uses to evaluate “magistery” (meaning: mastery), only Mercury holds dignity at the Midheaven (for reference, if needed.) Note that Mercury is the ruler of astrology. Mercury is ruler of “symbolic thought” [one of the salient characteristics of being human – no other creature is capable of it], and astrology is the epitome of symbolic thought. Mercury also rules magic, of which astrology is an outstanding example; it is an occult art.

According to Rule 1: Mars is found in the Seventh, strongly angular (we ignore Neptune; Lilly didn’t have the planet.) Mars has no dignity (including debility), and is peregrine. Should we take Mars as significator of the profession of the native?

Rule 2 tells us that if the significator is either peregrine or in his fall, he is incapacitated, and cannot signify the profession. (This rules specifies the planet if lord of the 10th, but I think the disqualification stands. None of the three planets rules the 10th. Recall that Mercury holds the term of the Midheaven.)

Rule 3 tells us to see if any of the three [planets] are partile Moon. None are. But Venus is in her domicile (strong) and is in applying trine the Moon, 5°. But she is combust (at 50’ from Sun, she is not Cazimi) and this is a strong disqualification.

Rule 4 extends aspects to Moon from partile to within moiety (orb). Venus is so posited. But, we also note the exact opposition to Saturn, another disqualifying factor. Venus can’t be significator of the profession.

In Rule 5 we are told to take the “planet of oriental appearance” (modern terminology) as significator. Technically, this is Venus, in conflagration and opposed to Saturn; hardly a viable choice. If we disqualfy Venus as planet of first appearance because of her partile combustion, this leaves us with Mercury (again, Lilly didn't have Uranus.) Would this be the right way to handle this?

Thus, we must conclude that, if Lilly attains to any profession whatsoever it will be handled negligently, or he will have no profession at all.

Lilly then goes on to say that the sign on the Tenth, and the sign and house of its lord gives good information regarding the trade of the native.

Sagittarius rides the Midheaven and Jupiter, its lord, is retrograde in Libra in the 7th. Jupiter’s only effective aspect is the square to Moon. Does this suggest “an astrologer” to us? If so, how? If not, why not? The question boils down to this: If William Lilly’s father had come to us as an astrologer when William was 8 years old to learn what profession or trade he should train his son to, would we have given him accurate and useful guidance?

Any astrological technique must work in all cases. Otherwise it is not dependable or reliable, and makes of astrology a guessing game rather than the accurate predictive art that it must be if we are to continue in its study and application. I have an obligation to my client. And I have an obligation to myself: I do not choose to be a charlatan. If my art is deficient, I should become a blacksmith.

Did I conduct this test properly? Did I correctly interpret and carry out Lilly’s rules? Was I correct in disqualifying Mars because he’s peregrine? If Mars should be allowed, does he signify “an astrologer?” If I carried the test out properly, then what am I to think about the validity of Lilly’s method? And if Lilly’s method doesn’t work, what am I to do?

greybeard said:

Originally Posted by William Lilly, Christian Astrology, Book Three, Chapter CXLVIII

Of the Magistery, Exercitation or Profession of the Native.

Astrologers name the Magistry of the Native, a Study or Delight, an Art or Action wherein anyone leads his Life, gets his Living, preserves his Estimation, and wherein he spends the principal part of his Life, whether it be public, as of Kings or Princes, whereof some administer Justice; others Military Exercises; others Huntings; others delight in other actions; others in Philosophy and Theology; others in the Mathematics.

Or whether his Profession be private, either learned from another, or attained by his own industry, or mechanical, laborious, and for pleasure; for doubtless every man has inclination more or less to some one Quality, Profession, &c. or another.

Three things are wont to be considered in this Judgment.

First, Whether the Native is to have any Magistery at all, viz. any Trade, Study or Profession; or whether he shall be without any.

Secondly, The kinds of his Art or Study, what it may be.

Thirdly, What fortune he shall have therein, and whether he shall prove famous therein yea or no.

The Significators are taken in this manner.

[1.] You are to consider Mars, Venus, and Mercury; Mercury shows the Wisdom and parts of the mind; Mars the strength of the body to endure; Venus the Delight; If then any of these is posited in places of Heaven fit to design Magistery, that is, in the tenth, first or seventh, in their own Dignities, not combust, or under the Sun's beams, that Planet so posited, or those Planets, shall have signification of the Art, Profession or Magistery the Native is inclined to.

[2.] If no one of those Planets is so posited, consider if any of the three be Lord of the Sign of mid-heaven, and placed in his essential Dignity; for if he be Peregrine or in his Fall, he is not capable to undergo this signification.

[3.] If this consideration take not place, see if any of these three Planets behold the Moon in partile, if two or all three do behold her, prefer the strongest, and him that has the best aspects, and that aspect which is most partile, and the sinister before the dexter.

[4.] If none of three before named Planets behold the Moon, see which of them aspects the Moon, within the moiety of her Orbs and with a powerful aspect, that Planet shall you take to signify the Child's [Native's] Magistery, so that he be not afflicted of the malignant Planets, either by corporal conjunction or square or opposition, for if he be so, you must not accept him..

[5.] If none of these considerations will hold, take him of the three Planets who according to the first mover [diurnal motion] antecedes [precedes] the Sun, and give to him dominion of the Profession.

You must observe, if none of these three Planets shall signify the quality of the Native's Profession, according to the first or second rule, but according to the third, fourth, or fifth; such usually handle some ignoble Profession, and manage it negligently, or else lead their life without any Magistery or Art at all.

I have ever gathered much knowledge concerning the Trade of any that came to me, from the Sign of the tenth, from the Sign and house wherein the Lord of the tenth was placed.

Ptolemy his judgment was, that the Lord of one's Profession was to be taken two ways; from the Sun, and from the Sign of the mid-heaven, and advises to consider that Planet who rises next before the Sun in the Morning, and the Lord of mid-heaven, or Planet therein, if he behold the Moon; and if it chance that one Planet does not only rise next before the Sun, but shall also be Lord of the tenth, or posited in the tenth, this Planet shall be Master or Significator of the Actions and Arts of the Native: if one Planet perform not both these works take him that does the one.
__________________________________________________


I am going to assume that you are an advanced beginning student or at the intermediate level, and that you have read and understood what Lilly has to say about ascertaining a person’s profession from the chart. Now, if you are like many other students of astrology, you are qualified to go out among your brethren and teach them how to determine a person’s profession.

Or are you? In the first place, have you tested Lilly’s teaching to see if it works and works consistently? Just because Lilly is a Great Man does not mean he is without error, that his words should be taken at face value, as gospel. Test him before you sign on to what he says. Have you practiced the method enough to “have it down” so that you can apply it to any and all horoscopes and come up with the right answer? (If it really works.) There is a huge difference between learning (by rote) what some famous author says and accepting it as “the law,” and putting it into practice.

So let’s take a famous person at random, look at their profession, and see if Lilly’s approach gives us accurate results. We will test Lilly and at the same time develop our skill – we seek mastery – in the practical application of the method to the lives of real people. We will learn what we can and can’t say about profession by using this method; how fine is it in describing the profession?

Who should we choose for our example? What if we start with Lilly himself? He was “an astrologer.”

In the chart of Lilly,
We find the MC in 20 Sagittarius, in the term (according to the Egyptians) of Mercury. Of the three personal planets (Mercury, Venus and Mars) which Lilly uses to evaluate “magistery” (meaning: mastery), only Mercury holds dignity at the Midheaven (for reference, if needed.) Note that Mercury is the ruler of astrology. Mercury is ruler of “symbolic thought” [one of the salient characteristics of being human – no other creature is capable of it], and astrology is the epitome of symbolic thought. Mercury also rules magic, of which astrology is an outstanding example; it is an occult art.

According to Rule 1: Mars is found in the Seventh, strongly angular (we ignore Neptune; Lilly didn’t have the planet.) Mars has no dignity (including debility), and is peregrine. Should we take Mars as significator of the profession of the native?

Rule 2 tells us that if the significator is either peregrine or in his fall, he is incapacitated, and cannot signify the profession. (This rules specifies the planet if lord of the 10th, but I think the disqualification stands. None of the three planets rules the 10th. Recall that Mercury holds the term of the Midheaven.)

Rule 3 tells us to see if any of the three [planets] are partile Moon. None are. But Venus is in her domicile (strong) and is in applying trine the Moon, 5°. But she is combust (at 50’ from Sun, she is not Cazimi) and this is a strong disqualification.

Rule 4 extends aspects to Moon from partile to within moiety (orb). Venus is so posited. But, we also note the exact opposition to Saturn, another disqualifying factor. Venus can’t be significator of the profession.

In Rule 5 we are told to take the “planet of oriental appearance” (modern terminology) as significator. Technically, this is Venus, in conflagration and opposed to Saturn; hardly a viable choice. If we disqualfy Venus as planet of first appearance because of her partile combustion, this leaves us with Mercury (again, Lilly didn't have Uranus.) Would this be the right way to handle this?

Thus, we must conclude that, if Lilly attains to any profession whatsoever it will be handled negligently, or he will have no profession at all.

Lilly then goes on to say that the sign on the Tenth, and the sign and house of its lord gives good information regarding the trade of the native.

Sagittarius rides the Midheaven and Jupiter, its lord, is retrograde in Libra in the 7th. Jupiter’s only effective aspect is the square to Moon. Does this suggest “an astrologer” to us? If so, how? If not, why not? The question boils down to this: If William Lilly’s father had come to us as an astrologer when William was 8 years old to learn what profession or trade he should train his son to, would we have given him accurate and useful guidance?

Any astrological technique must work in all cases. Otherwise it is not dependable or reliable, and makes of astrology a guessing game rather than the accurate predictive art that it must be if we are to continue in its study and application. I have an obligation to my client. And I have an obligation to myself: I do not choose to be a charlatan. If my art is deficient, I should become a blacksmith.

Did I conduct this test properly? Did I correctly interpret and carry out Lilly’s rules? Was I correct in disqualifying Mars because he’s peregrine? If Mars should be allowed, does he signify “an astrologer?” If I carried the test out properly, then what am I to think about the validity of Lilly’s method? And if Lilly’s method doesn’t work, what am I to do?

Click to expand...

The OP seems unaware that there is not only confusion over William Lilly's date of birth, but also that William Lilly's time of birth is unknown. THEREFORE TO SINGLE OUT WILLIAM LILLY FOR SCRUTINY AS A CAST IRON EXAMPLE illustrating the OP's main argument - which appears to be that 'ANY ASTROLOGICAL TECHNIQUE MUST WORK IN ALL CASES' - clearly renders the OP's main argument null and void

THE OP'S ARGUMENT APPARENTLY IMPLIES THAT 'UNLESS A PARTICULAR ASTROLOGICAL TECHNIQUE WORKS IN ALL CASES' THEN IT'S WORTHLESS.

Obviously, this forum as are in general most if not all astrological forums are replete with discussion - both psychological and traditional - regarding astrological techniques that apparently 'work' in some cases but not in others. And those discussions are useful, interesting and worthwhile.

In this case, however - i.e. that of traditional astrologer William Lilly - since neither the precise date nor the precisely reliable verifiable time of traditional astrologer William Lilly's birth are known then all the OP's arguments that are based on the OP's delineation of William Lilly's profession are simply speculative.

The main argument of the OP when applied to William Lilly in particular simply does not withstand the basic requirement THAT a reliable time and date of birth ARE A NECESSITY when delineating the MC angle. Simply because the MC angle as well as the IC/ASC/DESC angles are extremely time sensitive


'….Lilly was born at the village of Diseworth, Leicestershire. His time of birth is not known and confusion exists over the date of birth.


This chart is the one that his contemporary, John Gadbury, published in his Collection of Nativities (1661) AS A RESULT OF A RECTIFICATION PERFORMED BY JAMES BLACKWELL. The time, given in old style format (of 14hrs and 8 mins after noon), equates to 2:08 am 1st May 1602.

Gadbury's commentary on the chart reads (p.188):

THE PERSON WHOSE GENITURE THIS IS (TO PUZZLE THE UNDERSTANDINGS OF THE INQUISITOUS) HATH PRETENDED HIMSELF TO HAVE TWO SEVERAL NATIVITIES:......'


'….(1.) In his Almanac of 1645 he tells his reader (in the Epistle thereunto) that he had the Moon in Pisces, which makes him a piece of a good fellow, &c., which (if true) he must be born the 5th or 6th of May 1602.

(2.) In his Introduction under his effigies, he says he was born on May 1st 1602, and then the Moon will not be in Pisces but in Capricorn, as in this figure. I am of the opinion he hath not the Moon in Pisces but in Capricorn, and therefore believe this to be his right nativity; ….'


'….the rather because my loving friend Mr. James Blackwell hath proved it so to be by thirteen several arguments or accidents printed a year-and-a-half since by itself. In which little tract, the ingenious Artist may meet with a concise method for calculating and judging a nativity; and unto which I refer the desirous reader for further satisfaction in this geniture. The reason why I am no larger herein is: because I would not be esteemed either envious or partial.

BEING BORN INTO A RURAL FAMILY, IT'S POSSIBLE LILLY DIDN'T KNOW HIS CORRECT BIRTH DETAILS AND WAS HIMSELF, WORKING WITH RECTIFIED DATA. ….' the above QUOTES are sourced from Deborah Houlding's article which includes a speculative natal chart for William Lilly at http://www.skyscript.co.uk/lillychart.html

NEVERTHELESS Uranian/Cosmobiological astrologers for whom a time of birth is unnecessary may have some useful insights regarding William Lilly's horoscope.

Hi,

greybeard said:

....The question boils down to this: If William Lilly’s father had come to us as an astrologer when William was 8 years old to learn what profession or trade he should train his son to, would we have given him accurate and useful guidance?...

Click to expand...

Being an Aquarian, please allow me to read the chart my own way. Apologies to be breaking the rules, but, hey..

Well, my first response to Lilly's father would have been that the son would go into a career that he actually enjoys and that makes him feel at peace and joy with himself (Lord of MC in Libra). That profession could be connected to the tabooed/ not well-accepted part of/ by society (MC Lord in the 8th). I would have gone on to say that Lilly will bring down certain conventionally existing barriers with the choice of profession (Moon in Cap loves conventions and holding up accepted norms, but Jup will struggle-square beyond those conventions). To stop here for a bit and summarise, all of the above could have pointed towards a profession connected with law and dealing with law-breakers (dark side); but could have also been connected with divination (yet through Astrology, the not well-accepted side of it). Since, I always look at the Moon too in regard to the native's profession, we see that the Moon's Lord in the 8th house and in Sco also shows Lilly digging into an area that most would rather let be, or an area that is in the dark with most (since they are either not aware of it, or it is just not prevalent/accepted enough in society, unlike Mathematics or Science, etc). North Node in the 9th, he will search relentlessly for the higher truth, but it will not come easy.

{Removal of non Traditional approach by moderator}

AQ7

PS: may I make a general request to those that like to start their posts by quoting others? Please try and place the quoted text below your own - new post, since it gets really tedious to first read a post, then move on to the next new post only to have to scroll down that same first post again, before one can read the new text. Thank you

'….(1.) In his Almanac of 1645 he tells his reader (in the Epistle thereunto) that he had the Moon in Pisces, which makes him a piece of a good fellow, &c., which (if true) he must be born the 5th or 6th of May 1602.

(2.) In his Introduction under his effigies, he says he was born on May 1st 1602, and then the Moon will not be in Pisces but in Capricorn, as in this figure. I am of the opinion he hath not the Moon in Pisces but in Capricorn, and therefore believe this to be his right nativity; ….'


'….the rather because my loving friend Mr. James Blackwell hath proved it so to be by thirteen several arguments or accidents printed a year-and-a-half since by itself. In which little tract, the ingenious Artist may meet with a concise method for calculating and judging a nativity; and unto which I refer the desirous reader for further satisfaction in this geniture. The reason why I am no larger herein is: because I would not be esteemed either envious or partial.

Love all that boldface....

Apparently Mr. Blackwell, using 13 events from Lilly's life, concluded that his rectification was a good one. Lois Rodden, or astrodata seems to think so; he is given an A rating there. And just the other day a friend and I were talking about Lilly in a completely different context, and I asked her "what is it that shows his fortunate marriage?" Look at this particular chart for the answer.

Secondly, I did not set out to prove anything. I didn't know how the test would turn out. The choice of Lilly as subject was completely spontaneous.

As to "old style format" for recording hour and minute, if you look at my watch you will see just how antiquated I am. I use military-style time (1408 hours) because it eliminates mistakes between AM and PM. Always have. I suppose that if you discovered my charts in some dusty garret you would conclude they were pre-Elizabethan.

My statement that "unless an astrological technique works in all cases" does not imply that if the technique fails it is worthless; it flatly says so. I give my reason for this statement in the body of the article. If I put a technique in my toolbox that works 84% of the time, it means my predictions will fail 16% of the time. That's not a very good batting average.

Naturally one test is not enough. And of course we should use charts with a birth time that is certain. You will notice that at the opening of the article I put forth the idea that the student learning astrolgy should test and practice what he or she sees in books (or astrology forums.) This article itself is no exception. Test it. Try five or six other charts to see if Lilly's method is reliable. It's an hour or two of your time, time well spent. That was the whole point of the article (refer to the title.)

I would like to see students test, experiment and practice what they find in books. To simply accept what Valens or Ptolemy (or a whole host of modern authors looking to make a name for themselves) says on its face without question is a very weak way to learn astrology. The other day one member of this forum (and no criticism is intended) said that he/she "was convinced of whole sign houses", witout any basis for that conviction; just "belief on faith." I would hope that students would question authority, demand demonstration of the value and reliability of systems and methods.

I am criticized for "using a chart with uncertain birth time -- and even uncertain brth date" by one who believes that techniques that produce uncertain results are admissible. Hmm. Is that something like the pot calling the kettle black?

Discussing techniques that produce uncertain results is one thing. Incorporating them into your practice is another.

Thanks for your comments.

The article did not intend to show how to read "profession". It was intended to test Lilly, and most importantly to encourage students to test things before accepting them as doctrine.

"As an Aquarius" I am sure you test, experiment, question.... but then, on the other hand, Aquarius can also be very conservative and tradition-bound. Saturn and Uranus,, it is said by some modern astrologers whose word is law, co-rule Aquarius.

I placed the quoted text above my own as necessary prelude to what we were doing.

Hi,

greybeard said:

The article did not intend to show how to read "profession". It was intended to test Lilly, and most importantly to encourage students to test things before accepting them as doctrine.

Click to expand...

Well, I feared that, but couldn't restrain myself from venturing on to read the chart, but by my own rules. If it disturbs the balance of your thread, Greybeard, I would be most happy to delete my previous post, as it does not serve the purpose intended by yourself, as you have made clear. Just say the word, and I will be back with my eraser.

"As an Aquarius" I am sure you test, experiment, question.... but then, on the other hand, Aquarius can also be very conservative and tradition-bound.....

Click to expand...

Well, even with Saturn as the parent of both Cap and Aquarius, the two differ in certain ways, but let's save this for another thread, and save this particular thread from it. Also, my own experimenting and rebelling go beyond just an Aqua Sun and Merc, but I was too lazy to unwrap that here, lest I steal the show from Lilly, and aggravate things further.

I placed the quoted text above my own as necessary prelude to what we were doing.

Click to expand...

It was the poster following your post that I was indirectly appealing to, but also wanted to request in general, as mentioned.

AQ7

I was tempted to add my own ideas to the "test", but chained myself to the pillar.

Thanks, my friend.

Just to point out a couple of things. If we are to use Lily's methods, we must give a nod to his house system. Lilly did not use Placidus houses but rather Regio. I've put the chart up that way. Significant in this change of house systems is that the 2nd house cusp is now at 7* Taurus and change, putting Mercury in the 1st house, his "joy." His effect would still be read in the 2nd, but to consider what that effect will be we need to take his actual position into consideration.

Mercury has no dignity at the MC (Saturn is the term ruler as Mercury--according to Ptolemy's table of dignities..personally I prefer Egyptian, but again Lilly used Ptolemy--gets the degrees of Sagittarius from 14 to 19, but the MC has passed 19 and now is in Saturn's terms.)

Mercury is not peregrine since he is in his own decan or face, granting him at least some essential dignity. He is supported as well by being received by Venus by both domicile and term, with Venus in attendance. Further, Mercury is stationary direct in this chart and rising from the beams. I haven't had a chance to read the complete works of Lilly, but the astrologers he studied (the Persians) considered planets stationing and rising or setting to be of primary importance in the native's life. So, posited in the 1st, with essential dignity, we can see that Mercury already meets the criteria for Rule number one.

Mercury is L8 (often called the house of the occult) and the 3rd (often called the house of the mind.) We seem to be getting somewhere here, but what does Lily himself have to say about Mercury, from whom the Moon in his chart separates by trine?

...Mercury with the Moon, or in any good aspect of her, encreaseth his Understanding, and inclines the Native to be desirous of knowing futurities, or things to come, very prepense to Divination, especially if the Moon apply to Mercury in Taurus, Capricorn, or Cancer...

Click to expand...

Here the Moon separates, but I think we can say that in this case Lilly's method works...at least for Lilly.

Did I do it right?

Nope. I knew Lilly used Regiomontanus and failed to correct...among other things.
Thanks much.

greybeard said:

Did I do it right?

Nope. I knew Lilly used Regiomontanus and failed to correct...among other things.
Thanks much.

Click to expand...

That's ok. I spent two hours this morning after I recast the chart analyzing it..only to realize that the chart I was looking at was for the Gregorian date of May 1st.

Historically, remember that prior to his involvement in astrology Lilly was very much involved in ceremonial magic, so much so that he (in some way) over did things and needed a rest of (I think it was) 2 years, in order to recover! It was during that recuperation period that Lilly began his serious investigations into the field of astrology (as seperate from "astrological magic", which was connected with ceremonial magic)
...of course my opinions regarding Lilly (Lilly's approach to astrology) put me at great odds with our Traditionalist friends, so I'll refrain from making any statements regarding what I think of Lilly's "determining the profession" technique...

tssmall --

I blew it. It was entirely carelessness. My head was elsewhere (out of delicacy, I won't say where...) I have made mistakes before, will make them again.

And I thank you.

Gee, Dr Farr.... Don't be so hard on the poor guy....RIP and all that. How about Noel Tyl's methods? I find it interesting to see the very strong emphasis on money in Lilly's chart, a feature of his personality that will certainly affect everything he does.

This chart offers a nice opportunity for a study of house systems. In Regiomontanus it includes two intercepted sign pairs. Many of the planets make dramatic changes of house position (whole sign to quadrant systems) and house rulerships.

Hello All,

Great discussion going on! I do want to remind everyone that modern techniques do not have a place on this forum and reference will be removed. Please feel free to start a new post else where in the forum to give modern information vs traditional.

Hi,

wintersprite1 said:

...I do want to remind everyone that modern techniques do not have a place on this forum and reference will be removed. Please feel free to start a new post else where in the forum to give modern information vs traditional.

Click to expand...

I believe the thread has only now been moved to the Traditional Astrology board from its prior Natal Astrology lodgings before certain postings were made!

So, on this traditional forum, the mention of Uranus and its peers Nep and Plu is banned?

AQ7

PS: Great thread, I agree.

aquarius7000 said:

Hi,
I believe the thread has only now been moved to the Traditional Astrology board from its prior Natal Astrology lodgings before certain postings were made!

So, on this traditional forum, the mention of Uranus and its peers Nep and Plu is banned?

AQ7

PS: Great thread, I agree.

Click to expand...

I just got back to AW after a difficult semester in school... it may have been moved, I am not sure. As for the modern approaches and planets, it becomes a slippery slope to include them in postings; this is why I am suggesting to create a new thread in another sub forum with possibly a link back to this one. Your information was great but not "traditional". If you are going to post else where and need, I can send you the information that was edited.

Hi,

Well, thank you for taking the time to respond.

wintersprite1 said:

I just got back to AW after a difficult semester in school... it may have been moved, I am not sure. As for the modern approaches and planets, it becomes a slippery slope to include them in postings; this is why I am suggesting to create a new thread in another sub forum with possibly a link back to this one. Your information was great but not "traditional". If you are going to post else where and need, I can send you the information that was edited.

Click to expand...

It could have been moved only in the last few hours. I posted only earlier today, a few hours back. When I had posted, the thread was NOT on the Traditional Astrology board. Hence I had adhered to the rules. I am afraid I hence feel the post has been wrongly edited, as the rules of posting only traditional did NOT apply when the partially untraditional post was posted. Thus incorrectly edited. I had specially checked the board to avoid any confusion, and was even happy that the post was not on the Trad- Astro board. However, it's okay, but the mods should really check the sequence.. before editing posts - which is a serious matter, as it takes a bit of time, thought and effort write a post, unlike a few seconds to edit it.

Have a good weekend Wintersprite et al
AQ7

Re: Judging Profession according to Lilly: Learning Astrology

aquarius7000 said:

Hi,
I believe the thread has only now been moved to the Traditional Astrology board from its prior Natal Astrology lodgings before certain postings were made!

So, on this traditional forum, the mention of Uranus and its peers Nep and Plu is banned?

AQ7

PS: Great thread, I agree.

Click to expand...

JMO Since the OP clearly indicates that this thread is intended as a discussion specifically of the methods of particular astrologer William Lilly and since contributors have now agreed, that because William Lilly used Regiomontanus then Regiomontanus houses are now to be utilised for the analysis of the topic and NOT Placidus

AND BECAUSE during William Lilly's time, when he was a practicing astrologer, the newly discovered outer planets were unknown – simply due to their being invisible to normal vision unaided by binoculars and powerful telescopes which had not yet been invented

THEN that's why the outer planets are understandably absent from William Lilly's copy of Ptolemy's table of Essential Dignity and Debility

Furthermore, William Lilly was aware of and had read Ptolemy. Ptolemy did not deliberately omit the outer planets from the table of Essential Dignity and Debility that he most helpfully prepared as an aid to swift delineation NO-ONE suspected the existence of Neptune or Pluto until TELESCOPES SUFFICIENTLY POWERFUL TO DETECT THEIR PRESENCE were invented and utilized. It wasn't until 1846 that the planet Neptune was found

table is sourced from: 'How to read Ptolemy's Table of Essential Dignities' at http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dig2.html

QUOTE:

'….Clyde Tombaugh, 23-year-old Kansan at the Lowell Observatory was given the task of systematically imaging the night sky in pairs of photographs taken two weeks apart, then examining each pair to determine whether any objects had shifted position.

Using a machine called a blink comparator, Tombaugh rapidly shifted back and forth between views of each of the plates to create the illusion of movement of any objects that had changed position or appearance between photographs.

On 18 February 1930, AFTER NEARLY A YEAR OF SEARCHING, Tombaugh discovered a possible moving object shown on photographic plates taken 23 January 1930 and 29 January 1930.....'


Wikipedia confirms that a lesser-quality photograph taken on January 21 helped confirm the movement. After the observatory obtained further confirmatory photographs, news of the discovery was telegraphed to the Harvard College Observatory on 13 March 1930 so since William Lilly was born in 1602 and then died in 1681 he could not have known of the existence of Pluto

THEN it's reasonable JMO that any newly discovered outer planets that were completely unknown to William Lilly and his contemporaries have no place within the parameters traditional astrology AS PRACTICED BY WILLIAM LILLY AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES.


In any event Pluto in particular is complicated by the factor that, its formal designation is 134340 because:

QUOTE:

'...Pluto, is the second-most-massive known dwarf planet in the Solar System (after Eris) and the tenth-most-massive body observed directly orbiting the Sun. Originally classified as the ninth planet from the Sun, Pluto was recategorized as a dwarf planet and plutoid owing to the discovery that it is only one of several large bodies within the Kuiper belt. Like other members of the Kuiper belt, Pluto is composed primarily of rock and ice and is relatively small, approximately one-sixth the mass of Earth's Moon and one-third its volume....'



'...From discovery in 1930 until 2006, Pluto was classified as a planet. Late 1970s, following discovery of minor planet 2060 Chiron and recognition of Pluto's relatively low mass, its status as a major planet began to be questioned.

LATE 20TH/EARLY 21ST CENTURIES, MANY OBJECTS SIMILAR TO PLUTO WERE DISCOVERED IN THE OUTER SOLAR SYSTEM, NOTABLY THE SCATTERED DISC OBJECT ERIS IN 2005, WHICH IS 27% MORE MASSIVE THAN PLUTO. August 24 August 2006 International Astronomical Union defined meaning of "planet" within the Solar System. Definition excluded Pluto as a planet – placing Pluto in new category "dwarf planet" along with Eris and Ceres.....'


After reclassification, Pluto was added to the list of minor planets and given the number 134340. SOME SCIENTISTS HOLD THAT PLUTO SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE CLASSIFIED AS A PLANET, AND THAT OTHER DWARF PLANETS SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE ROSTER OF PLANETS ALONG WITH PLUTO. Source of quotes: Wikipedia

To be fair to William Lilly and his Traditional astrologer contemporaries we cannot simply totally de-stabilise their working system by cramming newly discovered planets into Ptolemy's table of Essential Dignities and Debilities

Re: Judging Profession according to Lilly: Learning Astrology

Hi,

JupiterAsc, well, thank you for the in-depth post as to the discovery of the outer planets, which is actually quite clear in my mind. That said, the point I was trying to make, only a bit more subtely was that - at the time the OP'er and I, both signed off our first few posts, which also includes my mod-edited post, this thread was NOT on the Trad Astro board. It was only moved later to the the board it is on now. Hence, per se, absolutely NO rule can prohibit a member from making mention of the planets Mr Lilly and co. did or did not use! I am not sure the traditionalists argued this much, neither would I have, had my post not been edited after the effort I put in, and as it broke NO traditional rule.

AQ7

PS: I did enjoy your post on the outers. Though it gets a little untraditional, too, and does not delineate professions using Lilly's methods even in the least, yet it cost you time and effort. That should be considered important enough on this forum. It often is, not always, though. Sorry, Greybeard. I will try to keep away now.

Re: Judging Profession according to Lilly: Learning Astrology

aquarius7000 said:

Hi,

JupiterAsc, well, thank you for the in-depth post as to the discovery of the outer planets, which is actually quite clear in my mind. That said, the point I was trying to make, only a bit more subtely was that - at the time the OP'er and I, both signed off our first few posts, which also includes my mod-edited post, this thread was NOT on the Trad Astro board. It was only moved later to the the board it is on now. Hence, per se, absolutely NO rule can prohibit a member from making mention of the planets Mr Lilly and co. did or did not use! I am not sure the traditionalists argued this much, neither would I have, had my post not been edited after the effort I put in, and as it broke NO traditional rule.

AQ7

PS: I did enjoy your post on the outers. Though it gets a little untraditional, too, and does not delineate professions using Lilly's methods even in the least, yet it cost you time and effort. That should be considered important enough on this forum. It often is, not always, though. Sorry, Greybeard. I will try to keep away now.

Click to expand...

Thanks AQ7
JMO perhaps the OP inadvertently posted a topic concerning William Lilly, who is clearly a traditional astrologer, on a forum other than the traditional forum - a moderator then must have moved it to the correct forum and it's not unusual for mods to shift the location of threads for one reason or another

Re: Judging Profession according to Lilly: Learning Astrology

Seems to me that if the moderators move a thread, the postings already on that thread should be "grandfathered in." That way the thread remains intact.

William Lilly and his predecessors are not the exclusve property of hidebound traditionalists.

Like Aquarius7000, like tssmall, like most of us, our postings cost us an investment of time and thought. Now, the thread having been moved and apparently edited, I have no idea what thoughts of mine and of others have suddenly evaporated. We are expected to discover what has been removed, then rewrite and re-post these things -- on the whim of a moderator?

Why, that is akin to poor Pluto being thrown out of the Royal Order of Planets, to be stripped naked, shorn, and have a number tattooed on his wrist.

Do we want to attract and hold good astrologers here? Do we want to attract and hold students new to astrology and provide them with a foundation for a solid and responsible practice of astrology? We won't accomplish that by arbitrarily discarding the work and thoughts of our contributors.