Thread: Horary DIY
View Single Post
Minderwiz's Avatar
Minderwiz  Minderwiz is offline
Student of Astrology
Join Date: 20 Apr 2002
Location: Wigan, UK
Posts: 7,888

I*n my previous post I was going off memory of what Lilly said about squares and oppositions rather than reaching across to the bookshelf and quoting him. As so often memory is not perfect so I'll do what I should have done late last night

ASPECTS OF (SQUARE) AND (OPPOSITION) Things are produced to perfection, when the significators apply by square Aspect provided each planet have dignity in the degree wherein they are, and apply out of proper and good houses, otherwise not. Sometimes it happens, that a matter is brought to pass when the significators have applied by opposition but it hath been when there hath been mutual reception by house and out of friendly houses and the moon separating from the significator of the thing demanded and applying presently to the Lord of the Ascendant (that is there is also translation of light by the Moon) I have rarely seen anything brought to perfection by this way of opposition but the Querent had been better the thing being undone; for if the question was concerning marriage the parties seldom agreed but were ever wrangling, each party repining at his evil choice, laying the blame upon their covetous parents, as having no mind to it themselves: and if the question was about portion or monies, the Querent did it true, recover his money or portion promised but it cost him more to procure it in suit of law, than the debt was worth, etc. and so have I seen it in happen in many other things, etc

Now that implies that:

square can work providing that the significators have dignity (and whilst he doesn't specifically say what dignity, I would think he means a t least Terms and probably ruler, exaltation or triplicity only. And the significators must be well placed - angular or possibly succeedent houses.

Oppositions may work but only if there is mutual reception and translation of light by the Moon. Now it's not perfectly clear whether the remainder of his paragraph is about perfection through these conditions, i.e. simple oppositions don't work. Or whether the remainder of his paragraph is about simple oppostions and the aforesaid case with mutual receptions is OK. However if he did mean to discriminate between 'favourable' and 'unfavourable' oppositions I'm at something of a loss as to why 'unfavourable' squares don't work but 'unfavourable' oppositions do work (though you wish they hadn't).

So my brief summary wasn't exact enough and Astraea's comment is more in line with what Lilly seems to have meant. I did however remember that Lilly sees translation of light working for oppositions, so if he has this as a requirement of perfection by opposition (along with mutual reception) I suppose I can claim that i was nearly right in attributing views to him.

Personally, I think I'd apply Lilly's full test of mutual reception plus translation before I'd be predicting a perfection of the matter and that would include getting what seems to be the right outcome but regretting it at length later. Going on my gut feeling, without those conditions, things won't work out. .

For squares I'd go with Lilly and say it needs the dignities to work out but there will be difficulties, delays or obstructions in the process. Without the dignities and good house placement, then it's unlikely to or we're in the situation of getting what we wanted and then wishing we hadn't.

But, as Astraea says much of interpretation is down to the individual Astrologer and indeed how the individual Astrologer sees the chart (as we don't view the aspect alone.) Lilly (and Astraea) have done far more Horaries than me, so I'm not going to disagree with either of them. All I can say is that in my limited (and it is limited) experience with horary, I haven't come across an outcome perfected as desired by opposition - hence my comment about it being a negative indicator.
Top   #109