Useful website to interpret Horary!

tarot_quest

Hi guys,

I am very new to Horary, but know a bit about astrology. I just came across this website, which is excellent, I think. There are extensive description about tricky aspect/placement.

http://www.navarroastrology.com/articles/article?article_id=3

(just look up to the end of the page).

For example, the author explains what happens if a planet is dignified by house but not by sign (i.e. for example Venus is dignified in the 7th house (she feels comfortable there), but if this house is ruled by Aires she will feel uncomfortable (i.e. in detriment). This situation illustrates that the answer is not always clear cut (also when isolating aspects).

This is only one example, but other topic are discussed as well!

So interesting information if you want to gain more perspective :)
 

Minderwiz

I had a quick survey of the site and I have serious doubts about it. Firstly the author claims that Venus cannot be peregrine in an air sign or in an earth sign because Venus rules An air sign and an Earth sign. That conclusion isn't true and shows a misunderstanding of Triplicity Rulership.

Venus is a member of two Triplicities, Earth and Water (because it's a nocturnal planet, not a diurnal one). So Venus can be Peregrine in Gemini and in Aquarius. If you strictly adhere to the Triplicity rulerships by Day and by night, Venus can be Peregrine even in Capricorn and Virgo, if it's a nocturnal chart (Moon rules by night) and it can be Peregrine in Scorpio and in Cancer in a night chart (Mars rules by night). These rulerships were laid down 2,000 years ago, the only real variant is Ptolemy's which has Mars ruling Water by both Day and Night.

Secondly the author uses both Traditional and Modern rulerships at the same time. Horary is an ancient technique born in the early ninth century, though it has some roots in the fifth. It was at its height in the seventeenth Century with William Lilly. Trying to impose the outers into a rulership scheme creates real problems because these have no essential dignities at all and cannot be properly evaluated. They have problems too with accidental dignities because they are excessively slow. The traditional rulership system is just that, systematic and it has good theoretical foundations. The modern rulerships do not have any underlying rationale and no theoretical basis. They are very much ad hoc and started to assign rulerships at Aquarius, with the perceived need to add in Uranus, then from the same perception added in Neptune to Pisces but instead of carrying on and adding Pluto as ruler of Aries, they assigned in to Scorpio. What they failed to take into account was that Mars is a nocturnal planet. Scorpio is its main house, (not Aries, which is a diurnal sign) and ignored Ptolemy's injunction that Mars was best in Scorpio because it cooled the planet down and mediated its impact.

No serious Astrologer uses them and the Qualified Horary Practioner course QHP would be horrified at their use. Every significant Horary Astrologer of the present and recent past; Barclay; Houlding; Dunn, Lehman, Frawley, Appleby keep to the traditional rulers. whilst it is arguably possible to include the outers et al in a horary reading, simply as planets. I don't think there's any clear gain from doing that.

There are one or two other claims I found that I didn't go along with. Claims that intercepted signs show interference. I've never come across that claim in any author before. Indeed the usual view would be that the ruler of the intercepted sign is also a ruler of the house, as long as it aspects the house. Lilly specifically says in discussing whether the client will be rich, If Pisces is rising and the Moon is joined to Jupiter in Pisces, the client will be rich. In another example if Aquarius is rising and Pisces is intercepted in the first. If the Moon is conjunct Jupiter in Pisces, the client will still be rich.

Treat this site with caution.
 

Astraea

Gilbert Navarro was a student of the late Ivy Goldstein-Jacobson, who did a great deal to popularize horary astrology in the 60s and 70s - but her methods were highly idiosyncratic (to say the least). Raymond teaches Ivy's approach to horary. I actually took his course about 20 years ago, and while he was a very diligent and responsive tutor, I couldn't get on with the methods he espoused - progressing the horary chart, mixing modern and traditional rulerships, use of minor aspects, on and on. He and the late Olivia Barclay used to get into some lively debates, as you can imagine.
 

tarot_quest

Ok I see. I found that the content was clear, well written and that good arguments were proposed. I am very new to Horary, so it is wise that more experienced astrologers in that department tell their opinion about it

I will then take this website ''rules'' with a pinch of salt and compare it to other available information from other sources.
 

Minderwiz

You are right, in that it is clear and well written but Astrologically it contains contentious material. Horoscopic Astrology dates back to the first century BCE, or earlier and the earliest text was written by an author claiming to be Hermes Trismegistus. The Triplicity or Trigon's and their rulers were established at the beginning. The only serious challenge came from Ptolemy in the second century CE and that was largely ineffective untill Lilly aborted it in the Seventeenth century. It holds from the way Astrology was set up, playing around with the fundamentals is not a good method, unless you can show very strong reasons that have a sound theoretical basis. Often what we get is personal onions with no basis. That's why Western Astrology is so fractured compared with its cousin, Vedic Astrology.
 

Barleywine

When I first started with horary a few years ago, I encountered the idea of keeping the outer planets as Minderwiz says, not as rulers but just as additional information. In practice, though, I've found that they have never added any value to my interpretation, so I stopped. I still let them show up in my computer-generated horary charts (I'm too lazy to tweak the settings for every chart I do), but give them no attention unless something remarkable jumps out at me. Even for psychological astrology, which I seldom do any more, they've lost their luster since I recognize just how arbitrary some of the general attributions are, even setting aside putative rulerships. Traditional temperament fills the void nicely. I will say that I have astrologer friends who fiercely defend them as vital, but I just figure they're stuck in the '70s. Even Rob Hand, who once said at a lecture "There's absolutely nothing superficial about Pluto" has now changed his tune.
 

Astraea

Rob Hand does use the outer planets, and even Chiron (which will be included in his forthcoming revised book on transits) - but never as rulers. He has famously said that he's a traditionalist, but not an antiquarian.
 

Barleywine

Rob Hand does use the outer planets, and even Chiron (which will be included in his forthcoming revised book on transits) - but never as rulers. He has famously said that he's a traditionalist, but not an antiquarian.

Rob used to occasionally come to our astrological society meetings in Connecticut when he was just starting out on Cape Cod, but I've lost track of him other then knowing he turned toward the tradition. Thanks for the update.
 

Astraea

Rob used to occasionally come to our astrological society meetings in Connecticut when he was just starting out on Cape Cod, but I've lost track of him other then knowing he turned toward the tradition. Thanks for the update.
How fortunate you were! He's a brilliant guy.

I am looking forward to the revision of Hand's transit book, but what I really wish he'd do is the long-promised book on dignities.
 

Astraea

Referring to Gilbert Navarro's website - indeed, it is well written and he really does believe and practice what he preaches. He was popular on the lecture circuit in the 90s, but one doesn't hear much from him these days. His course was more affordable than others that were just coming onto the scene back in the day (Olivia Barclay's, especially), which is why I took it. Students would mail him their interpretations of charts from his case files, and he would mail back their analyses with his handwritten comments in the margins. He used the outer planets extensively as rulers, and (like his mentor, Ivy Goldstein-Jacobson) he viewed the quincunx as a major aspect. He had worked out elaborate timing methods, and ran secondary progressions on horary charts. Naturally, the example charts in the course had known outcomes, so the case for those methods looked persuasive.

I think Gilbert Navarro is a person of integrity, and he has long experience in the field. Very often, people get correct results by sticking with one method exclusively, and working that method. Perhaps intuition is honed in this manner, so that the method seems to supply its own rationale.

For me, the overarching value of traditional horary techniques is that they are time-tested, unambiguous and extraordinarily reliable - our skills can be deficient, but if we keep reexamining charts we got wrong, traditional rules will eventually show us (in a most objective fashion) where our interpretatons went off the rails. Lilly rules! :)