INTERESTING TO ASTROLOGERS
ASTROLOGICAL NOTES — No. I – by Nemo (?Francisco Montoliu)
To the Editor of LUCIFER.
WE are told that, before judging a horary figure, we must ascertain if it is radical, and to decide this point several rules have been given. The first is with regard to the number of degrees on the cusp of the ascendant. Lilly says a figure is rarely radical if the first two or last three degrees of a sign ascend. Morrison fixes the limit at the first or second and last two degrees. Pearse gives the limit as the first and last five degrees, and Raphael as the first and last three.
All the laws of nature are harmonious and rational; but in the rule of the first two authorities, this harmony seems absent. Why should the limit be I or 2 degrees at the beginning of the sign and 2 or 3 at the end ?
Again, as an exception to the above rule, Lilly says that a figure may be radical even when 27◦ or more ascend, if the number corresponds to his age; and when I◦ or 2◦ ascend, if the querent be very young, and his appearance agrees with the quality of the signs ascending. And here again there is the same want of harmony. Why should the age of the querent have to correspond accurately in one case and only approximately in the other ? Furthermore, no astrologers seem to have given a logical explanation of these rules.
On reflecting on this problem I reasoned thus. In ♍ 29◦ 59′ 59”♃ is absolutely without dignity; in ♐ o◦ o’ I” he is in his house triplicity, and ‘terms, a threefold dignity. Is it conceivable that this great change of power should be so sudden, as to be accomplished in less than 2 seconds of space ? Analogy shows that it is probably otherwise, and that as the planets and cusps of houses have orbs of influence, so also have the signs.
If this be true, it supplies the key to the above problem. If only the first or last few degrees of a sign ascend, then the cusp of the ascendant is within the orbs of the adjacent signs, and the house is not ruled solely by the planet which is its proper lord, but also partly by the planet ruling the adjacent sign; and this must hold good under all circumstances, even when the number of the degrees ascending agree with the age of the querent, or the ascending sign and planets therein describe him.
Furthermore, if this be admitted, it also follows, as a logical conclusion, that if the first and last few degrees of a sign are on the cusp of any house, no conclusion can be drawn with certainty from the aspects of the lord of that house.
The exact limits of the orbs of the signs must be decided by experience; I am induced to fix the limits at 2◦ 30′ and 27◦ 30’.
To the Editor of Lucifer
The belief in the power and efficacy of talismans and amulets was, at one period of the world’s history, universal. Even during the XVth century, the latest among the innumerable revivals of civilisation, the majority of learned and cultured men had a profound conviction of their reality. But such ideas are now scouted by popular opinion, because the philosophy underlying them is not understood. LUCIFER, therefore, would certainly confer a boon on many by throwing light on the following points: —
(I). Wherein does the power of a talisman lie? (2). How far does its efficacy depend on the signs traced upon it, and how far on the power and knowledge of the maker ? (3). Granting that will-power and knowledge are the main factors in imparting to the talisman its power, how does that power remain attached to it after the death of the man who made it. [Page 77]