Horary Readings Round 7 - Questions

[Ronia]

Well Lilly uses it in chapter 49 Book II but he's a bit imprecise. he assigns the additional significators (Venus for her, Sun for him) He explicitly says that for a woman querent the significators are the Ascendant and his Lord, the Moon and Venus and says that the querent has three significators and the party desired has three significators and lists five possible ways the matter might perfect.

1. Ascendant ruler or the Moon is in the seventh

2. The planet the Moon separates from applies to the same planet the Moon applies to

3. the Sun and Venus apply to each other

4 Lord 1 in the seventh or Lord 7 in the first

5 Any translation of light between the significators.

Yes, sure I know about the secondary significators in marriage questions and it's not only Lilly who uses them, Bonatti ane Masha'allah both mention them although it was something about someone who left the other and such questions but still, they used them. I meant such double translation of light, sort of. Not from first significator to first but through first and second to first and second.

Lilly previously refers to 'Alkindus' (Al-Kindi) and gives some aphorisms, of which the first is Lord 1 applying to Lord 7 (or vice versa) and the second is 'if the Moon doth apply to Venus and she is strong, increasing in her motion and in some of her of her own dignities, and the Moon likewise, the marriage shall be concluded

Now in this case we might not need anything more. Venus is in her own triplicity, terms and face and she is direct, swift and in a good house. The Moon is in her own exaltation and in a mutual reception with Venus by domicile. She is swift and in a good house. Her only defect is that she is waning. So is that enough to end the matter. I would not have thought so but it does cast a doubt. But on Al-Kindi's argument the answer should be that they will very probably get married (the Moon waning counts only -2 in the Medieval scheme). But remember Chanah's experiences with a New Moon or near New Moon.

I cannot consider this as a New Moon even by most generous allowance of orbit. She is not even within orbit of application, after all. If we consider this a New Moon, then we'll be free to consider any two planets out of orbit to be in an aspect. What is the point of having orbits then? Just asking, for the principle. Otherwise we all know about New Moon in horary but no, this is far beyond orbit for me. Al-Kindi I haven't read and I don't recall this in Lilly's text, shame!

I will argue again that the Moon may be waning but it is exalted! We cannot ignore it.

My view is that there's no way you can say the answer is 'No' with these testimonies. But I don't think you can guarantee a 'Yes' or give an unequivocal 'Yes'. Highly likely but not completely cast iron, seems to be the conclusion.

At least that's better than your initial judgement, so we've shifted things around.

No, I don't think I can say "no" and more importantly, I learned something new which is very exciring and I have this interesting chart which I look forward to to see how it will play out! This is all good news to me. I rarely get really interesting charts, so I like it when they show something I learn now. Last one I remember was a collection of light, I have to go back in the thread to see if can leave some feedback on it.

Thank you for all the help, Minderwiz! We'll see if this whole configuration will take me to a wedding.

 

[Minderwiz]

I cannot consider this as a New Moon even by most generous allowance of orbit. She is not even within orbit of application, after all. If we consider this a New Moon, then we'll be free to consider any two planets out of orbit to be in an aspect. What is the point of having orbits then? Just asking, for the principle.

Orbs are an indication of a planets' strength or perhaps influence might be a better word in relation to one or more others. The problem with them is that there's no agreed definitions in terms of degree. You can run from the Hellenistic notion that a sign relationship equals influence up to the Hellenistic notion that 3 degrees is the limit (two different situations here but it shows possible extremes). So is the Moon in orb? She is in the same sign as the Sun but (and I think this is the crucial piece of information) she is not within a days's travel of the Sun. The Hellenistic Astrologers gave the Moon an orb of influence of 13 degrees, its average daily motion and I think that's a reasonable test of Moon's influence. If you use semi-moieties then the 'orb' would be around 12 degrees, still well inside the difference in their zodiacal longitude. So like you, I would not treat this as a New Moon. It is a waning moon and as such it needs to be downgraded a bit but again like you, I would treat the mutual reception and application as extremely important.

Al-Kindi I haven't read and I don't recall this in Lilly's text, shame!

Chapter XLIX p303 (original numbering) It's only a paragraph but you can't miss it. There's a dirty great big heading, entitled Aphorisims of ALKINDUS Touching MARRIAGE (his capitals).

Towards the end of the paragraph Al-Kindi does say that '

if the one or other of the significators that 'doth apply' are cadent from the angles, especially if their lords do not behold them, it signifies that there shall be good hopes at first but by dallying and tracting the time there shall be trouble and no marriage.'

Now the Moon is in the ninth house which is taken as cadent but it's Lady does 'behold' it. Moreover, there are variations on the meaning of cadent in early Astrology, it could be used to describe a planet which did not aspect the Ascendant and the ninth does. So exactly what Al-Kindi means by cadent in this particular quote I'm not absolutely sure. My feeling is that even if he's treating the ninth as cadent, the mutual reception would overcome the cadency of the Moon.

 

[Ronia]

Orbs are an indication of a planets' strength or perhaps influence might be a better word in relation to one or more others. The problem with them is that there's no agreed definitions in terms of degree. You can run from the Hellenistic notion that a sign relationship equals influence up to the Hellenistic notion that 3 degrees is the limit (two different situations here but it shows possible extremes). So is the Moon in orb? She is in the same sign as the Sun but (and I think this is the crucial piece of information) she is not within a days's travel of the Sun.

We may not have one universally accepted definition of an orb but we do have more or less generous guidelines from which we can choose. Even by the most generous one, this Moon is not even applying for a conjunction with the Sun. Now, I do consider the fact that some of the ancients took same sign as conjunction but I wouldn't take this in horary. In natal or synastry... could be but just like a side note, an additional fact to keep in mind, a hint for an understanding between the planets or lack of such, I haven't really seen it bringing anything physical, to be honest.

My point is that if we ignore one orbit requirement or guideline and treat this as a conjunction, then I can freely say that Mercury and Jupiter are in sextile and that's it, end of the whole story. We either oblige some rules or completely ignore them but in both cases it should be the same for every planet in the chart. I choose to oblige and, knowing that New Moon was coming, I checked if she is applying, in my opinion she is clearly not.

Astrologers gave the Moon an orb of influence of 13 degrees, its average daily motion and I think that's a reasonable test of Moon's influence. If you use semi-moieties then the 'orb' would be around 12 degrees, still well inside the difference in their zodiacal longitude. So like you, I would not treat this as a New Moon. It is a waning moon and as such it needs to be downgraded a bit but again like you, I would treat the mutual reception and application as extremely important.

I do use semi-moieties in horaries but with the Moon and Sun I tend to be very generous, especially when a lunation is coming, just to make sure I don't miss an application. However, I do not truly believe in a 15 degrees area of influence. Not even in 12 degrees one, to be honest. But I do consider much wider orbit for the luminaries, to be on the safe side.

You mention the mutual reception and application but I continue to think that first and foremost we should take into consideration that this Moon is exalted and therefore, essentially dignified. Am I wrong and why no one mentioning it?

Chapter XLIX p303 (original numbering) It's only a paragraph but you can't miss it. There's a dirty great big heading, entitled Aphorisims of ALKINDUS Touching MARRIAGE (his capitals).

Towards the end of the paragraph Al-Kindi does say that '

if the one or other of the significators that 'doth apply' are cadent from the angles, especially if their lords do not behold them, it signifies that there shall be good hopes at first but by dallying and tracting the time there shall be trouble and no marriage.'

Thank you for that. I'll re-read it about five times as usual with those guys and hopefully get it right. LOL

Now the Moon is in the ninth house which is taken as cadent but it's Lady does 'behold' it. Moreover, there are variations on the meaning of cadent in early Astrology, it could be used to describe a planet which did not aspect the Ascendant and the ninth does. So exactly what Al-Kindi means by cadent in this particular quote I'm not absolutely sure. My feeling is that even if he's treating the ninth as cadent, the mutual reception would overcome the cadency of the Moon.

I'm failing to see how the fact that Venus beholds her (aspects her, I guess) is a negative omen, considering Venus is a benefic, a natural significator of marriage (I always take into account the natural significators in horaries), in the Moon's domicile, and the aspect is sextile, Venusian, on top of that.

From my point of view, the fly in the ointment in this chart is more the double translation of light, which I've never seen at work, therefore I'm very very curious and the insecurity if the Moon to Venus will bring anything, but even more so - the fact that time frame was not defined. It was an impulsive question, a strong momental reaction to a issue that concerns and excites the querent but there was no time frame involved. If nothing happens till the end of this year, I'll ask again.

 

[Minderwiz]

We may not have one universally accepted definition of an orb but we do have more or less generous guidelines from which we can choose. Even by the most generous one, this Moon is not even applying for a conjunction with the Sun. Now, I do consider the fact that some of the ancients took same sign as conjunction but I wouldn't take this in horary. In natal or synastry... could be but just like a side note, an additional fact to keep in mind, a hint for an understanding between the planets or lack of such, I haven't really seen it bringing anything physical, to be honest.

My point is that if we ignore one orbit requirement or guideline and treat this as a conjunction, then I can freely say that Mercury and Jupiter are in sextile and that's it, end of the whole story. We either oblige some rules or completely ignore them but in both cases it should be the same for every planet in the chart. I choose to oblige and, knowing that New Moon was coming, I checked if she is applying, in my opinion she is clearly not.

I didn't disagree with that LOL In fact I explicitly said that this was not a New Moon, which requires her to be under the beams merely to start the process and then travel 15-17 degrees to the conjunction. She has not entered the beams, so she can't be a New Moon. She's an Old Moon LOL (actually she's a Balsamic Moon)

You mention the mutual reception and application but I continue to think that first and foremost we should take into consideration that this Moon is exalted and therefore, essentially dignified. Am I wrong and why no one mentioning it?

I did in post #629 and again in #636 and in the latter, used that to show that she met Al-Kindi's requirements. If she hadn't then there would be significant doubt over the marriage. So the exaltation is important.

I'm failing to see how the fact that Venus beholds her (aspects her, I guess) is a negative omen, considering Venus is a benefic, a natural significator of marriage (I always take into account the natural significators in horaries), in the Moon's domicile, and the aspect is sextile, Venusian, on top of that.

That's because Al-Kindi said the complete opposite.

'f the one or other of the significators that 'doth apply' are cadent from the angles, especially if their lords do not behold them, it signifies that there shall be good hopes at first but by dallying and tracting the time there shall be trouble and no marriage.'

Yes behold means to aspect especially an applying aspect. Al-Kindi's point, though is that cadency weakens the application, especially if there's no aspect (and one by sign will do) between the cadent planet and it's Lord. In this case the Moon is aspected by Venus her Lady, Moreover, I'm not certain that Al-Kindi means 'cadent' in the usual way in this sentence but even if he does, the ninth is not a bad place. Given the Moon's mutual reception (which is the important point in this specific issue because it shows that Venus beholds her) I would discount the cadency here.

From my point of view, the fly in the ointment in this chart is more the double translation of light, which I've never seen at work, therefore I'm very very curious and the insecurity if the Moon to Venus will bring anything, but even more so - the fact that time frame was not defined. It was an impulsive question, a strong momental reaction to a issue that concerns and excites the querent but there was no time frame involved. If nothing happens till the end of this year, I'll ask again.

A double translation of light is dubious though intresting. However Lilly says all that needs to happen is a translation of light between 'significators'. The Moon translates the light from Venus (her) to Jupiter (him). That fulfils his requirement as he does not specify which combination of the three significators on each side have to be involved. By implication merely one of his and one of hers will do. That the Moon then goes on to aspect a second of his significators might be said to underline the point, but the translation has already occured when the Moon aspected Jupiter.

 

[MandMaud]

So the key concern is whether he will pass and of secondary importance, how he will cope with the process because finding the process easy is not necessarily a good indication of success and indeed finding the process difficult doesn't necessarily indicate failure.

Yes, that's it. He is very capable, and taking it seriously - and so far, confident that he's done ok in the first two papers. I can't tell if he's over-confident in this, or if it's maybe wishful thinking. I'm also interested in his mood leading up to results day, whether he'll be very tense - but results are definitely the primary thing.

 

[Minderwiz]

Outstanding Readings

Time for a check on the list, which has grown over the last week.

The outstanding readings are:

Ethereal

Lilkei

Ziev

LittleOne

MandMaud


I'll try and clear those over the next few days but I'm entering a busy period in life, so they may drift on a little. In the meantime I won't take any further readings to add to the list.

 

[MandMaud]

Time for a check on the list, which has grown over the last week.

The outstanding readings are:

Ethereal

Lilkei

Ziev

LittleOne

MandMaud


I'll try and clear those over the next few days but I'm entering a busy period in life, so they may drift on a little. In the meantime I won't take any further readings to add to the list.

No hurry! Thanks for the update.

 

[Ronia]

I didn't disagree with that LOL In fact I explicitly said that this was not a New Moon, which requires her to be under the beams merely to start the process and then travel 15-17 degrees to the conjunction. She has not entered the beams, so she can't be a New Moon. She's an Old Moon LOL (actually she's a Balsamic Moon) {/QUOTE]

Yes, I just wanted to explain myself better.

I did in post #629 and again in #636 and in the latter, used that to show that she met Al-Kindi's requirements. If she hadn't then there would be significant doubt over the marriage. So the exaltation is important.

I know you did there. I meant no one mentioned the exaltation as at least balancing the waning once the New Moon discussion started.

That's because Al-Kindi said the complete opposite.

LOL

Yes behold means to aspect especially an applying aspect. Al-Kindi's point, though is that cadency weakens the application, especially if there's no aspect (and one by sign will do) between the cadent planet and it's Lord. In this case the Moon is aspected by Venus her Lady, Moreover, I'm not certain that Al-Kindi means 'cadent' in the usual way in this sentence but even if he does, the ninth is not a bad place. Given the Moon's mutual reception (which is the important point in this specific issue because it shows that Venus beholds her) I would discount the cadency here.

Thank you, I get it now.

A double translation of light is dubious though intresting. However Lilly says all that needs to happen is a translation of light between 'significators'. The Moon translates the light from Venus (her) to Jupiter (him). That fulfils his requirement as he does not specify which combination of the three significators on each side have to be involved. By implication merely one of his and one of hers will do. That the Moon then goes on to aspect a second of his significators might be said to underline the point, but the translation has already occured when the Moon aspected Jupiter.

I agree it's interesting. Very, to me. With Lilli I'm used to take Venus and Sun and aspects *between them* but hadn't considered that they can still count if signicator 1 of the querent is somehow connecte dto significator 2 of the quesited. However, after I re-read some of the others, I found out that they mention Venus as secondary for the woman and the Sun as secondary for the man without necessarily specifying they must aspect each other only. i guess we'll ahve to wait and see. I'm very curious how this chart will play out.

 

[thrasheddoll]

reconciliation?

So I have been seeing a man for a couple of months but we have been friends for about 3 years.. Recently we had a fight which to me seemed totally unreasonable and he says he never wants to talk to me again.. He seems to like fighting but he's never actually cut me off like this.. He is a cancer sun, Scorpio moon, Leo ascendant and I am a Taurus sun Taurus moon Leo ascendant.. I am interested to know if we will reconcile, how long it'll take and if possible how it will play out.. I have pulled some tarot cards to get some clarity (thoth deck) and got love (2 of cups) in the past which explains it for itself, valour (7 of wands) as present clarified by the lovers which means I'm fighting to maintain the connection and ace of cups clarified by success (6 of pentacles) which I hope means a successful second chance.. How do u see the situation? I'm curious if my impressions match up with urs

 

[Minderwiz]

MandMaud Horary - first attempt

I tried to read for MandMaud today but the chart had a Void of Course Moon. I'll try again tomorrow.