Do Primary Significators or Moon take priority?

1
This question was raised by a "future of a relationship" chart that I'm looking at. (October 5, 2005, 11:19 am, New York City).

The primary significators in this chart are Jupiter (querent) in Libra and Mercury (quesitted) in Libra. Mercury is immediately moving into conjunction with Jupiter, I think they're both comfortable in the 11th, all well and good.

But the Moon's aspects are horrible!!! Moving, in this order, into a square with Saturn, a square with Neptune, an opposition to Mars...but finally...a conjunction with Venus, dispositor of the two primary significators.

How would you guys judge this chart? What would you tell the querent? That it's gonna happen, but it'll be horrific at first? Is the Moon a significator of the querent only, so that the relationship will work but cause great suffering for the querent only?

There are two questions raised. One is: When the aspects of the primary significators totally contradicts the Moon's aspects, how does one synthesize those contradictions and make a judgement?

The second is: How far along do you look at the course of movement in a chart? In other words, how does one interpret the Moon's journey in this chart? Is there a point in even looking as far as the benefic conjunction with Venus? Or does it come so late and after so many nasty contacts that it's powerless?

Once again, all feedback greatly appreciated.

PL

2
There should be a way to bring the contradictions together into a sensible judgment. It is possible that the conjunction in the 11th house shows a basic friendship but that the influences affecting the relationship will destroy the potential of it. The first thing I would want to explore to make sense of this is why the Moon is located on the 12th house cusp.

In terms of how far to read the Moon?s movements, I tend not to go beyond those that are already in orb. I?m not really interested in the Moon?s final aspect before leaving its current sign, at least not when it is widely separated like this one is. I think the Moon?s first aspects after the chart are much more revealing than its last.

3
Thanks for your response, Deb.

Yes, it was actually you, either on this forum or somewhere else, that gave me the idea of not looking too far to the moon's movement, though you see things like "judge all aspects" or "final aspect indicates outcome" all the time. Do you think that's a modern perspective? What did the classical writers (Lilly, Bonatus) have to say about looking so far ahead into a chart?

So, generally you would judge this chart as giving a "No" answer, correct? Despite primary signifcators conjunction? Would you be able to say something more about the 12th House point you made in your reply? Why would it be so important to figure that out?

Thanks again,
PL

4
As a student I was also taught to consider all the Moon?s aspects throughout its sign, and this was on the QHP course which was teaching Lilly?s methods. It wasn?t until Sue Ward and Maurice McCann actually researched this quite closely that we began to realise this wasn?t how Lilly and his contemporaries were working. But I still carried on working as I had been taught because so many authors were insisting that the Moon?s aspects were valid while ever it remained in the same sign. It was only after many years of demonstrating a huge number of charts that I realised how the judgement resolved itself with the Moon?s aspects that were actually in orb. Those outside of this didn?t seem to have any real bearing upon what happened and were more or less redundant in my judgement.

If you look at the chart forms of Lilly and his contemporaries they only mention the separating and applying aspects that are most significant. They don?t chase the Moon right through the sign as we?re led to believe. On the other hand, Lilly nearly always considers the Moon?s most recent and next aspect ? even if he has to take the Moon well back into the previous sign to find its last aspect, and into the next sign to find its next aspect.

I wouldn?t presume to have the answer to your chart and I don?t have time to give it careful consideration I?m afraid. All I would say is that even though charts often seem contradictory at first, the answer is there. I?ve never seen the Moon on the 12th house cusp without good reason. Could there be a clandestine element to this relationship? What?s the secret? With the Moon applying to the square of Saturn (let alone the square of Neptune and opposition of Mars) sadly, I don?t see much prospect of a happy and fulfilling relationship.

Deb

5
Deb,

If I may grab you from whatever you are doing?does this mean that you also wouldn?t look at the last aspect of the Moon in an electional chart? The Moon?s last aspect is a major point of the Hampar electional book which you reviewed (she says it over and over again). In another thread a couple months ago MarkF questioned the validity of the importance of the last aspect of the Moon in its current sign in electional work and it sure looks like you are inclined to view it in the same way.

Knock three times for yes, twice for no. Don?t bother knocking if you are busy.

Kirk

6
I don?t think I saw Mark?s post on that but yes I?d take the same approach. In electional astrology we get to pick the chart that we wish we had for the horary - so I don?t see why there should be any difference in the techniques we use between the two. Of course it all depends: if the Moon?s last aspect is not beyond its reach and is clearly significant then of course I would consider that as being as far as we can go with the chart, but the more widely separated it is, and the more aspects the Moon has to pass through to get to it, the less inclined I would be to attach importance to it.

Remember that the Moon is an important general co-significator in every chart, and shows the ?action? because of the way it transmits the influences (or carries the virtues) of the planets. We look at its most recent aspect to show what has happened in the past, and its future aspect to show what is coming into focus. I think you get the most reliable judgments by looking at what?s in focus. Certainly in my charts (and I wasn?t looking for this but I couldn?t help noticing it), it hasn?t been necessary to look beyond the first one or two aspects that the Moon makes to see what was happening, why and how it all ended up.

I?m aware this goes against the grain of popular opinion. I think Ivy Goldstein Jacobson popularised the modern idea that you consider all the Moon?s aspects in sequence until it leaves its sign. That leaves no room for issues such as intervention or prohibition. I suggest you remain open minded and look at how it actually works out in charts and events. You also find the popular notion that the 4th house, as the end of the matter, shows the resolution of all charts ? but of course that?s a gross simplification that horary authors still perpetuate because of the way it is taken up without question. It?s become part of our modern horary lore, but unless it's applied in context and with reason how useful it is really, in practice?

Deb

PS ? Sorry if I seem a bit distracted. I?m in the final stages of having my office re-plastered, so books and papers are everywhere, and so is my mind at the moment :)

8
Hi
I haven't read any books on electional astrology and nor have I read Deb's review(where can I find it?) so I'm sure I'm wrong but the way I've understood is that election charts are the same as birth charts so all the aspects the Moon (and the other planets for that matter)makes in the sign and into the next sign and the next... must be relevant until the particular event/marriage/project for which the chart was elected comes to an end. Anyway I'd love to learn more about electional astrology; could anyone recommend me any books on the subject?

9
[...]election charts are the same as birth charts so all the aspects the Moon (and the other planets for that matter)makes in the sign and into the next sign and the next... must be relevant until the particular event/marriage/project for which the chart was elected comes to an end.
That?s the hard part. When do these things come to an end? Do they ever?

Here?s the review:
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/ea_rev.html

I think it?s a pretty bad book. The information in it would work for an article, but hardly fills a book. And there is plenty in it for a traditionally-oriented astrologer to scream at.

10
Hi Kirk
[quote]
'When do these things come to an end? Do they ever?'


Do they ever, indeed. Some people say that the birth chart continues to live on even after the person is dead.
Thanks for warning about the book!

11
But the only two books I could wholeheartedly recommend on this subject, without any reservation about their value, is the 5th book of Ramesey?s Astrologia Restaurata and Carmen Astrologicum by Dorotheus. I don?t think anyone is really capable of understanding the principles of elections until they are able to understand what those two authors are writing about and why.

The problem is, they need to be read from an already informed position. Most modern students won?t be able to differentiate between the good rules and the bad rules, those that only make sense in a certain context, and the reasoning involved. Robson is more accessible but he just trots out Ramesey?s aphorisms without adding explanation. At least Joan Hampar has tried to go a little beyond that. I would say it?s the equivalent for electional work that Barbara Watters Horary Astrology and the Judgement of Events is for horary. When I was a new student of horary I thought the Watters book was great; now I think it is much much less, but it was a step on the way. The point is ? thankfully - it wasn?t the only book I had to learn from. What we have with modern horary works is too many books just trotting out the dos and don?ts; and what we have with electional is practically nothing at all. What we need, is more books like Geoffrey Cornelius?s ?Moment of Astrology?, where even if you don?t agree with everything he is saying, he forces you to go deeper into the subject and think about the philosophy of it. But the ?market? just wants the books that makes things quick and simple, and that just concentrate on telling you what to do, instead of exploring the concepts involved.