skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Historical horary: engagement / partnership
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Horary & Electional Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am away at the weekend so I’ll be posting the judgements on these two questions early next week. This is your last chance to clarify your thoughts, even if you do it privately.

So far, no one has ventured a judgement on the prospect of a business partnership with ‘a certain person’. Does the chart show the same theme, or is it significantly altered by the use of different co-significators and an emphasis on other houses? I think it will be interesting to consider the similarities and differences applied to a partnership based on business rather than emotion. (Or, in the end, is marriage a ‘business’ relationship too?)

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
yuzuru



Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 1393

Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, we have discussed the considerations many many times, so I will just give my pragmatic vision: every time I see a person (generally a teenage woman (meaning something from 15-25) asking an horary which has at least 2 considerations I know for sure that she is lying about the relationship.

In my experience, the real questions were never asked. "Will he and I get back together", and they never were together in the first place. Or he is married and querent "forgot" to tell that, etc.

I would say the same thing here. Maybe the quesited is married or has another girlfriend. Maybe she wants to know if he is really rich. It doesn´t matter. The fact is that I would go back and ask her what is the real question, because it wasn´t the engagement. And without a proper question, we can only guess.

My best guess would be that she wants his money, but he has some sort of affair/marriage with other woman, and she is really asking if he is going to divorce her. But this is just a guess.

About the partnership, i would be even more gloomy. With mercury combust, there is no way this partnership can have the "clear thinking" that one would expect in business. Mercury and jupiter are squaring each other, and even with reception, venus got there before, so I see as a loose situation
_________________
Meu blog de astrologia (em portugues) http://yuzuru.wordpress.com
My blog of astrology (in english) http://episthemologie.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Tracey



Joined: 27 Jan 2007
Posts: 61
Location: New Zealand

Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I tend to get very imaginative with horaries and have let my mind run amok. I also started with two separate posts and then merged them into one forgetting your request, Deb, to keep them separate. I have run out of time to split them.

A LADY DESIRING LIGHT ON HER ENGAGEMENT
IS IT WISE TO ENTER INTO A BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP

The time of the question gives us the hour of the Moon and day of the Sun. We might assume that there is a connection between the natal charts and the early degrees of this chart enabling the chart to be read. A young querant might also be signified by the early degrees (Horary Rediscovered Pg 124).

Querants: Both querants, as described by Virgo on the ascendant, are signified by Mercury in Cancer and co-significator, the Moon in Cancer, both in the Eleventh House of hopes and wishes. Though full of hope, they find themselves powerless and unable to act since Mercury is combust. Their emotional states have over-ruled logical thought and the querants find themselves in situations of great emotional stress and angst and are very concerned about the attainment of their hopes and wishes…their wish to know is of great urgency. They appear to be the people in the driving seats of their respective relationships since the Moon is in her own sign and receives their significator Mercury; and are anxious to have their gut instincts allayed. Both querants like their partners but not so much that they are willing to overlook whatever is creating their stress. There may be a lot of talk or gossip swirling around.

Quesiteds: Both partners, as signified by the 7th House, are ruled by Jupiter in Aries in the 9th – the house of law and justice, education and all things foreign. The Cadent 9th suggests they have “fallen down” or are weak by nature, perhaps too impulsive for the practical natures of the querants and are easily led into trouble…Jupiter has recently left the 8th House. Mars, as Jupiter’s dispositor, is in the turned 12th (6th House) and could represent imprisonment or restraint, or people who are working against them, or that they are doing something in secret that has now come to light; it also represents the partners’ self-undoing. It could also represent hospitals but I feel, in the case of the engagement, she would not be questioning their relationship if it was due to ill health; the caring nature of Cancer and the healing qualities of Virgo would be only too happy to help someone in need. However, with Virgo rising, there could be some concern with health, perhaps her own.

With Pisces being the escapist sign that it is, and Aries the bawdy sign that it is, along with the square from Moon and Venus in the turned 5th (11th) to Jupiter, it is more likely that the fiancée is a bit of a philandering hellraiser and enjoys the good life but that this has recently led him into trouble with the law; the business partner could be too hot-headed and likely to promise much but deliver very little or prefers to do things without consultation. Both partners may have debts since Jupiter rules 7th and 8th houses; Saturn in the 2nd in the same sign as the Ascendant, disposited by Mercury and conjunct the 2nd House cusp and the POF would back the financial implications of the querants’ anxiousness. The querants are under pressure to protect their reputation, or family name, as shown by Venus ruling the 10th and if this astrologer used Neptune and Pluto and considered that Mercury disposits them, there would be powerful consequences if either involvement went any further.

Engagement: Since the 11th is also the house of friends and Mercury is placed there perhaps the gossip she has been hearing has borne itself out (Mercury) and that because the 11th is the quesited’s turned 5th and square Venus, he can be described as a gambler, womaniser or is generally squandering or drinking them into poverty (Saturn in the Second conjunct the POF, dispositing Mars and ruling the radical 5th). He may be in a lot of debt and created a few enemies – could he even be thief? Since Mercury is combust she may be the last to know, despite the gossip, because she is too close to the situation, especially so since the Sun rules the 12th house of secrets; however, she is now inclined to act quickly (moveable signs) to protect herself and family. The separating sextile to Saturn from the Moon and tight sextile to Venus suggests she is always there to prop him up, and still is at this point but, with Venus travelling retrograde, she is seriously reconsidering their relationship. Because both Venus and Mercury are applying to each other by conjunction and to Jupiter by square, as Venus heads back she is likely to return to him. Moon dispositing Mercury as rulers of 11th and 1st respectively, according to Lilly (CA 458) suggests there is good hope so she hasn’t given up entirely. Lilly also says that if L1 and Moon be in moveable signs, contention and disagreement will occur but matters are reconciled, the partnership holds but that they will be mistrustful of each other and not much good will happen…even if the quesited has escaped charges (Mars sextile Jupiter). By the time the Moon squares Uranus, I think there will be a sudden change of mind and the engagement will not go ahead.

Partnership: The descriptions of the querant and the quesited are as above however this time the emphasis is on the querant as a wheeler/dealer as shown by Mercury, the 10th House and what credit may come of the partnership (CA pg 377). The description of taking a gamble would apply just as much to this question through the 5th and the turned 5th (11th) being emphasised. The quesited is much more reckless than the querant and this creates anxiety. The querant does not like to squander and waste resources and is very cautious when it comes to investing (Saturn ruling 5th from 2nd); he/she may even come from a poor background. There is no love involved and from a business point of view the querant should be cautious of being overpowered by the quesited. He or she may come with a reputation and has possibly even been involved with the law but could just as easily come with an education or knowledge of their particular business; conversely the business might end up with legal issues over money as shown by the applying square from Venus to Jupiter possibly through failing to deliver the promised goods. The partner may be useless at managing his own money, and therefore the business’, and has probably made some bad investments or decisions in the past (separating aspects to Jupiter ruler of turned 8th=partner’s 2nd). Venus as ruler of the 10th and the “credit that may come from a partnership” (Lilly CA 377) suggests that the partner will benefit more from the querant’s presence. Saturn in the 2nd “the querant will get little but be cheated or incur debts” (CA). Saturn in the 2nd would indicate a lot of “hard work, poverty, loss or heaviness” (CA).

I would say that the business partnership will not go ahead and will also break apart once the Moon squares Uranus.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:25 pm    Post subject: THE JUDGEMENT ON THE ENGAGEMENT QUESTION Reply with quote

THE JUDGEMENT ON THE ENGAGEMENT QUESTION

The astrologer was Edwin Casael, who judged most of the example horary charts that were published in Alan Leo’s Horary Astrology, 1909. This is not a great horary text, partly because Alan Leo was hardly an expert or a great advocate of using horary as a way to resolve problems. Chapter five is headed ‘An example of Horary Astrology from the Author’s Own Experience’ (for which we might feel privileged that Alan Leo judged a horary and shared that one chart with us Smile )

Chapter Six is headed ‘Some General Examples’ and this includes details of 14 charts by other astrologers:
1 by John Wilson
1 by ‘Henry’
3 by Charles Hatfield
9 (including these two) by Edwin Casael

We can probably judge from this that Edwin Casael was far more experienced in horary, if not as well known, as Alan Leo who wrote the book.

Before I give his judgement, a quick summary of your conclusions:

Granny concluded that Mercury (the querent) would break the engagement off.

Keren thought the engagement would go nowhere, the main problem being the man’s disinterest in the querent.

PD thought the marriage would go ahead after some delay- probably 10 months time.

RC thought that the querent was the one having cold feet, but judged that the marriage would go ahead, despite interference from the querent’s mother.

Goca thought that the engagement would not lead to marriage because the significators were too debilitated and the Moon is VOC.

Spirlhelix thought that the querent had a secret lover, and that the intended was losing interest, so the engagement would not go ahead.

Tracey thought that financial concerns might have been underlining this question (a point also alluded to by Granny’s mention of Saturn on the 2nd house cusp). At first she judged the engagement would go ahead “since so many aspects have already taken place, therefore so have the arrangements”, but on later reflection decided that the Moon’s in orb but out of sign square to Uranus would bring a sudden change of mind so that the engagement would not go ahead.

Christina gave the reasons for her judgement being: “no engagement due to Querent's change of mind”.

Tara also judged that the querent would break off the engagement.

Yuzuru mistrusted the question because of the early ascendant, gave us (IMO) a welcome reminder that the considerations have a place in horary judgement. He held out gloomy prospects for both this and the business partnership question (from which I think he lent towards the engagement not going ahead).

I think everyone saw this situation as having blighted prospects, with 8 out of 10 agreeing with (or at least inclining towards) the original astrologer’s judgement that the engagement would be broken off. Here is what he wrote in his published judgement on p.68 of Leo’s text:

Quote:
The same post brought a letter from a lady desiring a little light on her engagement.
In this question, finding the lord of the ascendant in no aspect to the significator of her lover, but hastening to a square aspect, is a strong argument against lasting affection.
As Venus, lady of the tenth, signifying the lady’s mother, is square to Jupiter, lord of the seventh, it is quite plain to my mind her mother is opposed to him and may somewhat influence the daughter to break off the engagement.* The Sun, a potent agent in marriage questions, has no aspect to Jupiter, and the first aspect being formed being a square is another argument against the union.
The square of Uranus to the Moon signifies a letter which will ultimately lead to separation*
As Mars, lord of the fourth, has no aspect to lord of the ascendant, I must admit there is no sign of marriage with the one cited.
* Both these facts have since been admitted.



Unfortunately we have no way of verifying some of the suggestions put forward with regard to motive and inclinations. All we have confirmed is that the mother opposed the match, and that the querent broke off the engagement by letter. PD was the first to point out that Venus offers signification of someone who opposes the match, but he used turned signification to identify Venus, whereas the original astrologer used the radical signification of the 10th-ruler to identify the mother. (Bear in mind, he may have had extra information to confirm his reasoning in the letter he received).

RC then added her opinion that Venus is more likely to signify an interfering mother. Both did well to pick up on the importance of this point, which was central to Casael’s judgement

There have been many interesting points of discussion raised by this thread and I hope we can look at them all over time. For now I am going to concentrate on what this published judgement tells us about this horary astrologer’s technique at the end of the 19th century. The comment:

Quote:
finding the lord of the ascendant in no aspect to the significator of her lover, but hastening to a square aspect, is a strong argument against lasting affection


is interesting. He says that there is no aspect between the two significators but that they are hastening to square. This is because they are presently outside of the traditional orb, and it suggests that the current state of being outside of orb was still being recognised as different from an aspect that is simply moving towards perfection within the current sign. On the other hand the astrologer recognises the applying square of the Moon to Uranus, so he doesn’t consider the Moon as VOC because this aspect is already in orb. This is very much the style of approach that Lilly took to aspects.

Some modern astrologers might wonder why Casael allowed Uranus such importance, but remember that Uranus received a great deal of attention in 19th and early 20th century charts. It was expected to be a reliable indicator of separation. The Moon translates between the conjunction of Venus (the Mother who opposes the match) to the square of Uranus (the sudden separation). Besides signifying the mother, Venus also rules the 3rd house, and Uranus is positioned within the 3rd house, giving a symbolic description of the mother’s hostility manifesting in a letter of separation.

The astrologer made no reference to reception (few horary astrologers did at that period of time). For the sake of discussion let’s take a quick look at the differences in approach shown in this thread.

In the square between Mercury and Jupiter that will eventually perfect, Mercury is received into the exaltation of Jupiter, but Jupiter is not received in any of the dignities of Mercury. The traditional treatment of reception, as shown in the works of astrologers such as Bonatti and Lilly, would interpret this as Mercury being given an elevated reception by Jupiter; demonstrating an inclination of the quesited to present his best face, and therefore making the square between Mercury and Jupiter less hostile to Mercury than it would normally be. Those who follow John Frawley’s description of reception generally took this chart to describe the querent as adoring the quesited, and he having a low opinion of her. Ultimately we don’t have enough feedback on this chart to prove the reality of the situation one way of another, but some points that ought to be borne in mind are:

1) reception in an aspect only talks about willingness and reception towards each other. In terms of defining social status, it is much more reliable to consider how each significator stands in its own dignities. Jupiter is a more superior planet than Mercury, so all things being equal, it would describe the party with more life-experience. Jupiter generally influences Mercury more than Mercury influences Jupiter. But neither of these planets are essentially or accidentally dignified, so both parties are described as weak and ineffective. I would see this as the main argument to why the square aspect between them, unsupported by other positive testimonies, would show a problem that would prevent the engagement from perfecting. On page 125 of Christian Astrology, Lilly writes:

Quote:
Things are also produced to perfection, when the significators apply by square aspect, provided each planet have dignity in the degrees wherein they are, and apply out of proper and good houses, otherwise not. [My italics]


2) In terms of who breaks the engagement off, we might assume that this is the one who cares the least, but as the politics of late 19th century marriages show, this may not always be the case. The quicker moving planet – Mercury- describes the one who leads the action, so whether she cared for him more or less, Mercury is described as the one who breaks the engagement.

There are some other points of interest in some of the responses, and in the astrologer’s judgement, that I hope to come back to later. I haven’t touched on the business partnership yet – I’ll have to leave that until another day. The floor is free for further comment Smile


There you go Christina - you can get off the edge of your seat now Smile
Deb
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tracey



Joined: 27 Jan 2007
Posts: 61
Location: New Zealand

Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's a shame that we have no idea why he ignored the early degrees. I also wondered what to make of that Mars ruling the 4th since it ruled the quesited. It's interesting too that Mars is in Aquarius and so tied to Uranus in modern astrology....in his 12th, whatever he was doing to upset the mother proved to be his self-undoing.

Thank you very much for posing that challenge.

Looking forward to more discussion.

Tracey
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is no mention in Leo’s book about any of the considerations before judgement. Edwin Casael would probably have been influenced by Simmonites’ Horary Astrology, written in 1852, and that contains no information about the considerations either. Leo’s little text described the rules of horary as ‘very simple’, and it’s usually the case that books which aim to make horary very simple eliminate many elements that require thoughtful explanation. We can practice astrology without a lot of its traditional features, but I think that simplified horary is like holding a conversation with a young child – information passes, but it doesn’t compare to holding a conversation with someone who has a good command of their language.

I find Casael’s judgements curt; examples of the bare minimum explanation which generates the belief that horary is ideal for ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers. There is no consideration of what the problem is, how it has arisen, or how or why it can or cannot be overcome. IMO, some of the points put forward in this thread show better reasoned arguments than some of those highlighted in Casael’s brief summary.

It is interesting that he used the Sun as a natural significator of marriage. This is different from the traditional idea that the Sun is the co-significator for the man in questions relating to marriage. I don’t use the Sun or Venus as co-significators in relationship questions myself because I believe that these only apply when they legitimately help to describe the man as a potential husband or ‘gentleman’ and the woman as a ‘sweetheart’. If the man is a philanderer or a bully, then why would he be partly signified by the Sun? If we attribute Venus as a co-significator of the woman (regardless of whether that fits or not), then how can Venus be free to signify the ‘other woman’ who often interferes in relationship questions? I’m not sure of the reliability of the Sun as “a potent indicator in marriage questions” though it is an interesting idea. Equally, someone mentioned in this thread that the 9th house is the house of marriage and I don’t understand the traditional basis for that comment. I do realise it comes from the idea that marriage is/was a religious event, but it is the contractual partnership of two individuals, which is a 7th house matter. Since the 7th house is traditionally termed ‘the house of marriage’, why would we consider the 9th in that regard? If anyone has any traditional references to qualify that, I would be interested to know of them.

Tracey, in an earlier post you wrote “The engagement will go ahead since so many aspects have already taken place, therefore so have the arrangements”. I know you later corrected yourself but I wanted to comment at that point, to say that the separation of significators does show that things have already been agreed, but the separation of the aspect indicates dissolution of the agreement, so we need something coming into application to show the future fulfilment of the promise. For example, Lilly says on p.127:

Quote:
…for it was well observed that the application of the significators show inclination of the parties, but separation usually privation; that is, in more plain terms, when you see the principal significators of the querent, and thing or party quesited after separated, there’s then little hopes of effecting or perfecting what is desired, (notwithstanding this dwelling in houses) but if there be application, the parties seem willing, and the matter is yet kept on foot, and there is great probability of perfecting it, or that things will come to a further treaty.


Anyway, on to the business partnership judgement…..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:21 am    Post subject: The Business Partnership Question Reply with quote

The Business Partnership Question

We don’t get any confirmation of how useful this judgement turned out to be, or whether it was taken up by the client, but the judgement is presented in Leo’s text as an example of how a horary would be a judged by a professional astrologer at that time. As someone who pays attention to the considerations before judgement, the early ascendant would not have prevented me from judging the chart, but it would have been an immediate indication that what was being asked about was based on premature decision-making, or a ‘less than informed’ understanding of the situation. Perhaps this did contribute to the reason why the astrologer gave negative answers to both questions. On this question he writes:


Quote:
Question 1 – Would partnership be wise with a certain party?

Answer – Finding no aspect between the lord of the ascendant, Mercury, and Jupiter, the lord of the seventh, is an argument against it.
The lord of the first and seventh, both in moveable signs, one cadent, the other succedent, also negatives it.
Saturn in your second renders it suspicious either as to the working or the profits, and so will cause disagreement.
Your co-significator, the Moon, applying to square Uranus in third, an eccentric neighbour will probably circulate adverse reports respecting your refusal to join; Mars, lord of the fourth, in no aspect to your significator or the Moon, I would advise you not to entertain it.


I would have some to the same conclusion based on:

Early ascendant – concern that the matter asked about is not tenable.
1st & 7th rulers are out of orb and when they draw into application it is by a hostile aspect.
1st & 7th rulers are both weak and debilitated planets.
Saturn in the 2nd shows financial difficulties
The 10th house – indicating the success of the venture, is not profitable and the 10th-ruler is translating between Saturn in the 2nd house to the square of the 7th-ruler.
The Moon is applying only to the square of Uranus, which usually shows sudden separation.
A lack of anything particularly favourable to counterbalance the above.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RC



Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 475

Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:59 am    Post subject: Re: THE JUDGEMENT ON THE ENGAGEMENT QUESTION Reply with quote

Deb wrote:
THE JUDGEMENT ON THE ENGAGEMENT QUESTION



I didn't have time to get back to add more to the question or to do the partnership part before you posted results as I have been very busy.

But on the engagement question, it looked as though the querent was very family oriented. She was surrounded by family in the sign of cancer which I took to mean that her family's approval meant a great deal and that it was a close family, one who she wouldn't oppose. Also tends to show the need for that security that only family brings. Plus Venus was ruler of 10th, mother. All that led to my opinion above.

But I'm curious about how Frawly would have read that chart. I just recently got his book and he reads receptions in a particular way to show how parties "feel" about each other. I think he might have said that the mother thought a lot of the fiance and perhaps put the fiance on a pedestal. In fact, he may have said that they all did (the family) since they were all in sign of cancer where Jupiter is exalted. But in fact, i felt that the mother disaproved of the fiance which proved correct. Am I interpreting Frawly wrongly?

RC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don’t think you are interpreting Frawley’s explanation wrongly. If you go to the post on 'reception and essential dignities' at
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?p=6303

you will see that there has been a lot of discussion on this forum as to whether John Frawley’s explanation is a reliable demonstration of the traditional approach.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RC



Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 475

Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deb wrote:
I don’t think you are interpreting Frawley’s explanation wrongly. If you go to the post on 'reception and essential dignities' at
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?p=6303

you will see that there has been a lot of discussion on this forum as to whether John Frawley’s explanation is a reliable demonstration of the traditional approach.


Wow. I didn't realize there was so much disagreement about his views. I'm glad to see that link. I thought it was just me having trouble with what was maybe a 'traditional approach' to horary and the way I learned. I just couldn't accept some of what he was saying. Now I won't struggle so hard to try to accept it. I will finish his book but not take it as final authority on anything. I guess it is not the traditional view after all.

It is well written and maybe ideal for someone who never picked up an astrology book and I'm sure beginners will thereby learn a lot quickly. But unfortunately, it is sometimes hard to un-learn something that wasn't quite right to begin with and in that sense, he may have done a disservice to beginners with regards as to how to read receptions and interpretations as to planets' placements. On that point, it appears to be overly simplified.

I think looking at this particular horary that it is a perfect example as to why such an overly simplistic approach to receptions just doesn't always work.

RC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Christina



Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 82
Location: usa

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi,

I have been meaning to get back to this topic, but - alas, alack - I have been off-line for the past month (sold house, moved - horary with results soon to follow, provided my internet connection holds up...)

Deb, Yes! I am grateful to be off the edge of my seat. Thanks for an enriching and enjoyable thread -

Just to re-fresh everyone's memories, I was interested in Deb's 'mystery within the mystery' comment regards an "element" that should be significant to horary astrologers but is not generally recognised as such,

Quote:
Deb wrote,
In some ways this chart responds to the expectation of the astrologer who cast the chart, and one element that he felt was significant has not been touched upon yet. It should be, even though most horary astrologers would probably not recognise it as traditional technique –


For which the "element" appears to be,

Quote:
Deb wrote,
The quicker moving planet – Mercury- describes the one who leads the action, so whether she cared for him more or less, Mercury is described as the one who breaks the engagement.


If this is the answer, I never would have guessed it! However, I very much like the technique - it is simple (for me!) and makes more sense than some other approaches that I've observed. It is one of those techniques that 'fits like a glove' and makes chart work all the more sound (solid).

I hope there will be more mystery historical horaries to come.

Christina
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Horary & Electional Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated