16
But the question is not about their marriage. It's about his possible love affair which implies how this situation will affect them. If we saw an appyling aspect or mutual reception between their significators, this would mean that they can make it up, like getting back to each other in a nice way
I think it is because we see the chart in different ways: teh question was about an affair, not fights, reconciliation, etc, so I have for habit NEVER to answer something that wasn?t asked in the original question.

why ? because I have "lose face" more than one time trying that :-)

For example, once I asked: when will the books get in my house ? Well, after studying the chart, I open it up again some days laters. And then I noticed that the 7th ruler was in detriment. Bad sign ! The seller is a crook ! As it turns out, I never asked about the character of the seller, because I had buyed with him before. I just asked about the timing, and so the timing was right.

So, I think we should be careful about aspects as the original question was about the current state of affairs, and not about an future event.

Best regards
Y
Meu blog de astrologia (em portugues) http://yuzuru.wordpress.com
My blog of astrology (in english) http://episthemologie.wordpress.com

17
Hi Ema,
you write:
her prime ruler is Saturn (asc. almuten), corulers Venus and the Moon. His prime ruler is the Sun (desc. almuten) and coruler is Mars. Saturn on 12th cusp: she feels ?stuck?, as in a jail, unable to do anything. Quite understandable!
I'm curious to know how you arrived at these significators? I'm aware that Saturn is the almuten ruler of the ascendant and Mars the almuten ruler of the descendant but traditional horary practice always gives signification to the primary rulers, in this case Venus for the querent and Mars for the husband. Lilly tells us this quite clearly in C.A p 123:

"The significator is no more than the planet which ruleth the house that signifies the thing demanded: as if Aries is ascending, Mars being Lord of Aries shall be the significator of the querent......so that let any sign ascend, what planet is Lord of that sign, shall be called Lord of the House, or significator of the person enquiring. So that in the first place therefore, when any question is propounded, the sign ascending and his Lord are always given unto him that asks the question." (my italics)
The Sun (her husband) is on cusp of that house, conj. Mercury ruler of rx 9th (of foreign countries) and turned 3rd ? his writing. Mercury obviously shows this other woman (from another country) with whom he is in contact through writing (his 3rd house).


I take it you're using a different house system than Regiomontanus, which has 28 Taurus on the cusp of the 9th?
The significators of the main parties (the querent and her husband) are not applying to any aspect and there's also no mutual reception to mitigate this loss of contact.


If one takes Venus for the querent and Mars for the husband then there is reception by trip/face and face/face. Given the problems in the relationship this rather weak reception is understandable but it does at least show a mutual regard for each other. Further, his sig', Mars receives the Moon (her feelings) into triplicity and term, showing I think that he at least is trying to make her feel better.
On the other hand, there is no reception at all between Mars and the Sun (ruler of 5th from 7th, the alleged romantic interest of the husband), neither is there any separating or applying aspect between them. This shows clearly that there was no prior affair between them and no deep mutual interest in having one.
What is more, the Moon is void....
Due to the void Moon, this situation will probably remain without a proper ?resolution?
,

Actually the Moon is still just within orb of the separation from Mars and is applying to the Sun, so in fact it isn't void at all. ( See Deb's excellent article here: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/moon2.html )
Whatever this may or may not say about upcoming events, the querent doesn't have to continue being miserable.
If she doesn't do that, he'll do it again.
Do you have an astrological reference for that comment or is this just your opinion? I think we need to take great care when we make this kind of definitive statement, lest we do a lot more harm than good. I see nothing in the horary to suggest that the husband will "do it again" so I question the veracity of the comment.
I mean, men usually think they don't "sin" as long as they don't really sleep with another woman, but we women are different. So, it's really a question of values, and stance, and proper communication:-)
I agree entirely with the last sentence, but oh dear, the rest of the paragraph is awfully sexist and has nothing to do with anything found in this particular horary! If Taurus's friend had come to you for guidance in this matter, do you honestly think you would have served her in a professional manner by saying such things without objective astrological references to corroborate your statements?

====
Pete

19
Hi Pete, you wrote.
I'm curious to know how you arrived at these significators? I'm aware that Saturn is the almuten ruler of the ascendant and Mars the almuten ruler of the descendant but traditional horary practice always gives signification to the primary rulers, in this case Venus for the querent and Mars for the husband.
You're right, of course, about traditional horary practice. It's my practice as well, because I follow traditional rules, but the practice has led me to gradually involve almutens as well, since they give additional insight. This way, matters can get more complicated - or not. As for the husband, I assigned him the Sun as main significator because he's also the natural significators for husbands, and because it aptly shows his status of a man being involved in an affair (placed in the 11th). As for the querent, both planets aptly describe her and her situation, Venus perhaps even more so. It's a delicate situation, but tell me, what use do you, as traditional horary astrologer, make of almutnes? Lilly wrote, after technically describing almuten: (CA p. 49) "... whereon from whence you require your judgment." What judgment, then, if not judgment upon the resolution of the matter? He's not at all clear about the meaning of almutens, which leaves us at least with the possibility for experimenting, which practically means to inspect those planets closely as, at least, additional "lords" of the houses involved. Even Lilly did not strictly follow his own theoretical rules about lords of houses, see for example his own case of purchasing a house of master B (see CA p. 219) where he assigns the Sun as Lord of the 7th, on account of its placement in that house, even if, strictly speaking, his ruler should me Mars. In the same way, I think it's not a violation of the traditional rule if we assign almutens the same role. Sometimes, of course, not always. Like in the case of husband here.

I take it you're using a different house system than Regiomontanus, which has 28 Taurus on the cusp of the 9th?
I use Regio but often check Placidus as well. In cases where the cusp borders on the next sign, like here, which means that nearly the whole house is in the next sign (especially if it's the corresponding whole sign, like here), I assign my rulerships accordingly. I do hope you agree the system works quite well in this case?
If one takes Venus for the querent and Mars for the husband then there is reception by trip/face and face/face.
You're right. Congrats for such close inspection! I didn't go into such details because I don't "trust" faces. I go for main receptions, triplicities OK but I don't think faces are nearly so strong.
On the other hand, there is no reception at all between Mars and the Sun (ruler of 5th from 7th, the alleged romantic interest of the husband), neither is there any separating or applying aspect between them. This shows clearly that there was no prior affair between them and no deep mutual interest in having one.
Are you saying that their daily conversation, going on for 7 months, in a tone which could rightly be called flirtatious, is not some sort of "affair"? As I said, I assign Sun to him and Mercury to her, and their separarting conjunction shows that the affair (in writing) had been going on but is dissolving now. This conjunction, at least, shows their having much in common (being on-line), while no contact between Mars and the Sun would more likely suggest that they even don't know each other.

Further, his sig', Mars receives the Moon (her feelings) into triplicity and term,
Mars is not in the Moon's triplicity, it's vice versa: Moon receives him into her triplicity, which is a valid contact, and this is true: she feels about him, wants him back.

As for Moon's being void, I've read Deb's excellent article a long time ago, but in my view (and experience), even if the Moon is within orb of an aspect with a planet in the next sign, this doesn't render her wholly "performing", because when the Moon changes signs, the situation will change too, if only because the Moon gets antoher dispozitor. In this particular case, the situation had shortly changed by his breaking the contact, but Moon's combustion doesn't bode well for her at all, since we all know that this is one of the Moon's most miserable states. being combust, it show her being somehow "blind", unable to act, wholly under his power. This is the reason why I said she'll continue being miserable.
Do you have an astrological reference for that comment or is this just your opinion? I think we need to take great care when we make this kind of definitive statement, lest we do a lot more harm than good. I see nothing in the horary to suggest that the husband will "do it again" so I question the veracity of the comment.
No Pete, I don't have any astrological reference for that, if I had one I'd say. It's just my opinion, based on the knowledge of human character. :brows
I agree entirely with the last sentence, but oh dear, the rest of the paragraph is awfully sexist and has nothing to do with anything found in this particular horary! If Taurus's friend had come to you for guidance in this matter, do you honestly think you would have served her in a professional manner by saying such things without objective astrological references to corroborate your statements?
As an astrologer seeing clients, I'm firstly a human being and only secondly an astrologer. As a human being I try to understand their view and their feeings, and in this particular case I think I'd tell her just what I said: men are different. I think we all know that, why would this be a "sexist" statement? I think it would only help her to know what I see in this chart: he probably thought he was doing nothing sinful, while it's wholly understandable, knowing a female soul (and you can believe me since I'm a woman and talk daily with all sorts of women), that his conduct had been deeply hurtful to her. Honestly, I don't see anything sexist in that. Besides, as for my own practice, in such cases I never base my conversation with a client on a horary question alone. I employ synastry which tells more about the basics of the possible problems in a relationship as such, which are, after all, the underlying cause for the horary itself. If they truly loved each other and had no problems at all, would he be losing his time by his daily converstaions with another woman? I guess not. [/quote]
Ema
http://www.emakurent.com
http://www.astroakademija.si
http://www.astrojoy.com

20
You're right, of course, about traditional horary practice. It's my practice as well, because I follow traditional rules, but the practice has led me to gradually involve almutens as well, since they give additional insight. This way, matters can get more complicated - or not. As for the husband, I assigned him the Sun as main significator because he's also the natural significators for husbands, and because it aptly shows his status of a man being involved in an affair (placed in the 11th).
Hi Ema,
first let me address the last part of your statement above. I don't agree that the position of the Sun on the cusp of his 5th necessarily shows the man having an affair. It does show him having fun and enjoying the contact. If he was having an affair then the Sun would be in close contact with the sig' of the third party, and I don't see how we can assign Mercury to the woman. In my view Mercury shows the messages he was sharing with her,but not the woman herself. They are two different things.
... tell me, what use do you, as traditional horary astrologer, make of almutnes? Lilly wrote, after technically describing almuten: (CA p. 49) "... whereon from whence you require your judgment." What judgment, then, if not judgment upon the resolution of the matter? He's not at all clear about the meaning of almutens, which leaves us at least with the possibility for experimenting, which practically means to inspect those planets closely as, at least, additional "lords" of the houses involved. Even Lilly did not strictly follow his own theoretical rules about lords of houses, see for example his own case of purchasing a house of master B (see CA p. 219) where he assigns the Sun as Lord of the 7th, on account of its placement in that house, even if, strictly speaking, his ruler should me Mars. In the same way, I think it's not a violation of the traditional rule if we assign almutens the same role. Sometimes, of course, not always. Like in the case of husband here.


I pay attention to almutens in horary certainly, but I don't think I've ever assigned them primary signification over the traditionally accepted primary rulers. The almuten ruler, by virtue of it having the most dignity in a specific degree, would certainly have some effect on the judgement of certain charts, but the question is, when to use them and when to ignore them. If we used them in every horary we tried to judge then I think we could muddy the waters quite a bit. In my view if the prime significators describe the situation then use them, and I believe they do so here.
Yes, Lily used the Sun as primary ruler in the "Master B's Houses" horary but he did that because the Sun was on the angle, strongly dignified, conjunct Lilly's own significator and receiving him. The dignified Sun described the nature and position of the quesited much better than Mars did, and that's why he used it as the significator.
I use Regio but often check Placidus as well. In cases where the cusp borders on the next sign, like here, which means that nearly the whole house is in the next sign (especially if it's the corresponding whole sign, like here), I assign my rulerships accordingly. I do hope you agree the system works quite well in this case?
Well personally I try not to mix and match my house systems. Lilly favoured Regio' as you know, while others prefer Placidus or even Alcabitus. Regardless what system one uses it's never a good idea to switch from one to the other in the middle of a reading. I can see how a Mercury rulership of the 9th could describe the messages from overseas but then Mercury is the natural significator of messages anyway so one can see that messages are being hidden simply by virtue of Mercury's combustion.
I didn't go into such details because I don't "trust" faces. I go for main receptions, triplicities OK but I don't think faces are nearly so strong.
They aren't, I agree, but a reception is a reception and I think the levels of the receptions here seem quite apt.
Are you saying that their daily conversation, going on for 7 months, in a tone which could rightly be called flirtatious, is not some sort of "affair"?
I'm saying that it doesn't necessarily constitute an "affair". The conversation was peppered with flirtatious comments. They were flirting. Flirtatiousness does not constitute infidelity, which is what the querent was asking about. If it did, the divorce rate would skyrocket,don't you think?
As I said, I assign Sun to him and Mercury to her,
Why do you assign Mercury to her? Because Mercury rules the 9th by Placidus? It seems to make more sense to me to use Mars as his primary ruler and the Sun for her.
..while no contact between Mars and the Sun would more likely suggest that they even don't know each other.
Yet they do know each other, obviously. I'd say that the lack of contact or reception between the Sun and Mars answers the question succinctly: No, the husband is not being unfaithful.
Mars is not in the Moon's triplicity, it's vice versa: Moon receives him into her triplicity, which is a valid contact, and this is true: she feels about him, wants him back.
Venus rules the earth triplicity in a diurnal chart, therefore the Moon doesn't receive Mars, Venus does. Mars however - if we use Ptolemy's triplicity rulerships - receives the Moon into triplicity, and face.

So Venus receives Mars into triplicity and Mars receives the Moon into triplicity. To me that shows that the querent and her husband have a lot of mutual regard for each other - albeit at different levels
As for Moon's being void, I've read Deb's excellent article a long time ago, but in my view (and experience), even if the Moon is within orb of an aspect with a planet in the next sign, this doesn't render her wholly "performing", because when the Moon changes signs, the situation will change too, if only because the Moon gets antoher dispozitor.
That may well be the case, but the change of sign doesn't prevent the application from perfecting, it simply indicates a possible change in the Moon's strength. The Moon's dispositor has nothing to do with the Moon being able to transmit her influence via aspect.
In this particular case, the situation had shortly changed by his breaking the contact, but Moon's combustion doesn't bode well for her at all, since we all know that this is one of the Moon's most miserable states. being combust, it show her being somehow "blind", unable to act, wholly under his power. This is the reason why I said she'll continue being miserable.
I agree that combustion is generally regarded as being "evil". However, given the fact that the Sun is one of his sigs', and the Moon is her co-sig, and the entry of the Moon into Leo means that he will receive her into dignity, AND that eventually the Moon will be cazimi, can a case not be made for some form of reconciliation? After all, the Sun and Moon are both significators of her and him.

A
s an astrologer seeing clients, I'm firstly a human being and only secondly an astrologer. As a human being I try to understand their view and their feeings, and in this particular case I think I'd tell her just what I said: men are different. I think we all know that, why would this be a "sexist" statement?
Because it is inferring that men have a more shallow view of fidelity than women do.
I think it would only help her to know what I see in this chart: he probably thought he was doing nothing sinful,
"Sinful" is an interesting choice of words. It's certainly a very emotive one.
while it's wholly understandable, knowing a female soul (and you can believe me since I'm a woman and talk daily with all sorts of women), that his conduct had been deeply hurtful to her. Honestly, I don't see anything sexist in that.
You said "men are different". Men. I'm sorry but that makes it sexist.
Besides, as for my own practice, in such cases I never base my conversation with a client on a horary question alone. I employ synastry which tells more about the basics of the possible problems in a relationship as such, which are, after all, the underlying cause for the horary itself. If they truly loved each other and had no problems at all, would he be losing his time by his daily converstaions with another woman? I guess not.
We don't know if they were having problems or not, and we certainly don't know the extent of his feelings for his wife. The minute we start to make assumptions and stop reading the horary then we are no longer doing an horary reading, we are simply making assumptions and basing our judgement more on the basis of those assumptions rather than what the chart is actually telling us.
=======
Pete

21
he probably thought he was doing nothing sinful, while it's wholly understandable, knowing a female soul (and you can believe me since I'm a woman and talk daily with all sorts of women), that his conduct had been deeply hurtful to her. Honestly, I don't see anything sexist in that.
Yes, sorry, I take issue with this as well. It's an assertion based solely on assumptions, and rather off-base ones at that. I'm a woman, too, and would have no problem with my husband having this sort of flirtation, if that's all it was. If he came back home with lipstick smeared all over his shirt and dubious stains on his trousers, I might be inclined to ask a few hard questions; otherwise, if he's having fun, I don't see the harm. Not all women think the same way. Neither do men. I would be very careful about issuing these sorts of proclamations in a professional setting, whatever my own (internal) position on the matter. People ask horaries to get facts, not opinions. Otherwise, they'd ask Dear Abby.

Pete said:
Because it is inferring that men have a more shallow view of fidelity than women do.
Absolutely. He cut off the affair, didn't he? There is reception in this chart, and it is by no means negative. Most people in a marriage won't have receptions by exaltation or even domicile; sometimes term and face are enough to keep people together, inclusive of the external facts (finance, children, etc.).

GH

:)

22
first let me address the last part of your statement above. I don't agree that the position of the Sun on the cusp of his 5th necessarily shows the man having an affair. It does show him having fun and enjoying the contact. If he was having an affair then the Sun would be in close contact with the sig' of the third party, and I don't see how we can assign Mercury to the woman. In my view Mercury shows the messages he was sharing with her,but not the woman herself. They are two different things.
Are you saying that you agree with my view that the Sun is the husband? Please mind that I said something along the same lines: he has been having fun with the woman, via messages, no real "affair" being involved, obviously. Mercury shows the woman and letters, of course - if there were more than 10 planets above, we'd probably have an easier job finding another significator which would show her body, not her messages, but as it is, I'm contented with the one planet showing both. Why Mercury? Because, as I said, it's the only planet in aspect with the Sun, and because it rules the 9th house.



The almuten ruler, by virtue of it having the most dignity in a specific degree, would certainly have some effect on the judgement of certain charts, but the question is, when to use them and when to ignore them. If we used them in every horary we tried to judge then I think we could muddy the waters quite a bit. In my view if the prime significators describe the situation then use them, and I believe they do so here.
Agreed - partly. As I said, I'm trying to find when to use them and when not. my view that Venus is prime significator for her was probably too far-fetched and I'm gladly abstaining from that, although Saturn on cusp of 12th quite aptly describes her too. Would be nice to know how she looks like. More Venus-in-Leo or Saturn-in-Virgo like? As for the 7-th ruler, I believe the Sun more aptly describes him. As for Lilly's choice of sigfificator, his reasons were the same as mine: it more aptly described him, and the situation.


Regardless what system one uses it's never a good idea to switch from one to the other in the middle of a reading. I can see how a Mercury rulership of the 9th could describe the messages from overseas but then Mercury is the natural significator of messages anyway so one can see that messages are being hidden simply by virtue of Mercury's combustion.
I didn't switch from one to the other in the middle of the reading, what prompts you to say so? I just said that sometimes check both positions - and then decide which one to use. Just sometimes - in those "borderline cases". What you say about Mercury, and Mercury combust, is true, it's just interesting (and IMO not incidentally) that Mercury here rules rx 9th (foreign people) and turned 3rd (HIS communication).
Flirtatiousness does not constitute infidelity, which is what the querent was asking about. If it did, the divorce rate would skyrocket,don't you think?
Yes but my comment was a reply to your notion that (on account of what "your" significators suggest) "there was no deep mutual interest in having an affair". I just said that their communication was suggesting otherwise. Why would a man write flirtatious letters to a woman without any interest to have an affair with her?
I'd say that the lack of contact or reception between the Sun and Mars answers the question succinctly: No, the husband is not being unfaithful.
But the situation is very clear: the woman asked the question because of them having been in contact (even too intense a contact), and this situation must be reflected in a horary chart, or, IMO, the significators have not been chosen wisely. If their signifcators were not connected in any way, the astrologer would have a good reason to say to the querent: woman, you are mad, they have no contact at all!!!

Venus rules the earth triplicity in a diurnal chart, therefore the Moon doesn't receive Mars, Venus does. Mars however - if we use Ptolemy's triplicity rulerships - receives the Moon into triplicity, and face.
Right. I confess my mistake because I wrote too hurriedly. Firstly I thought that you are one of those who don't switch triplicities by day and night, and I did't want to make fuss about that, but of course it is true that Venus rules earth triplicity by day. Sorry I ovelooked the fact that Moon is in Cancer, the triplicity of Mars.
That may well be the case, but the change of sign doesn't prevent the application from perfecting, it simply indicates a possible change in the Moon's strength. The Moon's dispositor has nothing to do with the Moon being able to transmit her influence via aspect.
I don't wholly agree, because once the Moon changes signs the situation usually changes so that the question becomes obsolete. They may reunite (in a certain way which I already described) but if a question would be asked when the Moon was already in Leo, it would but be an entirely different question. That's a guess, of course, we can't know. I just want to present my view.
"Sinful" is an interesting choice of words. It's certainly a very emotive one.
It wasn't meant so. It probably has something to do with the fact that English is not my native language.

You said "men are different". Men. I'm sorry but that makes it sexist.
I meant to say that men are diffrent from women. Is that sexist too? Or should I say that women are different from men?
We don't know if they were having problems or not, and we certainly don't know the extent of his feelings for his wife.
Yes we do. See taurus7' comment about their having had problems since their marriage.
Ema
http://www.emakurent.com
http://www.astroakademija.si
http://www.astrojoy.com

23
It's an assertion based solely on assumptions, and rather off-base ones at that.
Hi Gunhilde, I'm quite convinced that if you asked a large group of women, how would they react if they discovered that their husband had been flirting with another woman regularly for the past few months, via text messages, email and sms etc., with a woman who had confessed that she was "attracted" to him, a large majority would answer something along the lines of being hurt, angry, dissapointed etc. If you don't believe me ask Yuzuru who knows that all women are a little "paranoid" :lol: As for my "assumption" that men usually don't feel guilty if acting this way... No they don't, because they are, as I said, different from women (pardon, women are different from men, is that right Pete), and it doesn't involve any moral standards etc., only the fact that men are (essentially) like Sun and Mars, while women are essentially like Venus and Moon.... I won't go on about their sexual needs etc., but we all know what "ciao bella" means, right, and it feels sort of good to hear that, since we women like to attract, and men like to conquer. I was just speaking along these lines... Concerning basic differences between sexes.
Ema
http://www.emakurent.com
http://www.astroakademija.si
http://www.astrojoy.com

24
If you don't believe me ask Yuzuru who knows that all women are a little "paranoid"
Actually I love these little peals of wisdom. I read the forum in the morning and think ?ahh ? it?s not just me then?. This reminds me of a book that I?ve been reading by Germaine Greer. As I?m 46 now, and know practically nothing about the biological effects of menopause, or the pros and cons of HRT, I picked up a charity book at the vets called ?The Change?. I?m about 180 pages into it now, and I still don?t know about the biological effects of the Menopause and HRT treatments ? but I do know that all men are bastards :) I have taken to invoking the power of Greer every time my husband annoys me ? which usually manifests as a threat to hit him over his head with her book.

Let?s be a little relaxed about the PC of what we write here because people express themselves with different expressions and different national biases. Unless it is obviously offensive or obviously designed to cause offence, I would rather keep the focus on the astrology. Plus, there is a danger of getting quite a nasty shock if we start analysing the gender issues of astrology.

Gunhilde wrote:
People ask horaries to get facts, not opinions. Otherwise, they'd ask Dear Abby.
They might think that they will be able to get ?facts?, and we might try to be as objective as we can be, but the judgement of a horary is necessarily subjective, so I don?t see how the astrologer?s opinions can be left out of it. Put it like this, if I?m commissioned to do a horary, then the client should understand that my opinions come as part of the judgement. So I suppose the same goes if someone puts up a horary query here and asks for other people?s help - we can?t expect that we will only get back ?facts? and not opinions.

26
Hi Nagi,

I don't want to disrupt the thread, but just to explain, I was being tongue-in-cheek. Germain Greer is famous here for her feminist views. That's not why I bought the book; I quite like masculist views too (yes, there is such a word). I was just waiting for my dog to be seen by the vet, and it was one of half a dozen second hand books they were selling for charity. One of the things I have learned is that when we get to 50, women develop the power to become invisible - how cool is that?!!

27
Hi Deb, all,

Deb said:
we might try to be as objective as we can be, but the judgement of a horary is necessarily subjective, so I don?t see how the astrologer?s opinions can be left out of it.
I agree, but I think it's prudent to keep one's opinions as 'objective' as possible; or at least, unbiased. I'm not sure that a woman, coming in for a horary about the possibility of her husband cheating, wants to hear the old chestnut about 'dump the jerk; all men cheat' as this is hardly a productive manner by which to deal with the issues and doesn't address the true problems. I mean, I am quite guilty of holding a few female-superior opinions myself (from long experience :lol: ) but I try really hard to keep the most hard-core of them out of my readings, or at least couch them in terms that are less inflammatory. I do try to keep away from generalising about either gender when I can...not out of any sense of PC (can a Sagittarius with a 3rd house Aries moon be PC?) but just because they are a) often wrong and b) not really what the querent came to hear.

GH :)