Clelia Romano wrote:
Saturn, lord of the 7th and wars in opposition to the Moon in Cancer? The first one in the malefic 6th and the Moon in the 12th? An opposition in horrible houses and with mutual reception by detriment? Sometimes Good gives pearls to the mud.

I agree with Clelia, how the generosity can save this man?

Morever here both the Sun and the Moon are attacked by Saturn, Moon by Mars, not talking of the mutual reception with Saturn by detriment.

Awful chart for life matters, in my opinion

p.s and I agree very much with Gabriel, the predominant Saturn is very, very harmful.

margherita

Regiomontanus chart

Then I'm going to have to disagree with Morin on this one. I won't drop names, but a lot of traditional writers have warned about planets aspecting a planet in its descensions or in the aspecting planet's descensions.

That's because it produces bad results. Time and again. I wish it weren't so. And the rule holds in both natal and horary. When you look at all the aspects headed to Mars/Algol regardless of house position, that's going to hurt Mars. The Moon-Saturn opposition isn't beneficial either - Moon is detrimented in Cap, Saturn in Cancer. I don't see Moon-Saturn opps as beneficial in any sign, truthfully - you have a planet that's a universal significator (I know, Morin hated those) of the body - Moon - opposite the greater malefic - Saturn. It doesn't make good things happen.

The node is actually about 3 degrees away from the cusp, but that might be hair-splitting.

Jupiter on Scheat and Mars on Algol - not promising either.

Maybe Morin's system still gets there. But I'm seeing some nasty fixed stars, SN on 8, and mostly a lot of aspects headed to planets in bad dignity or from places of bad dignity, whether you use Regio or Alchabitius.

Disagreement is fine. No one expects slavish devotion, but he's entitled to disagree as well.

Maybe Morin's system still gets there.

This is the point. There is more than one way. Granted, he might not agree with that statement, or at least that is what his writings indicate, but he is no different than a lot of astrologers that way. The most important question is "Does this method work?"

But I'm seeing some nasty fixed stars, SN on 8, and mostly a lot of aspects headed to planets in bad dignity or from places of bad dignity, whether you use Regio or Alchabitius.

It's not a happy chart and it had an unhappy ending. I like the way Morin puts things together and frankly builds on things we tend to take for granted. For me, Lilly is about the only other major astrologer who does this so well.

For example the Moon - Saturn opposition. Everyone agrees that planets vary in strength and one way to determine that strength is essential dignity. We also all agree that planets in aspect influence each other in one way or another. This is basic astrology. So to draw the conclusion that strong planets influence weaker ones more than the other way around is natural. Two strong planets in aspect, hard or soft, are not going to be as difficult as two weak planets in aspect.

But some philosophical background is necessary to fully appreciate his position on this. Morin was a Catholic and, like Lilly with the Church of England, he had to be a wee bit careful how things came out in his writings. Catholic, and probably all Christian dogma teaches that nothing is created evil. God cannot create evil. Evil happens because Evil is the absence of good. It is nothing - a NO-THING. So Saturn, Algol, etc are not inherently evil. In fact when Saturn is in great essential dignity, Saturn is good as its characteristics or virtue as Morin would have put it, are good since God created them that way.

In this chart Saturn is in domicile and therefore good and incapable of producing evil. In 6 rather than 5 it would have difficulty expressing that good, but it would not become evil. The same is true for the Moon, although she is not considered a malefic. So we have two good planets in a difficult aspect. It won't produce as much good as two strong planets in a soft aspect, but it won't be evil. It isn't difficult to see how he comes to his conclusions given his Catholic upbringing, natural philosophy, and understanding of astrology.

That we can get different results with different house systems is a problem that goes way beyond this topic.

And totally opposite to Jewish (and considerably opposite) to Islamic philosophy - which may be why I stick with the Persians.


God is NO-ThING, literally. Anything other conception would be idolatry. Yet, as it states in Isaiah 45, in Jewish bibles anyway, God is the author of both all evil and all good in the world.

But I can see how that wouldn't jibe with Christian philosophy, and it leads down a slightly different astrological track.

Still, they both work. To me, it's easier to see the aspects to and from descensions - which might also have something to do with having done hundreds, maybe thousands, of horaries at this point. Yes. I know Morin didn't go there.

Yes. I know Morin didn't go there.

LOL Nope he sure didn't. In fact he devoted two thirds of a book ranting against it while devoting the last third to promoting elections! Go figure.

I recently re-read The Moment of Astrology (can't explain why. I didn't like it the first two times I read it), but Geoffrey Cornelius discussion of horary is fascinating. He almost treats it as outside other types of astrology or perhaps as demonstrating that other types of astrology aren't what we think they are. I like the way he uses Lilly's Will The Presbytery Stand as a counterpoint to Pico. Horary seems to be different.

Ramesay did the same thing. Horary was vile, inaccurate, and possibly demonic. But elections were great. And if you didn't know the person's birth time, the question of the moment would often give you a good ascendant to work with.

Strange. To say the least.

Tom wrote: Morin argues that in reception, regardless of how it is defined, or in aspect, the stronger planet by celestial state (essential dignity plus aspects) and terrestrial state (house position) influences the weaker.

I don't see like Morin here because in reception planets receive the nature of the other; in this case Moon offers Cancer nature where Saturn has a debility, and the same Saturn can offer Capricorn where Moon has a debility.

Without forgetting what Gabriel says Saturn predominant square to the Sun.

Here I don't think it is so much a matter houses, but planetary positions are bad,

margherita

Olivia wrote:

the question of the moment would often give you a good ascendant to work with.

Strange. To say the least.

Lilly did this, too. See CA page 135.

The demonic part is discussed by Cornelius. He seems to be saying horary is closer to astrological magic or magic than other forms of astrology. So he probably agrees with Ramesy except Ramesy didn't like it and Cornelius does.

Margherita wrote:

I don't see like Morin here because in reception planets receive the nature of the other; in this case Moon offers Cancer nature where Saturn has a debility, and the same Saturn can offer Capricorn where Moon has a debility.

The problem I have with this is if Saturn were in Cancer and the Moon in Capricorn we would have to believe that is a better indication of positive events in the life. The same would be true with Jupiter in Gemini and Mercury in Sagittarius. I can't see that at all.

Tom wrote:
Margherita wrote:

I don't see like Morin here because in reception planets receive the nature of the other; in this case Moon offers Cancer nature where Saturn has a debility, and the same Saturn can offer Capricorn where Moon has a debility.

The problem I have with this is if Saturn were in Cancer and the Moon in Capricorn we would have to believe that is a better indication of positive events in the life. The same would be true with Jupiter in Gemini and Mercury in Sagittarius. I can't see that at all.

While I agree with Margherita, this is not quite how I would conceive of it. The relation of a planet in a sign with its domicile lord is one of hospitality. The host is obligated to take care of his guest; he or she may do it poorly or well, or in extreme situations treat him like a prisoner or she like a living god. If the positions of Saturn and the Moon were reversed, they would have, in effect, a fiduicary relationship and thus would be characterized as "mutual reception". This would still be troubled by the planets' positions in the 6th and 12th; Saturn would be in his joy, but the Moon would still be afflicted. In the situation in the chart, they're in their own signs, and are not obligated to each other at all.

Morin is a reformer of astrology

Putting jokes aside, for what I understood it is even important the place where the planet is received too.

For example - I'm taking the example from Bezza Commento al I libro del Tetrabiblos, Venus in Capricorn applying to Saturn in Virgo is I believe what Dykes translates pushing- pulsatio. Bezza translates as "offering"/

Venus offers from Capricorn and Saturn is happy. But in the example Morin gave, they don't like their gifts each other. At least I understand like that.

margherita