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:
Lilly's Considerations
compiled by D. Houlding
Book II of Carmen Astrologicum by Dorotheus
translated by David Pingree
Compiled by Deborah Houlding
The Babylonian Astrolabe: the Calendar of Creation, by Rumen K. Kolev
Reviewed by Gill Zukovskis

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Bonatti isn't clear, what do you think?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Horary & Electional Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cgreen



Joined: 21 May 2012
Posts: 18

Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:42 pm    Post subject: Bonatti isn't clear, what do you think? Reply with quote

In Bonatti's about unfaithfulness, Bonatti uses the word "joined with".
Is "joined with" a conjunction or any application? Is it joined by moeity of orb or joined by a degree(only 1degree orb)?

Bonatti is also not clear about what is faithful and what is unfaithful,
Bonatti says that the planet the moon last separated from is the wife and the planet the moon next applies to is the husband.
But then he says that if the Moon or Lord 7 separated from ANY PLANET, the wife has been unfaithful, AND if the Moon or lord 7 applies to Mercury,Jupiter,Mars and they are not Lord 1, the wife has been unfaithful.

The questions are:
1) Is the planet the moon last separated from the wife or she has been unfaithful?
2) Is the planet the Moon next applies to the husband or she is unfaithful?
3) If Moon applies to Mars or Jupiter but that planet is also Lord 7, is she unfaithful?

Thanks
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1322

Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To answer your questions would be much easier, if you could quote Bonatus in whole sentences. Only paraphrasing him affords too many, and possibly vain, assumptions.

Johannes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Moderator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1104

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:55 am    Post subject: Re: Bonatti isn't clear, what do you think? Reply with quote

cgreen wrote:
In Bonatti's about unfaithfulness, Bonatti uses the word "joined with".


Joined with is by aspect or by conjunction.

Quote:
Is it joined by moeity of orb or joined by a degree(only 1degree orb)?


Have you read him in its entirety? He explains about orb. Joined by orb.

Quote:
Bonatti is also not clear about what is faithful and what is unfaithful,
Bonatti says that the planet the moon last separated from is the wife and the planet the moon next applies to is the husband.
But then he says that if the Moon or Lord 7 separated from ANY PLANET, the wife has been unfaithful, AND if the Moon or lord 7 applies to Mercury,Jupiter,Mars and they are not Lord 1, the wife has been unfaithful.


What translation are you using? Can you tell us the page it's on so we can at least double check for you?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cgreen



Joined: 21 May 2012
Posts: 18

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:30 pm    Post subject: Re: Bonatti isn't clear, what do you think? Reply with quote

Paul wrote:

Have you read him in its entirety? He explains about orb. Joined by orb.

Is "joined with" joined by moeity of orb then?

Quote:

Can you tell us the page it's on so we can at least double check for you?

Page 443-44, Tr. 6, Part 2, 7th House, Chapter 5.

Thanks
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Moderator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1104

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Bonatti isn't clear, what do you think? Reply with quote

cgreen wrote:

Bonatti is also not clear about what is faithful and what is unfaithful,
Bonatti says that the planet the moon last separated from is the wife and the planet the moon next applies to is the husband.
But then he says that if the Moon or Lord 7 separated from ANY PLANET, the wife has been unfaithful, AND if the Moon or lord 7 applies to Mercury,Jupiter,Mars and they are not Lord 1, the wife has been unfaithful.

The questions are:
1) Is the planet the moon last separated from the wife or she has been unfaithful?
2) Is the planet the Moon next applies to the husband or she is unfaithful?
3) If Moon applies to Mars or Jupiter but that planet is also Lord 7, is she unfaithful?

Thanks


Okay so this can be a bit confusing. I wanted to recheck my books before I answered.

First of all I wanted to point out the biggest mistake here, I wanted to say it when I first read the post but decided I'd wait and double check.

Bonatti says that the planet from which the moon separates is the husband, NOT the wife. The planet to which the moon applies is the wife.

We can take this as a general rule and it's used generally by older authors too. Really we could all but ignore this rule, Bonatti gives it as much to almost 'tick a box' as anything and to pay credit to this rule from older authorities.

Really the idea of unfaithfulness can be summed up easier than Bonatti perhaps words it. By quesited below I mean either the Moon or Lord 7, unless I specify one in particular.

The wife is unfaithful if:

The quesited separates by less than 3 degrees from another planet, provided that planet is not the lord of the ascendant - she used to be unfaithful but isn't any longer.

If Lord 7 is with the South Node, and not aspecting anything else, she has been unfaithful.

If the quesited were in aspect to a planet which is itself within orb (or perhaps by whole sign) with both Mars and the South Node she is unfaithful

The the quesited is conjunct Mars by whole sign, provide the SN is not in this sign, then the wife is unfaithful.

If the Moon separates from Mars, provided Mars is not the querent, then the wife has been unfaithful but their affair is over.

If the quesited were joined to a tripicity lord of the ascendant, then she has been unfaithful.


The wife is faithful if:

The quesited and Lord 1 are in aspect (provided no other planet is closer).

The quesited is void of course.

Lord 7 in aspect to the North Node, particularly whole sign conjunction, provided no other planet is in aspect, or at least closer in aspect.

If Mars is Lord 7, or Moon is Lord 7 and received by Mars, then she loved another but nothing came of it and she has not been unfaithful.



Now provided none of our rules for determining that the wife is faithful are present, we can speculate that the wife lusts after or is in love with another - thought his love may not be reciprocated and so she may not have been unfaithful. Our planets here are Jupiter, Mercury and Saturn, and to a lesser extent Venus.
If the two planets are in aspect (the quesited with the above planets), presumably by application, then if they are in mutual reception, there is a strong likelihood of something happening between them and the wife is likely to be unfaithful - unless the opportunity hasn't arisen yet - but both want it to happen either way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1322

Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Bonatti isn't clear, what do you think? Reply with quote

Paul wrote:
[...]
Really the idea of unfaithfulness can be summed up easier than Bonatti perhaps words it. By quesited below I mean either the Moon or Lord 7, unless I specify one in particular.
[...]

Paul, are the then following texts your words reflecting Bonattis teachings alone or the teachings of other authorities too?

Johannes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Moderator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1104

Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 1:52 pm    Post subject: Re: Bonatti isn't clear, what do you think? Reply with quote

johannes susato wrote:
Paul wrote:
[...]
Really the idea of unfaithfulness can be summed up easier than Bonatti perhaps words it. By quesited below I mean either the Moon or Lord 7, unless I specify one in particular.
[...]

Paul, are the then following texts your words reflecting Bonattis teachings alone or the teachings of other authorities too?

Johannes


It's summarising Bonatti's points but obviously they in turn reference older authorities as well. I have some of those older authorities in mind when I'm summarising of course. But I've not made any points that Bonatti himself hasn't made.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1322

Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, Paul. I suppose you are reading the translation of Ben Dykes?
Do you know if there is any other translation at all?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Moderator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1104

Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

johannes susato wrote:
Thanks, Paul. I suppose you are reading the translation of Ben Dykes?
Do you know if there is any other translation at all?


I am, I assume so too is cgreen.

I am not sure what other translations are available tbh.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1322

Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very Happy Thumbs up
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cgreen



Joined: 21 May 2012
Posts: 18

Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:31 pm    Post subject: Re: Bonatti isn't clear, what do you think? Reply with quote

Paul wrote:

Bonatti says that the planet from which the moon separates is the husband, NOT the wife. The planet to which the moon applies is the wife.

We can take this as a general rule and it's used generally by older authors too. Really we could all but ignore this rule, Bonatti gives it as much to almost 'tick a box' as anything and to pay credit to this rule from older authorities.

If you agree with older authors, it would make these invalid:
Because the planet moon separates and applies to is the wife and husband.
Quote:

The Moon separates by less than 3 degrees from another planet, provided that planet is not the lord of the ascendant - she used to be unfaithful but isn't any longer.

If the Moon separates from Mars, provided Mars is not the querent, then the wife has been unfaithful but their affair is over.

Moon applies to any planet


If Moon applies to Mars or Jupiter but that planet is also Lord 7, is she unfaithful?

Thanks
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LeeRutland



Joined: 20 May 2010
Posts: 27

Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I will not comment on this particular subject, but I must say, I have been reading Bonatti for several days now and find him very clear, detailed and rich in elaborating the details of each question he proposes.

The man is a wealth of information.
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
Page 1 of 1

 
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