Such progress

Well, prohibition can hinder or retard something, as well as prevent it from happening. (Otherwise you?d never consider any application of the Moon past its most immediate aspect). This horary seems to give you a valid description of the situation and how it played out, it just seems to be less relevant to the specific question you asked of it. To me it demonstrates the points that Dennis Elwell makes in his article A Modern Art of Horary which is what I think Mark is also referring to.

One of the reasons I don?t think we have to take the literal wording of the question too seriously is because of the constraints it puts on the ability to read a chart effectively, (that is, when we expect astrology to answer our questions exactly as we put them, rather than opening ourselves up to what the chart has to say in a wider context first, and then forming a judgement on that, and then through that ? hopefully - the question itself and everything that pertains to it). In answer to your question ?will we meet again?? I think the horary replies ?maybe, but what?s significant on a wider basis is that the relationship is failing and will be over soon if it isn?t already?.

I can see you are wanting a more definite answer to your more definite question. But just think about how confusing that might have been ? to get a chart that shows your significators moving towards each other or giving other positive indications to answer ?yes? to your question. You would surely then have expected that there was still life in the relationship yet, and you maybe wouldn?t have made the changes you did make in your physical, mental or emotional state after reading this horary and assuming it was saying ?no?. Of course it might be nice to have an applying opposition, but the planets can?t make oppositions to order, so you have to look at the whole mood of the horary moment and question ?why is this issue of concern to me at this time, and what can astrology tell me of it??. Otherwise the limits we place on astrology are such that a lot of charts will seem to be wrong, even though, in essence, they had something very valuable to impart.

I?m not trying to convince you Pete, just giving my opinion on this. It?s a very interesting horary and it?s especially interesting to look at it in the light of what happened afterwards because of the detail you?ve put into explaining the circumstances of the event. It shows that it?s always a lot more to consider than whether x will meet up with y; like you say here, there were financial implications, property implications, and a lot of other issues that were part of the consequence of this meeting. If this kind of information isn?t volunteered to the astrologer, it is very easy to miss the symbolism of the chart.

Anyway, sorry it didn?t work out but it sounds like you were well rid of her in the end. So, do you think that Mars being in her 2nd house meant she was primarily motivated by money, and was she as fiery and dramatic as Mars in Sag trine Jupiter in Aries suggests?

This horary seems to give you a valid description of the situation and how it played out, it just seems to be less relevant to the specific question you asked of it. To me it demonstrates the points that Dennis Elwell makes in his article A Modern Art of Horary...

I've just re-read his article and it's made me realise just how entrenched I seem to be in my desire to get a specific answer to a specific question. Elwell is right; it *is* arrogance to expect the cosmos to conform to our every little whim and demand. His two example charts were very instructive in this respect.

Anyway, sorry it didn?t work out but it sounds like you were well rid of her in the end. So, do you think that Mars being in her 2nd house meant she was primarily motivated by money, and was she as fiery and dramatic as Mars in Sag trine Jupiter in Aries suggests?

Yes, I think financial security was and is her primary consideration, and as for fiery and dramatic, well ~ apart from Leo rising she has no fire in her chart but she does have the several planets in Pisces, including the chart ruler, and a t-square between Sun-Mars-Uranus. Dramatic? No question. You're not the first to tell me I'm well rid of her Deb, and now, finally, I really believe I am.
I'm getting too old in the teeth for that level of drama!
Thanks again for your comments...
--
Cheers...

Following Olivia Barclay I was taught to ask the querent to write the question down on a piece of paper and to answer that question exactly as it appeared ? nothing more and nothing less (the reason I was given for this was that the client had only given his/her approval for my scrutiny of this question and to look beyond that was an infringement of my privileged position). I rejected that as a working philosophy a long time ago when it became obvious that I could get a long trail of horaries on little questions from a client, all of which repeated the same essential message which answered all their problems. I can honestly say that I have never known a horary to be false, although I haven?t understood all of them as clearly as I wish I had at the time. It seems bizarre to suggest ?this chart is right but your question is wrong?, but nowadays I only take the verbal question as a handle by which I can get to grips with the issue I?m looking at.

Learning to let the chart describe the real problem to you also means you are less affected by the client?s prejudice and expectations. And in answer to Elwell?s challenge that if the chart is valid it shouldn?t just be able to give the answer but the question too ? there have been many times when I?ve told the querent that I know what they want to ask me about, and I?ve explained their issues to them, especially when they have had a fear of expressing it. These are usually consultation charts, which I approach and read according to horary methods.

Clients often have a narrow focus upon what they think their problems are, so to only answer the question they bring to you is like an accountant explaining that you?ll be able to meet this upcoming debt, yet failing to mention that unless you make big changes you?ll be bankrupt and ruined by the end of the year. My philosophy is that if someone brings a concern to me they want my full and frank exploration of any astrological signal concerning the issues they are facing - inside and outside the question. The chart gives us access to a higher level of spiritual reality and a client will only benefit if they make the attempt to align themselves with it. I work the consultation on my terms, not the clients, so it?s all or nothing based on trust and confidence and this ?permission? business is irrelevant.

I agree with pretty much everything you're saying Deb, particularly where you talk about allowing the chart to describe the underlying situation that may have prompted the question. When I posed my query I was aware that the relationship was to all intents and purposes over ~ or at the very least seriously compromised ~ and the horary I think makes that point clearly. However, I believe that the horary ought also to answer the *specific* question asked, as well as widen out the issue where that's necessary. In this case it may well be saying "well look Pete, this thing is pretty much dead in the water and you probably know that", and by all the conventional standards we bring to bear to answer horaries ( applying aspects of significators especially ) it was telling me that querent and quesited won't even meet again. I don't think the application of the Moon to square Saturn is giving an affirmative answer, given their condition, so I had to ask myself just where do I look to find the connection that describes the actual meeting, and the only thing that describes it is the antiscion contact of Mercury and Mars.
Like Elwell and Maurice McCann and no doubt yourself, I question my horaries; I examine every possibility and if the horary doesn't appear to give the correct judgement on the question *as posed*, then I want to find out why.
To use a similar analogy to your own: I think it's no use telling a client that they'll win the lottery in November if they want to know if they'll be able to put food on the table in July. In my view the horary ought to be able to answer both the microcosmic and the macrocosmic. In this case I believe that, through finding the antiscion connection I eventually got the correct answer to my question, and the rest of the horary described the "but...."
--
Cheers....

Pete:

I looked long and hard at that translation Deb, and finally concluded that the Moon wasn't translating from Mars to Venus after all: the Moon comes to the square of Saturn before that of Venus, so this is in fact a case of 'prohibition'. Saturn prevents the translation from taking effect

Deb:

Well, prohibition can hinder or retard something, as well as prevent it from happening. (Otherwise you?d never consider any application of the Moon past its most immediate aspect).

This may expand the thread beyond this immediate chart, but this thought has been on my mind lately. Since the Moon moves so fast from aspect to aspect, it basically is translating and being prohibited all of the time. So can we focus on one of these aspects at the expense of the others? In this chart Deb focused on the translation from the Moon?s prior square to Mars (the woman in question) to it?s upcoming square to Venus (Pete) as a sign that shows there will be a meeting between the two of them, but one that is fraught with difficulty.

But as Pete pointed out, the Moon had made another contact after the time when it was square to Mars and before it was square to Venus, and so he asked if this isn?t an example of prohibition and not translation. But in fact the Moon made many other contacts within this chart. Let?s start at the beginning. The contacts the Moon made after entering Pisces was first that it was separating from being conjoined with Uranus (though Uranus was still in Aquarius). Next it came to be square with Mars (the woman). Right after that it was inconjunct with Jupiter, followed by being squared with Pluto. These are all separating aspects in this chart. The following are the applying aspects. Next the Moon moves to be in a square with Saturn. Only after that does it finally come to be square with Venus (Pete).

Now I am not so interested in the specific meaning of all of these contacts in this chart, other than to note that none of them are very easy contacts so this must have been a difficult time for Pete. My question here is whether we can focus on the Moon eventually coming to be square with Venus as translation of light between Mars and the Venus, when the Moon had made so many other contacts? In a strict sense, since the Moon?s most recent contact was with Pluto how can there be translation with Mars? For translation, don't we look to the most recent contact a planet made before the chart was cast? After the Moon was first square with Mars it had two other contacts, with Jupiter and with Pluto. So really, if there is translation here between Mars and Venus, it has been prohibited by the Moon?s contacts with Jupiter, Pluto and Saturn. So can this be translation? Or do we say that the Moon does have translation between Mars and Venus, but with so many interfering prohibitions that any chance of perfection will be with difficulty?

We see this in many charts where the Moon has quite a few contacts with one sign. Like I said, in a lot of charts the Moon does a lot of translating and gets inhibited quite a bit. So can we call it translation when there are other intervening contacts? I guess in this chart I am more bothered by the fact that the Moon's most recent contact before the chart was with Pluto, which makes it look like the Moon is translating from Pluto. So do we just ignore the Moon?s contact with both Pluto and with Jupiter and go back to focus on its contact with Mars? What are the rules from calling something translation?

Hi Mark,

For translation, don't we look to the most recent contact a planet made before the chart was cast? After the Moon was first square with Mars it had two other contacts, with Jupiter and with Pluto. So really, if there is translation here between Mars and Venus, it has been prohibited by the Moon?s contacts with Jupiter, Pluto and Saturn. So can this be translation? Or do we say that the Moon does have translation between Mars and Venus, but with so many interfering prohibitions that any chance of perfection will be with difficulty?

I?m not sure if the contacts with Jupiter and Pluto are the best examples to use in this discussion ? since one is by minor aspect, the other is an outer planet ? but either way I?d consider the translation between Mars and Venus because it is in the process of moving between the two main significators and within orb of both of them. It would be a more direct form of translation if it was moving immediately between them, but if contacts are made to other planets during the process then I see those contacts as interferences that need to be evaluated for their influence upon the effect.

I?m going to respond in a general sense because the issue is wider than this chart, as you say. I?m cautious of regarding the definitions we define by such terms as ?rules? and prefer to consider them as guidelines for interpretation, or terms that effectively communicate elements of our reasoning. The difficulty in viewing them as rules is that there is a lot of contradiction and confusion built into their traditional definitions. The terms have never been defined with enough precision and clarity for us to take a precise and unambiguous approach. Hence some authors argue that translation only occurs where there is reception between the Moon and the receiving planet, etc., whereas others don?t specify this.

Ultimately what?s most important is that we use such techniques to help us build a descriptive profile of how the chart relates to the circumstances. Prohibition is a neat term but a planet that falls within the technical position defined by prohibition doesn?t always prohibit ? sometimes it aids and abets by reinforcing the influence of the aspect it ?interferes? with. So ?prohibition? only occurs when the planet not only fulfils the technical criteria but the descriptive criteria that we attach to the definition as well. Judgement always has to come into it and sometimes the strength of the descriptive criteria calls for some allowance on the technical criteria. It is arguable whether the translation I mentioned in this post would be considered valid by all horary astrologers, not only because of the interposing effect of Saturn but also because of the contradictory views regarding the validity of applying aspects that perfect after a planet has crossed a sign border.

Since the Moon moves so fast from aspect to aspect, it basically is translating and being prohibited all of the time.

There?s a lot of misunderstanding connected with the term prohibition. Prohibition is where an aspect is perfecting but, before it completes, another planet overtakes one of the significators to perfect the aspect first. The Moon is never prohibited because no planet can overtake the Moon ? I suspect what you mean is that the Moon can frequently act as a prohibiting planet or will frequently come to interposing planets, (which stand between its perfection with a later aspect). Since the Moon?s influence is often vital in drawing out and bringing together the other planetary influences, we tend to consider it as a facilitating planet rather than a prohibiting one; though it will prohibit if it is in a damaged or destructive state. Its condition has to be assessed in each chart, and must be ? generally nothing is more important than the Moon.

The ?official? effect of interposing planets is also neutral and determined by assessment. As the glossary item states: ?A good interposing planet can help to lessen the affects of a bad relationship between the other planets and, of course, a bad interposing planet can have a detrimental affect on a relationship that otherwise looks promising.?

So it is a case, as you suggest, of looking at interfering contacts, but not necessarily deciding that they bring ?perfection with difficulty?; only that they add an extra layer of detail and the relevance of that detail might waver according to the significance that the interposing planet holds in the chart. In this chart the separating square with Pluto may not be of such immediate significance since Pluto is not directly tied to an angle or main significator. There?s an effect, but it?s a background effect. The separation from Jupiter is by inconjunct - I don?t worry about the interposing effect of minor aspects generally, especially the inconjunct since its name arises from the recognition that, traditionally, there is no aspect connecting the two planets that meet by this relationship; hence no ability to transfer influences to each other. (However, the trine between Jupiter and Mars means that Jupiter is a very important planet in building up the descriptive profile around Mars ? the quesited?s significator.)

The most valid interposing planet is Saturn which the Moon meets by square. This is a damaging aspect that we would expect to destroy the potential of the Moon?s application to Venus. And it does. By my own ?rules? I would recognise the translation between Mars and Venus if I could count the application to Venus as effective. It would be effective it if it is already within application and there is no interruption before the perfection (the Moon has to carry its influence forward and offer it somewhere). If this were the case the fact that the Moon hasn?t fully separated from Mars and is presently in the process of carrying Mars?s influence forward to Venus, would help to overcome the fact that Mars and Venus are not in aspect with each other. I referred to the translation, but then I also referred to the damaging interruption that destroys it.

This takes us back to the earlier discussion, where we all agree that the chart is saying ?no? to this question. The question remains as to whether a horary chart can communicate in microcosmic and macrocosmic language at the same time. I think the ?bigger picture? is all we can rely upon but this chart raises some really interesting philosophical issues. I?m going to agree with Pete to reserve the use of the final word: ?but??