I probably am getting rusty but I can't seem to figure out of there is translation of light in this chart. The info is November 12, '05 at 12:46 PM, in NYC.

My question is whether there is translation between the Saturn and the Sun, via Mars. Mars' last contact was an opposition with the Sun, then it makes a square with Saturn. That seems like translation, but only if I don't count all the contact that the Moon makes. But these contacts are made when the Moon was in a diferent sign that it is in this chart.

The Moon will also make a trine to Saturn before Mars makes it's square to Saturn. Does that prevent the translation?

Also, because Mercury was moving slower than the Sun when they met by opposition, it was the Sun that applied to Mercury, not the other way around. I think that would disallow the translation right there. Yes?

Even though this is not neither translation or collection, it does seem to be hybrid of the two. Is that possible and does it mean anything?

Mark

Yes I see what you mean - moon will make aspects to saturn but can't make them to the sun. And mars would definitely count for translation if the moon wasn't around. Although how helpful a retrograde mars which has opposed the sun and squares saturn would be I am not sure.

At least I think you can ignore mercury anyway because it goes retrograde before contacting saturn.

This reminds me of a question I have been meaning to post for some while. In translation and collection planets that have already made an aspect can be brought together by a third planet. i.e contact with a third planet is "good" for getting the thing done.

However planets that have not yet made an aspect, but will do soon, are frustrated ( or prohibited or whatever) by a planet getting between them. ie contact with a third planet "hinders" the thing to be done.

Now if you imagine a situation with the same three planets involved -lets say venus mars with mercury involved why should an intervening mercury be treated as a negative if venus & mars are aproaching an aspect and a positive if they are separating?

It seems to me that while individually the two rules seem to make sense - when considered together they are illogical.

which brings me back to your question/ Mars is translating ( even though it is debilitated and challenged) but the moon is getting in the way even though it will trine saturn ( and therefore should strengthen it). It all seems topsy turvey and i can see why you have a problem coming up with the answer. I don't have it but I do agree that some expert advice is required here...

I have a question regarding translation as well: is the Moon in Scorpio (where it is now) translating the light between Jupiter and Mercury?

Does it matter that before the Moon, which is in 3 degrees Scorpio in this chart, first makes a trine to Uranus at 6 degrees Pisces, before it conjuncts Jupiter at 7 degrees Scorpio, and then it goes on to oppose Mars at 9 Taurus and square Saturn at 11 Leo -- all before it finally ends up conjuncting the Rx Mercury at 27 Scorpio?

In other words, is the Moon at 3 Scorpio too far away to be in aspect with the Mercury Rx? Or does it matter since it will eventually conjunct it?

OK, first I have an answer to my own question. It comes from another professional, but not from someone on this forum.

He says that this is not translation of light because it is the Sun that first applied to Mars, and not Mars that applied to the Sun. His explanation was that the Sun picks up some of Mars' light when it made that opposition. But since the Sun has no more contacts to make in this chart it keeps that light.

He also pointed to how Lilly distinguishes between translation of light and translation that leads to perfection of a question. When it leads to perfection of a question, there must be some major reception involved, which there isn't here anyway, and the separating contact must be by sextile, trine or conjunction and the applying contact must be by conjunction or any aspect..

And no, the Moon here is not translating light between Jupiter and Mercury. In order for they?re to be translation, there must a prior aspect and an applying aspect and in this case, there are only the applying aspects.

The outer planets don't count as far as translation of light is concerned as far as I've seen. They also don't prohibit two significators.

And VoyagerGirl you seem to be looking at a slightly different chart than I am, but this doesn't matter. When you ask about all the aspects that the Moon will make, the main point is that we are only concerned about translation or prohibition if the planets involved are significators or not. If the Moon coming to trine with Jupiter shows perfection, but before it does so it meet Mars, then whatever Mars signifies will block the perfection of the question. Since the Moon moves so fast it will make all kinds of contacts in some charts. The key thing is whether the planets contacted are significators.

[/quote]If the Moon coming to trine with Jupiter shows perfection, but before it does so it meet Mars, then whatever Mars signifies will block the perfection of the question.[quote]

Ok, sorry to be such a dolt here, but by your quote, do you mean that if the Moon meets Mars before trining Jupiter or if Mars meets Jupiter before the Moon does?

Also, I think it was Maurice McCan that said outer planets can be involved in frustration but not prohibition: as I recall (and I'm not guaranteeing my recollection is at all trustworthy at this point!) he said that frustration involved a slower moving significator coming to an aspect with another planet before aspecting the other significator. I think he described prohibition as the faster moving planet coming to aspect another planet before it aspected the other significator. And he said that outer planets could be involved in frustration (if I remember it right) but not in prohibition.

What do you think?

I meant that if the Moon meets Mars before it meets Jupiter, then whatever is signified by Mars will prevent the person from getting what they want.

I don't know about Maurice McCann, but I like to be consistent. Outer planets don't rule signs, so they can't have any essential dignity and so they can't translate light. The same would be the same for prohibition. Also, since they can't rule a sign, they can't be used to signify anyone besides their own natural significations. If Mars rules the 4th house it could be your father, if it rules the 10th house it could be your job. But since Uranus can't rule a sign, it is always just Uranus, the natural significator of separations. If Mars rules the 4th house and prohibits some question, then your father may be the one to prevent whatever it is you want. It would be meaningless to say that Uranus could prohibit anything because how could you say that separation as an abstract quantity can prevent us from achieving something. The outers don't represent people, just abstract concepts.

I can?t take in all the details of this discussion so I?m mainly going to stick to Mark?s scenario.

I don?t think it matters whether the Sun applied to Mars or Mars applied to the Sun; only that Mars is separating from the Sun and applying to Saturn and both are within its current orb of aspect. Under these conditions reception is not necessary (though always more helpful). But it does seem more of a necessary factor here in the applying square between Mars and Saturn because this is such a naturally hostile contact you have to wonder how helpful it can be (let alone that Mars is retrograde).

But you seem to have overlooked that just before Mars perfects its square to Saturn it will first perfect a trine to Venus. So Venus is interposing. The influence of the Moon is not usually considered damaging unless the Moon is unfortunate or applying by bad aspect. Here its trine to Saturn is supportive of what Saturn wants but it?s not even contacting Mars so has no sense of interfering with the message or whatever it is that Mars is translating from the Sun to Saturn. The one to watch is Venus.

This brings us to a point that Amelia raised. It?s often assumed that an interposing planet is a prohibiting one, but it?s not. Interposing planets can be helpful; they are only prohibitive when their interjection is likely to be damaging ? usually because that planet has been defined as destructive in influence, or seen to signify someone with opposing interests.

So Mars can potentially translate here, but you still have to factor in the relevance of other contacts and how useful a retrograde square from Mars to Saturn can be.

dear deb, mark, et al,

i looked at mark's chart and i saw the translation of light mentioned -- the sun separating from saturn by square 9?...mars separating from an opposition to sun by 7?, and mars applying to square saturn by 2?.

i have a question about this. i thought that in a translation of light, the planet doing the translating has to be faster than the 2 planets being connected by the translating planet. since mars is retrograde, does this affect the translation? or am i misunderstanding something?

this chart has raised another question i had about translation of light. mark mentioned the thing about reception and the need for easy aspects. what happens if you have 2 significators applying to an opposition, a majorly separative aspect, but before this aspect perfects the moon separates from one of the sigs by opposition and applies to the other by conjunction? there's no reception, either. does the opposition somehow affect the translation? i mean, i would guess that it does, it's just a little confusing to me.


great thread, thanks guys!


sincerely,
chrissy

Chrissy and Deb,

I think that we are getting a little bit loose with our terminolgy. Using the definition that Lilly uses, there is no translation from the Sun to Saturn via Mars. Partly it's because of what Deb said about Venus meeting Saturn first. But it's also because Mars is not the lighest, fastest planet here. Also Lilly limits translation that achieves perfection as I said above to certain aspects and conjunction, and has to have reception.

But... that's not to say that there isn't contact here between all these planets. And we can interpret that contact, in a similar manner as if this were translation.

The chart is a mess of contacts, most of whom are still applying. Lucky me! At lease I have a lot to look forward to. This was an event chart, and the question was "What the *$@# just happened?" Underneath that profane question was a deeper question as to whether some astrological magic that I had performed was behind this event. The astrological magic involved Venus, and the more I look at the chart, the more I am convinced that Venus is involved, perhaps unable to fix things right away, but enought to lessen and guide the situation. That was my question, and I guess the answer is a guarded, yes. I keep thinking of Churchill's words after the battle of El-Alamein. He said, "This isn't the end. It isn't the beginning of the end. But it is the end of the beginning."

Above all I notice that Saturn is ruled by the Sun, the Sun is ruled by Mars, Mars is ruled by Venus, and Venus is ruled by Saturn.

I think that we are getting a little bit loose with our terminolgy. Using the definition that Lilly uses, there is no translation from the Sun to Saturn via Mars.

Hmmm, why ask ?is this translation of light or not?? when you already seem so sure. I?m not being loose with terminology and have a good understanding of how Lilly applied the term.

Lilly limits translation that achieves perfection as I said above to certain aspects and conjunction, and has to have reception.

No he doesn?t. He offers two conflicting definitions, one of which states that the translating planet should be received by the planet it is translating from, and another that doesn?t call for this, but does require the translating planet to be simultaneously within orb of the planets it is translating between. In this Lilly appears to be following Dariot who also offers two similar conflicting definitions.

A study of how Lilly used translation in his charts shows clearly that he didn?t require reception. Nor is this requirement shown by Lilly?s example demonstration of translation on p.111. However on every occasion where Lilly does talks about a planet translating or carrying forth the virtue of a planet it is separating from, to a planet it is applying to, all of the planets it is translating between are within the translating planet?s current orb. He never refers to translation occurring between planets that are out of the translating planet's orb.

Also, under these circumstances we needn?t assume that an interposing planet will prevent the translation or that it can only occur between the translating planet?s very last and very next contacts. See p.182 of CA where Lilly talks about the Moon transferring ?both the virtue and influence of Mercury and Mars to the proper Significator of the Querent?. This is relevant because both Mercury and Mars, and the significator of the querent (Venus) are all within the orb of the Moon. It seem to be the case that a planet can only translate influences between planets which are, for itself, within reach.

[/quote] He offers two conflicting definitions, one of which states that the translating planet should be received by the planet it is translating from, and another that doesn?t call for this, but does require the translating planet to be simultaneously within orb of the planets it is translating between.

Deb, could you give an example of each of the two translation definitions you mentioned above?

And what is the planetary orb that allows for translation?

Thank you for your help!

Hi VG,
Lilly gives his own examples in his definitions on p.111 and 126. It?s the former definition that he applies in his own practice. (At least in all the charts I have seen of his so far).

For the use of planetary orbs see http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aspects.html and then http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aspectorbs.html

Lilly?s definition of the Moon as ?void? hinges upon it being out of orb of contact, which renders it ?empty? and unable to translate its influence.