Hi everyone,

I was asked some time ago about a lease of a beach location which is used as a surf club for a couple of years.
The question was "will I renew the lease on the location"?
The querent was worried that the terms won't be favorable (rent too high) and that it won't be profitable to re-sign the contract with the organization she rents the beach location from.

I judged the chart as favorable for the querent, saying that she'll probably re-sign.
--
My reasoning:
Jupiter and Moon both represent the querent,.
Mars as the planet which disposits Jupiter is the organization she leases from.
As Mars exalts the Moon I thought the conditions of the new lease will be favorable.

Result: the organization asked for a really high rent and the querent will probably not re-sign.


What are your thoughts on this horary?

Moon void of course (at least if you do not allow change of signs for the next aspect and she has no light to bring): Nothing will happen. And if nothing will happen, the lease will not be renewed because this is the default option.

I personally would give aspects much more weight than reception, let alone a single reception. In my experience, reception alone is not enough to turn around a mostly negative chart.

Georgius wrote:Moon void of course (at least if you do not allow change of signs for the next aspect and she has no light to bring): Nothing will happen.

(1) Yes, and even if we allow a change of sign, the moon is in opposition with Jupiter. This is an opposition from the 7th to the 1st! (The 7th house rules commercial transaction). I didn't check if there is strong reception but even with one, opposition almost always is negative.

(2) Jupiter is also being applied to by Mercury. Now, mercury is the 7th lord in the 4th - both relevant houses - this mercury begged to be noticed! Unfortunately, this mercury is under the sunbeams. It is also a harsh square although with nice reception.

Both are negative testimonies from the 7th house. I think this is remarkable. The Moon's testimony is especially bad. In my experience, if the Moon does not show support, the matter will fall apart.

I know that in old times (e.g. William Lilly), we used the 6th and the 10th, but I think tenants and landlords are on a much more equal footing in modern times. So I think the 7th does have a say.

I have once done a good rent chart for a friend in which the Moon applied to trine the Venus (the 7th lord). The flat went straight to my friend. The landlord even passed on another tenant who offered to pay more, that's how much she liked my friend!

(2) Jupiter is also being applied to by Mercury. Now, mercury is the 7th lord in the 4th - both relevant houses - this mercury begged to be noticed! Unfortunately, this mercury is under the sunbeams. It is also a harsh square although with nice reception.

L1 square L7
This one seems to speak loudly in the overall chart. No agreement in sight.
And L1 Jupiter is besieged between Mars and Saturn.
Venus on the cusp of the 4th (turned 10th for the landlord and ruling his 2nd House). He is passing the bucket to increase his personal asset.
Neptune R in the 1st always bring some kind of deception in the matter.

And I agree with you, the movement of the planets is more important than the reception.

Dima Gur wrote: Result: the organization asked for a really high rent and the querent will probably not re-sign.

Tha contract is still open, I suppose?

Significators are Jupiter and the Moon for the querent,
Mercury for the quesited party.

The applying square of Mercury with Jupiter is without mutual reception,
so it cannot bring the contract about.

But the fact that Mercury is in the exaltation of Jupiter (the querent), is an
interesting testimony of the strong interest the quesited party is taking
in the querent.

The Moon as the querent's cosingnifcator is (following the teachings of
Lilly, Dariot and others) not VOC, because she is in application to Mercury
by square. This square is with strong mutual reception by house, so it
would be not surprising if the contract would be made, in the end.

Because of the strong interest of the quesited partner or organization in
the querent (see above, Mercury in the exaltation of Jupiter), she should
negotiate their offer hard again and to her own advantage.

I actually agree with Johannes that if she pushes hard for it she could still get the place, but the opposition and a 4th house planet under the sunbeams are telling me that she will possibly at some point think "it's not worth it after all", might even regret it.

johannes susato wrote:The Moon as the querent's cosingnifcator is (following the teachings of
Lilly, Dariot and others) not VOC, because she is in application to Mercury
by square.

Sorry, I cannot agree with this. According to Lilly the moon is void of course because she is not applying to an aspect or conjunction going to be perfect in her present sign. It is not enough that she is applying Mercury in the next sign. Maybe you want to check this out: https://skyscript.co.uk/moon2.html#20back (number 2). Also her last aspects to Sun and Venus are out of orb if you do not use very wide orbs. Another rule is broken.

Do you have other experiences? I know that not everybody agrees with Lilly.

The time the square is perfect I cannot see a mutual reception. Do you think the mutual reception at the time of the question is enough?

Sorry, as I investigate further I see that Lilly considered aspects perfect not until the next sign too. Remains the missing separating aspect within orbs. Lilly speaks of ???a vac“ (???from nothing“).

Georgius wrote: https://skyscript.co.uk/moon2.html#20back (number 2). [...]

The time the square is perfect I cannot see a mutual reception. Do you think the mutual reception at the time of the question is enough?

The quotation should be read (number 3).

And yes, I think the significator's dignities are crucial at the time of the
question.

But here, even in the next sign the Moon is, then being in the dignity of
Mercury's triplicity, still in mutual reception with him.

. . . and furthermore:

Georgius wrote:Remains the missing separating aspect within orbs. Lilly speaks of ???a vac“ (???from nothing“).

In the same article, https://skyscript.co.uk/moon2.html#20back
under the head Lilly's Void of Course Examples, you find:

2. But if the Moon is in orb of an applying aspect, it will bring whatever
influence it has to that planet, even if it must enter a new sign to do so.

This matches exactly Lilly's example in pages 401 and 402:

The Moon, coming from being VOC, i.e. a vac (exactly a cursu vacuo), is
not any longer VOC, when she starts her application to another planet.

Here, in our question, the Moon brings her influence as the cosignificator
of the querent to the quesited party.

johannes susato wrote:And yes, I think the significator's dignities are crucial at the time of the
question.

Hmm. Even if one planet must change the celestial houses to make the aspect perfect… I will consider and have to observe this.

johannes susato wrote:But here, even in the next sign the Moon is, then being in the dignity of
Mercury's triplicity, still in mutual reception with him.

Oh, yes! (Unfortunately I often forget tripicity.)

johannes susato wrote: 2. But if the Moon is in orb of an applying aspect, it will bring whatever
influence it has to that planet, even if it must enter a new sign to do so.

This I discovered just before I wrote http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 848#123830

johannes susato wrote: This matches exactly Lilly's example in pages 401 and 402:

The Moon, coming from being VOC, i.e. a vac (exactly a cursu vacuo), is not
any longer VOC, when she starts her application to another planet.

Ok… That means she receives the virtues of Mercury but has nothing to deliver because she lost the virtues in being temporarely VOC. After entering the next sign she takes Mercurys virtue and brings it to Jupiter, the querents significator.

johannes susato wrote:Here, in our question, the Moon brings his influence as the cosignificator of
the querent to the quesited party.

I wonder if this outweights her emptiness after being VOC. The translation of light from Mercury to Jupiter is a little bit far off to me.

Now almost 8 month have past since the question arose. What is the result of the matter, @Dima Gur?