A few astrological considerations of Guido Bonatti
May 12, 2009
Snippets and paraphrases, parked here mostly for my own reference as I study Ben Dykes’ translation of Bonatti’s Book of Astronomy.
#16 – Bonatti refers to Sahl: “after the malefic planet were to transit the planet whom it was impeding, by one full degree, the planet is said to be freed from the malefic. But to me it seems that after the malefic has transited him by 1 minute of arc, the planet may be said to be free, and to have escaped, because [the malefic] cannot introduce anything after that unless it is fear.” So: in a horary question, if there’s a conjunction or aspect to a key significator by a malefic AND it is just separating, even by as little as 1 minute of arc, it indicates fear, but not the failure of the endeavor.
#17 – Same thing in reverse for separating aspects from benefics. “After [the benefic] has transited [the significator] by 1 minute of arc, it is not perfected, nor does the matter send anything to him but hope…. And the hope which the benefic gives is such that the querent believes that the matter will be perfected for him.” Again: if the desired aspect by the benefic is separating, even by just a minute, at the time of the question, it brings hope but not help.
#9 – “The Moon is always to be put as a significatrix of every matter and every beginning, and every nativity;… And it is her virtue alone, and only her power, that even if the Lord of the Ascendant or another significator of some matter were impeded, indeed so that it could not do or perfect what it ought, and she were found to be strong, nevertheless the matter will be perfected.” So even when Lord 1 is weak, look to the Moon, and if she’s strong enough, what you ask about can still come to pass.
#64 – “Look to see whether the Moon is in Cancer, or in Taurus, or in Sagittarius, or in Pisces:… nor does voiding of course harm her in this case as much in those places as much as in others, provided that she is not combust.” Note that these signs are dignities of Moon or Jupiter (or in one case, both).
#31 – “A corporal conjunction will prohibit an aspect, and cuts it off, but an aspect will neither prohibit nor cut off a corporal conjunction.” I just used this one the other day, but couldn’t remember where I’d seen it.
Filed in Horary Questions & Answers, Natal Astrology
Tags: astrology, bonatti, bonatus, conjunction, considerations, horary, moon, separating aspects, void of course
Subscribe to feed
May 20, 2009 at 12:03 am
(#31 – “A corporal conjunction will prohibit an aspect, and cuts it off, but an aspect will neither prohibit nor cut off a corporal conjunction.” I just used this one the other day, but couldn’t remember where I’d seen it.)
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3045&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
I find this discussion interesting to the matter. So Christine, did this assertion of Sahl held true for you?
May 20, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Hi, PFN – I started reading the forum thread you refer to, and I’m not sure what it is you want me to comment on, or how it’s connected to what I posted here. I apologize if I’m missing something obvious. Thanks.
May 20, 2009 at 8:51 pm
“An aspect does not destroy a conjunction, but a conjunction does destroy an aspect.”, as stated by Bonnati and Sahl…
Still, Birchfield (a renowed astrologer)says: “Now that ‘sounds’ reasonable…. Theoretically!”… and explains why. It’s on the forum’s second page. Obviously, that only applies if we are discussing the same thing, which is “a conjunction can not be ‘destroyed’ by a trine, square, sextille or opposition”. I’m of the opinion that it is not so, an aspect to a malefic in bad position could hinder or even prohibit a matter, even if both related significators are going conjunct…
May 21, 2009 at 7:28 am
Oh, I see. Birchfield got the job, the best he’s ever had, so the applying Moon/Saturn conjunction in Leo was *not* the deciding factor.
This is where experience becomes our best teacher. If Sahl or Bonatti says X, but experience with astrology tells us Y, then I think it’s wise to “keep our brains in our heads and not in our books,” to paraphrase Culpeper.
Thanks for coming by and for showing me this example.
June 7, 2009 at 3:35 pm
In regards to #16
I just drew a horary for one who suffers greatly, and found the Moon separating by opposition from the Sun, by exactly one minute. In this instance I should hardly consider her troubles to be over, although further considerations of difficulty in this horary are shown. And then, upon closer examination, I looked to the seconds of arc, and saw that indeed this horary was drawn within the perfect minute of the full moon. I instructed her to seek professional help, fearing her dreams were shattered because she became pregnant.
I use Saturn as her significator, the exaltation, triplicity and term Lord of the Ascendant. 6/7/09 14:13:23 Buffalo, NY Asc 00Lib35
It almost seems arbitrary in this instance, that a few tiny seconds of measure — 14 of them — could make any difference. It is just so small. I wonder if in Bonatti’s time, they could be sure they perfectly measured the seconds and minutes? What a strange rule. And so, I should consider an aspect to be actively perfect, whether applying or separating, when it is in its partile aspect, and likewise until it has left the degree, it is no longer perfect, even with our modern, advanced computer calculations. It is like the outer planets. Without the aid of technology, they are not there, and similarly with the seconds of arc, unless I am mistaken. Just a thought.
Joseph
June 7, 2009 at 9:47 pm
That’s a fine question – how *would* Bonatti or his peers get it down to the second or minute? I think you’d be in good company if you decided that the aspect, once exact, is still partile while in the same degree. But I would disagree that the applying aspect that is still not quite perfect is active. I think it would still have to be perfected to the minute. I’ll see whether experience bears this out.
Not knowing what the actual horary question was, I wonder why you took the exaltation/trip/term ruler of 0 Libra, and not its own ruler, Venus. Whatever Saturn represents (Lord 5 – the child she carries, I guess?) must be seriously important to her, and also must be harming her (Saturn in Venus’ fall), but that doesn’t make Saturn *her* significator.
Thanks very much for coming by with your comment.