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.

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

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.

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…

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?