I've had charts with Moon entering Via Combusta and I agree with Frawley it does indicate emotional turmoil and in my experience if we take it as one of the significators of the querent I would say their emotions and feelings will be unpredictable regarding the matter.

But also I had a chart done a year ago with Moon entering via Combusta and there was a positive outcome (it was a friendship question). Maybe because my charts the Moon was in Libra not Scorpio.

johannes susato wrote:

Paul wrote:I'm not Fleur, [...]

I say? I would never ever have hit on that!

To be earnest again and to be honest, it would be a pleasure if you could provide those quotations you have in mind, especially the justifications of these opinions, if there were any.

Thank you in advance, Paul.

Ack, sorry Johannes, I actually started digging out some references but then got interrupted and forgot to come back to it.

Rather than list loads, I'll just quote from one or two which convey the point that several modern astrologers seem to have:

On the chapter entitled "Primary Considerations", from "Horary Astrology, the Art of Astrological Divination", by Derek Appleby:

A chart may be judged when it is 'radical' or 'fit to be judged'. A non-radical chart not normally be judged.
...
The Via Combusta
The degree area extending from 15 Libra to 15 Scorpio is known as the via combusta. Tradition states that if the Ascendant or Moon falls between these two points, it is not safe to give judgement, and some authorities hold that any significator falling within this degree area is ineffective. The only exception is the degree of the benefic fixed star Spica, at 23 Libra; this positions is considered most fortunate. Pesonally I have not found this rule reliable, so I tend to ignore it.

On the chapter entitled "When not to pass judgement" from Handbook of Horary Astrology by Karen Hamaker-Zondag, pgs 15-18

According to tradition, there are some charts that are risky to interpret because they contain indications that they can give no answer to the question, or that the querent or the astrologer will make mistakes.

...
5. When the Moon or planet representing the querent or the quesited is in the via combusta. This is a very old rule, and is no longer observed by all horary astrologers.
...
Looking at the matter objectively there is not a single reason for clinging to the Via Combusta, and certainly not for deciding that a chart is incapable of being safely judged because of it. However, it must be mentioned that, guided by personal experience, the renowned horary specialist Barbara Watters did not completely abandon the Via Combusta rule

As we see, there is no complete unanimity on the subject of when a horary chart may and may not be interpreted.
...
The important thing with all these rules is to proceed with caution!

As you can see from his reference, KHZ acknowledges that there are many modern astrologers who suggest a chart cannot be read under given conditions, though she herself advises that we proceed with caution with such charts. Similarly Derek Appleby lists it, but then suggests he doesn't actually observe the rule.
However individuals like Barbara Watters and others have perpetuated the notion that the old considerations before judgement were prohibitions on judgement or strictures against judgement.

Not everyone agrees of course. Ivy Goldstein Jacobson, for example, lists the Via Combusta as an effect upon the Moon but does not mention that charts should not be read. It seems that astrologers, either mostly inspired by Barbara Watters (etc.) do feel that there exists situations in which a significator, the moon particularly, in the via combusta prevents a chart from being read.

The common consensus seems to be the assumption that these rules are very old and from the tradition, so my assumption is that the considerations have been confused for strictures. Having said that, Bonatti does say we should not judge a chart unless there is hour agreement etc. so I think there is at least some context for the idea.

Mjacob wrote: I reread it in its entirety and my paraphrase is accurate. You are free to disagree with him if you like just as you free to misunderstand a single sentence. if it helps you the border between signs is a line with no breadth and the moon is a disc with a diameter ie breadth. No me credo circumspice
MJ

MJ

I think the point that johannes is making is that Ibn Ezra still attests that the planet at the last degree of a sign is in the sign in which it is, and not in the next sign. Just that its influence in the sign remains, but its strength is lost and its power is in the next sign. But this is different from suggesting he means that the planet is in the next sign too, even if it's only a subtle difference. He never states or suggests it's in two signs at the same time. I always understood this to be that he means that the planet loses or begins to lose its dignity in the sign in which it is, but is still influenced by that sign, but is pushing its power forward into the next sign.

I have the Moon at 29 degrees Aquarius and Mars at 29 Gemini and I have always felt that they are as they are, and they are not in Pisces or Cancer respectively - for whatever that is worth.