Hi all,

In Ben Dykes' translation of Bonatti's treatise on elections and the one which deals with elections (Choices and Inceptions) there are two passages I've broken my teeth on (Or whichever way you say it).

Here's the one from Bonatti:
If someone wanted to sell some thing and it was his intention that he make money on the price that he accepted for the thing, put the Moon in Taurus or Cancer or Virgo or Pisces, not impeded, and make it so that she is being separated from the benefics (or at least from one), whether by body or by aspect; and that she be joined to the malefics by aspect, not by body: for these signify good for him from whom the thing is separated, and who sells it.

And the one from Sahl:
And if you wanted to sell, put the Moon in her own exaltation or triplicity,
while separating herself from the fortunes and aspecting the
infortunes ([but] not, however, applying to them).

I can't seem to wrap my head around these.
Why would you like the moon to be in these configurations in order to benefit or profit from selling an item or real estate...
From what I'm familiar with, the moon represents the item which is on sell or/and the price of that commodity.
So why make it weaker.
Maybe because symbolically it passes from you to the ownership of another? Still seems odd to me.

Any insights would be welcome.

Cheers,
D.

I think the logic is this:

(1) The moon goes from looking better than it is (benefic influence) to not worth so much (malefic influence). The seller gets to sell when the item looks really nice and enviable. After the sale happens (that is, the moment the moon departs from the seller/benefic), the item falls in value. Therefore, the buyer must have bought expensive and the seller must have got more than what she deserved! (Or at least what she deserved.)

(2) The planet the Moon separates from is traditionally the seller. You want the influence of Jupiter / Venus, planets of wealth, to be with you instead of the buyer (that is, who the Moon is applying to).

Hope that makes sense.

From what I read, you transact an item and it is this item that is being read in the transaction. Something of value (benefic, past) decreases (malefic, future) once you separate from it.

But what about if you are the buyer?
Would you say, to separate from a malefic and apply to a benefic? I would rather buy something of value (benefic) to increase in value (benefic). Would like to hear comments on this?
Another simple rule I look at is the Moon waxing (NM to FM) applying to a benefic and representing the item in question.

I can understand Sahl wanting to avoid applying to malefics because there are universal ideas that they can cause trouble. However, the general rule for selling is that the seller makes the better end of the deal when the Moon is applying to malefics and leaving benefics. The opposite is true for buyers - they want to separate from malefics so they get a good deal and gain from the item. For selling and buying I also look for friendly aspects between the buyer and seller to help the transaction occur at all. The Moon's aspects won't necessarily mean much if a transaction isn't going to happen.

If the Moon leaves a benefic and applies to a benefic, it may not be a bad thing. The seller and the buyer might gain but the buy or the sell might be a higher price initially and might not be as great of a gain. Leaving a malefic and joining one would mean getting a bad deal and then not gaining in the end either - going from a bad situation to another one.

Also, you want to avoid conjunctions with malefics either way. I closed on my house when the Moon was leaving a conjunction with Mars in Aries! However, I have a natal Mars in Aries (my strongest planet and it has a lot of bearing on my life) so I didn't consider it bad in my case. It was more likely just representing a significant milestone and was a few degrees away from my natal Mars. I graduated from college during the same exact degree of transit Mars. So these rules aren't always quite so black and white.

Very interesting Tanit!

When Bonatti says "so that she is being separated from the benefics (or at least from one), whether by body or by aspect; and that she be joined to the malefics by aspect, not by body:"

By body, do we understand 'besieged'? For example, the Moon between Mars and Saturn 30 degrees apart. While leaving Mars, the Moon make several aspects before making a conjunction to Saturn.
Comparing to the Moon's last and next aspect, what difference do you see?

Jacobson in her Horary book says the last conjunction indicates "what important event took place in the more or less distant past."

By body = by conjunction.

Ouranos - Martin is correct that the word body is meaning a conjunction. If you read Deb's aphorisms on elections for financial gain, you will see again the conjunction mentioned and that they are to be avoided with malefics (which was why I mentioned it above in my earlier paragraph).

The general rules of a separating aspect are that they represent the past, yes, so that would be true in a conjunction. Sometimes it gets a little overwhelming keeping up with whether something is positive or not. Lilly used an example in Christian Astrology where Mercury separates from Mars in Aries and states it as a positive, where Mercury takes on the matter with the strength of Mars. Yet, here we have a situation where the Moon is not supposed to be favorable in such an aspect. As I said, though, I don't always takes these rules as black and white. A lot can depend on the overall energy of the chart. In election, the natal is also usually looked at too if possible.

Thank you Martin and Tanit,

Technically, it leads us to consider 2 things here.
The last aspect the Moon made and the last conjunction.
Of the last aspect, Jacobson says 'what led to the question' (p.20) and of the last conjunction 'the nature of the preceding activity in the question and what led up to asking it." (p.88 ).

There seems to be an overlap of something here!?

I took the example of the Moon between Mars and Saturn by "body" but let's say we have...
Moon last over Mars / sextile Venus / A question is being asked / trine Jupiter and finally conjunction to Saturn
Favorable or not? (in a general sense)

Keep in mind we are simply talking about buying and selling here so don't apply these rules to everything. Selling is getting rid of something and when you are doing that you want the Moon decreasing in light and applying towards malefics, which decrease something and help you get rid of it. When buying you want the Moon increasing in light and it applying towards benefics so you gain something.

The same is true when getting rid of anything. If you were planning to lose weight, it would be more favorable to start when the Moon is decreasing in light and leaving a benefic and applying to a malefic. This is a universal sort of rule in the occult. Say you were creating a spell to get rid of something. You would do so during a waning Moon. It you wanted to gain you would do it during a waxing Moon, such as getting pregnant, planting a tree, getting married, etc.

Moon last over Mars / sextile Venus / A question is being asked / trine Jupiter and finally conjunction to Saturn
Favorable or not? (in a general sense)

So its previous aspect was a sextile to Venus but its very last aspect was a conjunction to Mars and it will next trine Jupiter before forming a conjunction with Saturn?

I would simply interpret this as a past conjunction with Mars and a next trine with Jupiter. This would favor a buyer and not a seller but there would likely be issues caused by the Mars conjunction. It's hard to make a blanket statement without seeing a chart as well. Is the conjunction to Saturn within orb of influence? It's possible this would cause issues but you do have benefics influencing the matter that might mitigate (Jupiter is stopping the Moon from being besieged). It's also possible that the sell initially seems to favor the buyer but the ultimate outcome favors the seller somehow, since the final aspect is a malefic. I think most financial astrologers would probably say an election chart with this configuration would be too risky and to pick a better time but there are also other things to consider in the chart.

Of a Mars conjunction in buying and selling, William Ramesey says the following:

Mars afflicted causeth much sollicitation, pains and labour, also much difficulty in the procuring, and perhaps anger

https://www.renaissanceastrology.com/el ... use.html#B


He doesn't say if it would impact the buyer or the seller and it could possibly do so for both. I know in my case the seller lost out on at least $100k by selling a few months too soon in the winter, before the market got hotter in the spring. The house had also dropped in price when I purchased it. Since buying the home, it has gone up in value a lot but it went very high and then came back down a bit. I would say with Mars one would expect that. It is an unpredictable influence in financial charts and is often associated with big highs and lows and a lot of risk and potential loss.

Much appreciated Tanit!

I had an annotation in the Horary book of Jacobson that the Moon's preceding conjunction will take on the nature of that planet in making and meeting changes.
With Mars, I guess it takes on the nature of a 'risky business' but sometimes you need that spice to make yourself move.

Thank you AmeliaS, great explanation, liked your simple logic.

Thanks Tanit, as well.