Edwin Casael: Two Partnership Horaries (1893), Part 2

19 December 2010 by Lee

This is one of the examples that Alan Leo published in Modern Astrology: pages 326-327 of Volume 3, 1893. Later, Leo would reprise these published horaries as his examples in Horary Astrology. Part of what is interesting about this example is what it shows of Casael’s method: because he received his horaries mainly by post, he took the same time for the two letters that he opened. Having this same experience with e-mail, I can understand this: most likely he read them within a couple minutes of each other. Unless the time was close to a change in sign, I can understand how it was easier for Casael to just use the same chart: since he didn’t use the Terms, there was less incentive to do a full chart.

Question: Would partnership be wise with a certain party: page 16
Edwin Casael

Finding no aspect between the lord of ascendant Mercury, and Jupiter the lord of the seventh, is an argument against it. The lord of the first and seventh both in moveable signs, one cadent the other succeedent, also negatives it. Saturn in your second, will render it suspicious as to the working or the profits, and so cause disagreement. Your co-significator, the Moon, applying to the square Uranus in third, an eccentric neighbour will probably circulate adverse reports respecting your refusal to join; Mars, lord of fourth, in no aspect of our significator or the Moon, I would advise you not to entertain it.

In the same post brought a letter from a lady desiring a little light on her engagement. In this question finding the lord of ascendant in no aspect to her lover, and hastening to a square aspect, is a strong argument against lasting affection. As Venus, lady of the tenth, signifying the lady’s mother, is square to Jupiter the seventh, it is quite plain to my mind her mother is opposed to him and may somewhat influence the daughter to break off the engagement.* The Sun, a potent agent in marriage questions, has no aspect to Jupiter, and the first aspect formed being a square is another argument against the union.

* Both facts have been admitted.