There are two things I do not understand about this delineation.
1. Questions about couples splitting up
Normally in an horary perfection shows that the desired outcome will be achieved. Anyhow, in horaries about couples, business partnerships etc. splitting up Lehman says that "the planets come together, the people may
split apart" (Lehman 2002: 190). The reasons she gives is that all depends on the wording you use to formulate the question. "Be careful how you word your question because you just might have to answer it the way you asked it!" (p. 189)
If I ask an horary about X and Y splitting up, it is why I already know there are frictions between them. Existence of these frictions should be reflected by the chart. How? By hard aspects between the significators. It ensues that if the significators are in soft aspect to each other, and if the aspect reaches perfection, the couple does not split.
On the other hand, if the significators are in square or opposition, the couple should split.
Soft aspects with perfection = reconciliation.
Hard aspects or no aspect = splitting up.
This seems, to me, a very logical principle. Think about electional astrology, too. Electional astrology shares most of the rules of horary. If you have to elect a chart for when you want to split up with your partner, would you choose Mars and Venus angular, dignified and moving towards a conjunction?
If you want to elect a moment for when to marry, would you choose to have Mars and Venus detrimented and in opposition?
If I ask about two people splitting up and I see the significators applying a trine, I say "No, they won't split up". What I look for are planets in detriment and not in aspect to each other.
2. Using the Almuten instead of the ruler.
I always had doubts about this technique. I do not use the Almuten of a sign if the ruler can be used. The principle that you should compare the dignity of sign ruler and almuten and choose the most dignified planet seems a bit contradictory to me.
If we try and delineate this chart using sign rulers, we obtain the same result: the couple does not split up.
Radu wrote:
"Venus is a few days before its retrograde station and will not catch up with Mars. The conjunction doesn't take place, the reunion of planets is frustrated"
When I looked at the chart I already knew the outcome, so my delineation does not count, anyhow I see it in the following way
here we have a conjunction applying by a very close orb. Regardless of frustration, it should mean a "Yes, they will be reconciliated". both significators are cadent (more than 5 degrees away) from the Midheaven, but they are nevertheless angular, and dignified by virtue of this position.
Goca wrote:
"Does it mean, because there are no aspects between Ve and Ma and because Ve does not applaying to part of devorce (it separating) they will stay together?"
I did not consider the part of divorce at all. I looked at the chart, saw the conjuntction between Ve and Ma on the Midheaven and thought: now I see why these two did not divorce. Anyway Venus is still applying a conjunction to Mars, because at the time of the question did not start the retrograde motion yet.
What really puzzles me is the following:
if we consider Mars and Venus as the significators, we see that there is frustration.
Normally we would say: there is frustration, and the two will divorce.
If we apply Lehman's principle, we see that precisely because of frustration the Venus Mars conjunction does not take place. hence we say: since Mars and Venus do not perfect a conjunction the two will not divorce.
I am quite confused by all this and I would appreciate your comments
Cheers,
Blumen