Did X steal Y’s medication?
I feel that the Judge is answering “yes” to this query, as it suggests that X was successful in stealing the meds, though not without difficulty. The Right Witness could be reflecting X’s ill-intentions from the very beginning of their contract, while the Left Witness appears to forecast a new beginning of some kind in the near future, perhaps referring to Y’s intention to hire a new contractor in light of what occurred. The Sentence seems to support the verdict of the Judge and implies that X will ultimately profit or benefit somehow from the stolen meds.
Via Puncti Terrae leads back to Puer, possibly suggesting that X’s actions resulted from a rash decision driven by some physical or material need. Via Puncti Aquae leads back to Fortuna Major, though I struggle to interpret its causal relation to X’s actions at the moment.
The 1st Triplicity may be reflecting X’s character (Rubeus) behind their persona (Albus), as well as their possession of the meds (Conjunctio). The 2nd Triplicity (objects/possessions) may again be indicating that X has the meds (Conjunctio), though it also suggests that they are being used to deal with an illness of some kind (Tristitia) that recently developed (Caput Draconis). The meaning of the 3rd Triplicity (environment) eludes me at the moment, though the 4th could be highlighting Y’s contractual agreement with X (Carcer), the stolen meds (Amissio), and the challenges that Y might face in their search for a new contractor.
Any insights or alternative interpretations that readers may have to offer are welcomed and appreciated. The experimental model of triplicities employed for this reading can be reviewed at https://minorfracture.blog/2021/11/13/rethinking-geomantic-triplicities/
Altered featured image by Jr Korpa on Unsplash
According to Cattan’s tables, the court says no because Fortuna major agrees with the left witness and not the right. The judge being positive means that the answer is a good thing Y does not have to worry about the contractor. The seventh house (X) which is carcer which means that they are following the law and doing no harm. Y would be the first house because the question is about them and X would be the seventh (house of others and thieves) Admisso as the over all theme of the reading says that the meds have been lost. So it is possible that Y lost them rather than X stole them. The way of point goes all the way back to Y and does not really have anything to do with X. Y is in company with Rubeus so I dont think they are in good state… they are angry and out of control. X is on its own and does not move anywhere in the chart. Y however is directly and indrectly slinging mud. They move to the 10th house making an official complaint.
While I do not use the Cattanian method of interpreting the Court, nor his binary division of the chart in every reading, this is certainly an interesting and informative perspective. After casting this chart, I strongly felt that the Right Witness and 1st Triplicity were speaking to the grammatical subject of the query (X), while the Left Witness and 4th Triplicity spoke to the other party within the grammatical predicate (Y), a nontraditional approach that I’ve been experimenting with lately. I was also compelled to read the Viae Punctorum independently of the triplicities they led back to, which I sometimes do, depending on the chart. Lastly, Y is doing quite well and has been surprisingly level-headed about the whole thing, despite their concerns. As of now, they do not intend to file a complaint but are simply planning to hire a new contractor. Thank you for the feedback.
For others reading these comments, the interpretive framework that Nick Farrell is using can be reviewed at https://www.nickfarrell.it/geomancy-2/ (“Cattan’s Geomancy Court”) and at https://www.nickfarrell.it/more-on-cattens-geomancy-courts/ (“More on Cattan’s Geomancy Courts”)