scorpiogirl
I casted a horary chart today and the ascendant is super late.
It is Virgo 29.55'28!! Should I round it off to Libra?
It is Virgo 29.55'28!! Should I round it off to Libra?
Very late ascendant
Minderwiz
No, leave it for a day or two and try again. Anything in the last three degrees (that is beyond 28 degrees precisely) is supposed to cause problems. There is an argument for reading it anyway but you would still need to use Virgo and have Mercury as your significator (or that of your querent).
If you're doing the chart as a 'learning' exercise, I'd say read it as above and then wait a couple of days and cast another chart. Assuming that is OK, then wait and see which gives you the more accurate reading.
scorpiogirl
Thanks so much for your answer!!!
Barleywine
I've been reading about "strictures against judgment" such as early and late degrees rising, and don't see why it should put me off reading a chart completely. Are there any cautionary measures that can be applied to still have some confidence in the result, without tossing out the chart? What is the rationale for going ahead anyway (beside hard-headed pragmatism)?
Chanah
Barleywine - Deb Houlding wrote an article on Lilly's considerations, which may be worth reading: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/considerations.pdf
Barleywine
Thanks for the link. I have a facsimile edition of Christian Astrology but the archaic font has defeated me every time I've tried to read it. I get eyestrain trying to distinguish the "s" from the "f". The strictures concerning early and late degrees on the Ascendant are the same I've seen in more recent books. I think I'm with John Frawley on this one. The only reason he sees any legitimacy to the restriction is that, at one time, it was very difficult to determine the exact moment the question was asked, so a sign on the Ascendant that was close to rolling over (or had just rolled over) to the next sign could mean that the wrong Significator could be chosen, thereby yielding an invalid judgment. So it was better to stay away from the risk by not judging charts in that condition. With modern clocks there is no such vulnerability, so Frawley sees no reason to refrain from reading such charts.
Chanah
I don't think so. Even in the considerations, Lilly says it's fine to judge an event chart (a disappearance is the example he gives) with late and early ascendants.
With early ascendants, if it's a querent you don't know, Bonatti says they could just be lying to you, if the question is legitimate, it can often indicate that there is a big piece of the puzzle missing - there's something important that you don't know, so you're asking the wrong question. A late ascendant often indicates something either frivolous or something that the querent cannot affect - the question has already been decided.
With early ascendants, if it's a querent you don't know, Bonatti says they could just be lying to you, if the question is legitimate, it can often indicate that there is a big piece of the puzzle missing - there's something important that you don't know, so you're asking the wrong question. A late ascendant often indicates something either frivolous or something that the querent cannot affect - the question has already been decided.
Minderwiz
There's also a useful article on Sue Ward's site called Horary Judgement - A Working Approach. Although she doesn't go into massive depth on the Considerations but she does discuss radicality (which is the issue here). She argues that the most important test is whether the chart describes the querent and the situation. Lilly often interpreted this as a physical description but Sue points out that the significators and aspects should tally with what you know of the situation, If it doesn't describe the situation in any way, then it should be discarded.
She only gives passing reference to late degrees rising but in the context of rhe chart pointing to a negative answer and giving the Astrologer the chance not to disappoint the querent too much by 'avoiding' an answer.
That ties in with Chanah's point about the answer already having been determined. And thinking about it, if that determination pointed to the querent getting his or her desired outcome there would be no point in withholding judgement. The late degree points to things not working out as the querent had hoped through forces beyond their control.
There's also some food for thought, backed by examples of why the agreement between planetary hour ruler and the Ascendant ruler is something that should not be dismissed as irrelevant.
She only gives passing reference to late degrees rising but in the context of rhe chart pointing to a negative answer and giving the Astrologer the chance not to disappoint the querent too much by 'avoiding' an answer.
That ties in with Chanah's point about the answer already having been determined. And thinking about it, if that determination pointed to the querent getting his or her desired outcome there would be no point in withholding judgement. The late degree points to things not working out as the querent had hoped through forces beyond their control.
There's also some food for thought, backed by examples of why the agreement between planetary hour ruler and the Ascendant ruler is something that should not be dismissed as irrelevant.
Barleywine
Frawley points out that if, as was often the case, the client was an important personage (such as a king), the astrologer would be very eager not to disappoint him, and would find a plausible excuse not to judge a negative chart.
I've seen these points before, and they seem to be conditions of the judgment rather than strictures against performing it. With due caution in interpretation and presentation, I don't see how it would be that much different from handling sensitive aspects, for example from an applying and separating standpoint. (That's just off the top of my caffeine-deficient head this morning, don't quote me on it
)Chanah
The idea of strictures against judgement is a fairly modern one. I can't remember exactly who came up with it, Minderwiz might. But it's late 20th century in origin.
As to considerations, they are indeed, considerations. There are some that make me reticent to judge a chart (Saturn on 7, early ascendants, late ascendants, too, because while they usually are something the client doesn't want I've found them to be fairly unpredictable, too). Where you really want to watch out is when considerations start piling up in a single chart. At that point it's almost certain someone is either asking the wrong question or there's something really wrong about it.
If you do see considerations and judge anyway (most of us will still judge with some considerations), just bear them in mind and realise you need to be careful, because it's easy for your judgement to be off.
As to considerations, they are indeed, considerations. There are some that make me reticent to judge a chart (Saturn on 7, early ascendants, late ascendants, too, because while they usually are something the client doesn't want I've found them to be fairly unpredictable, too). Where you really want to watch out is when considerations start piling up in a single chart. At that point it's almost certain someone is either asking the wrong question or there's something really wrong about it.
If you do see considerations and judge anyway (most of us will still judge with some considerations), just bear them in mind and realise you need to be careful, because it's easy for your judgement to be off.
