Very late ascendant

Yes, I can certainly see where "piling up" should make one pause and reconsider. Regarding Saturn in the 7th, wasn't that just an example for when a 7th-House matter is under examination? Reading Lilly, he seems to be saying that if a different house is involved in the judgment, we should look for Saturn in that specific house. It can sometimes be hard to tell exactly WHAT he's saying.

I think Chanah is right, the word Considerations seems to have been replaed by the rather stronger word Strictures during the last century. It was possibly Marc Edmund Jones, but as I threw out his book last year, I can't check that one. I don't think it was a deliberate decision but an attempt at a synonym. Nevertheless the effect is to declare the chart unfit to read.

I think Frawley is wrong, historically about Astrologers being afraid of the wrath of kings and needing a 'get out' clause. Sahl doesn't refer to Considerations, from memory, other than to know your client's intentions in asking the question. He certainly mentions some of what became the considerations and then strictures, such as malefics in the Ascendant and the angles, the Moon void of course and the Ascendant in the last degree(s) of a sign (he argues that in the last degree of the sign, the strength has already departed the sign (note this is nothing to do with the accuracy of calculation but a claim that the 29th degree of itself is powerless).

But, from memory, he never says you shouldn't proceed to judge the chart, or even consider these factors before giving judgement. It seems you incorporate these points into your judgement. By Lilly's time these points seem to have been firmed up into the considerations and I doubt Lilly thought anything about the views of the King (or the Lord Protector) as he worked for clients in the same way as modern Astrolgoers do.

Somewhere in the transmission - possibly through Bonatti's translation either directly or indirectly - the idea grew that these Considerations had to be done before the judgement, not as part of it.

Personally, when reading here, I do take the considerations into account and may decide not to read. The reason for that is that I can't have a consultation as Lilly or even Sue Ward or John Frawley would have. The latter two might take phone or internet questions but the would spend quite some time making sure they understand the intentions of the querent in asking the question. I've been caught out two or three times by taking a question literally and not interrogating the querent thoroughly.

Barleywine said:

Yes, I can certainly see where "piling up" should make one pause and reconsider. Regarding Saturn in the 7th, wasn't that just an example for when a 7th-House matter is under examination? Reading Lilly, he seems to be saying that if a different house is involved in the judgment, we should look for Saturn in that specific house. It can sometimes be hard to tell exactly WHAT he's saying.

Click to expand...

If it's a relationship or other seventh house matter, then Saturn in 7 is part of your answer. If it's not, it shows that the astrologer's (who is represented by 7 in horary charts) judgement isn't the best at the time.

Saturn in 10, again, if not part of the question, can indicate that you do your reputation no good by answering, even if you judge the chart correctly. I've seen this one happen, too, so I tend to tread cautiously here.

Thanks! Between the two of you I have a pretty good fix on proper usage.

You're welcome!!

A couple of other points. Remember Sahl used whole sign houses, and his sources were Hellenistic - Dorotheus and Ptolemy - so Saturn in the tenth dominates the Ascendant by a square - so it afflicts the querent. The same is true for Saturn in the fourth, it dominates the seventh by square and calls the Astrologer's judgement into question.

The second point is that for Sahl and indeed most medieval Astrologers, the same methods were used as in natal. The only difference is that all the houses need to be read, not just one. Horary is not a totally separate branch, at least to start with. Today we regard it as something totally separate and having its own special methodology.

Minderwiz said:

You're welcome!!

A couple of other points. Remember Sahl used whole sign houses, and his sources were Hellenistic - Dorotheus and Ptolemy - so Saturn in the tenth dominates the Ascendant by a square - so it afflicts the querent. The same is true for Saturn in the fourth, it dominates the seventh by square and calls the Astrologer's judgement into question.

The second point is that for Sahl and indeed most medieval Astrologers, the same methods were used as in natal. The only difference is that all the houses need to be read, not just one. Horary is not a totally separate branch, at least to start with. Today we regard it as something totally separate and having its own special methodology.

Click to expand...

Sahl is on my short list of horary books to buy. The "natal bias" - looking at everything as an integrated whole (aka "too much information") - is hard to shake. I have managed to shrug off Uranus, Neptune and Pluto to a large extent, and am working on getting a grip on receptions (beyond the mutual receptions I'm already familiar with). After that will be practical applications for antiscia (I aleady understand the principle but not the usefulness), and a few of the other more rarified techniques. I'm reasonably comfortable with the rest I've encounteed so far.