A study of the history of horary astrology has
shown that the considerations before judgement which have been held in such high esteem
for centuries by many astrologers, were simply invented out of necessity. They are not
therefore the unbreakable collection of rules that we have supposed.
Astrologers have come to accept the idea that when one or more of the considerations
appear in a horary chart it is a warning against judging the horoscope. In fact in recent
times these considerations have become known as strictures against judgement. For many
horary astrologers today these are the opening gambits in the judgement of the chart and
are regarded as almost sacrosanct and never to be violated.
In this article William Lilly's list of considerations before judgement rather than those
of other astrologers will be used. The reason being that his book Christian Astrology has
been widely accepted as the most influential and available textbook on horary today. It
also contains the most comprehensive list of considerations which he compiled from the
works of previous authorities. Overall, other astrologers have agreed with most of the
considerations that he presented, but they added their own inventions as well.
Before attempting to reach an understanding of the considerations before judgement, it is
necessary to know what Lilly meant by the word considerations. The Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary gives the 17th century meaning of the word as "The action of looking at,
beholding, contemplation". In other words astrologers were simply asked to
contemplate the horoscope before proceeding with their judgement. There were good logical,
but not necessarily astrological reasons for this procedure.
Unfortunately, in 1973, Barbara Watters entitled the third chapter of her book
"Horary Astrology and the Judgement of Events", Strictures against Judgement and
effectively convinced a good many horary astrologers that they could no longer look at,
behold or contemplate the horoscope, but were forbidden from judging the horoscope when
one or more of her strictures appeared. This of course distorted the original meaning of
the considerations and caused many astrologers to regard them with apprehension. In their
eyes they had become some kind of infallible set of rules, which of course they never
could be since they were only devices contrived by astrologers with human failings.
It is reasonable to assume that the main objective of all horary astrologers is to arrive
at the correct answer to any given question. It then becomes even more important to
understand the considerations before judgement in order to conclude if they are powerful
enough to render a horary totally unanswerable.
The Considerations before Judgement
Originally, there were two good reasons for the creation of the considerations before
judgement. The first was that throughout the ages astrologers found that they needed
protection against people whose only reason for visiting astrologers was to ridicule and
make fun of them. The second reason was that astrologers were aware that mistakes could be
made in either their own calculations or judgement, therefore a number of guidelines were
needed.
The first consideration that Lilly referred to was the lord of the hour, or to give it its
more modern name, the planetary hour. He had read about this consideration in Guido
Bonatti (?1223/1300?) since he was familiar with his work. Bonatti is thought to be one of
the earliest astrologers to have mentioned the planetary hour as a consideration before
judgement. He believed that the astrologer was in danger of making a mistake because the
querent had come to deceive him "when the lord of the ascendant and the lord of the
hour were not the same, nor of the same triplicity, or be not of the same complexion with
the ascendant". When this happened the question was not radical nor fit to be judged.
Claude Dariot the influential French astrologer who lived in the 16th century, wrote that
"absolute judgement is not to be given" under these circumstances, though he
offered no explanation. Neither did the astrologers, Henry Coley, John Gadbury, Anthony
Griffin, William Lilly and John Partridge, who all lived and wrote on horary in 17th
century England. Whether they looked upon this consideration as one indication that the
querent was not serious about the question or whether they regarded it as a rule of
horary, they did not make clear. They seemed to be merely repeating what had been handed
down without knowing the technical reasons as to the justification for using the planetary
hours.
A cursory study of the horoscopes in Christian Astrology will reveal that Lilly did not
take the planetary hour very seriously as he judged 10 horaries without it and another 11
where the planetary hour disagreed with the ascendant and its ruler. Altogether there are
35 horoscopes in Christian Astrology, which leaves only 14 that conformed to this first
consideration. Today experience shows that the planetary hour cannot prevent the outcome
to a question and is therefore no longer relevant.
The remaining number of considerations can be divided into 2 sections. The first group
will contain those considerations that were used to show that the querent could not be
trusted. The second group will list the considerations that were used as a warning to the
astrologer that there was a possibility of making mistakes.
The querent was not to be trusted
In general, when between 0 3 degrees and 27 30
degrees of any sign on the ascendant, Saturn in the first house especially retrograde, the
Moon in later degrees, (not specified), and the ascendant ruler combust, were all said to
show that the "querent was either a knave or a fool".
Although the majority of astrologers agreed that what have eventually become known as the
early degrees, between 0 - 3, and the late degrees, between 27 - 30, showed that the
horoscope was not radical or fit to be judged, some gave their own individual reasons.
Bonatti and Gadbury said that the querent had come to try the astrologer, Gadbury also
suggested that the question was forged. Coley and Gadbury claimed that early and late
degrees showed that the querent had been tampering with others, in other words they had
been to see other astrologers about the same question. Partridge wrote "if few
degrees ascend the matter is not yet mature for judgement". Was he the first to
suggest what has now become common practice, that the question can be "too soon to
say"? Sibley thought that the querent was "a knave, and the question a
forgery". Lilly didn't offer any explanation as to the meaning of the early and late
degrees, in fact he didn't explain the reasons for any of the considerations before
judgement.
It is puzzling as to why Lilly did not give a clearer explanation regarding the Moon in
the later degrees of Gemini, Scorpio and Capricorn. An examination of the terms and faces
in Ptolemy's table of essential dignities and debilities, which he published on page 104
of Christian Astrology would have given him the answers. Not only would this have shown
the reason for the weakness of the Moon in these signs, but it would have shown the Moon
in other less favourable signs, where in turn she could also have been used as a
consideration.
The Moon in the later degrees of Gemini:
21.01 25 are the terms of Saturn.
25.01 30 are the terms of Mars.
20.01 30 are the face of the Sun.
The Moon in the later degrees of Scorpio:
27.01 30 are the terms of Saturn.
20.01 30 are the face of Venus.
The Moon in the later degrees of Capricorn:
19.01 25 are the terms of Saturn.
25.01 30 are the terms of Mars.
20.01 30 are the face of the Sun.
When in Gemini or Capricorn she is in the face of the Sun, in Scorpio, in the face of
Venus, therefore these could relieve the difficulties to some extent. Nevertheless it is
true that the Moon in these later degrees of Gemini is peregrine, in other words totally
without power, peregrine and in fall in Scorpio, and peregrine and in detriment in
Capricorn, except of course for those horoscopes in Capricorn where she is in her own
night triplicity.
A strong case could also be argued for the Moon in the later degrees of Leo, Sagittarius
and Pisces as a consideration, because in these signs and degrees, not only is she in the
terms and face of the malefics, but also peregrine.
The Moon in the later degrees of Leo:
25.01 30 are the terms of Mars.
20.01 30 are the face of Mars.
The Moon in the later degrees of Sagittarius:
19.01 25 are the terms of Saturn.
25.01 30 are the terms of Mars.
20.01 30 are the face of Saturn.
The Moon in the later degrees of Pisces:
20.01 26 are the terms of Mars.
26.01 30 are the terms of Saturn.
20.01 30 are the terms of Mars.
It is clear that in the later degrees of Leo, Sagittarius and Pisces, the Moon could
easily qualify as a consideration before judgement.
Astrologers' mistakes
If the cusp of the 7th house or its ruler were afflicted, or Saturn was in the 7th, or the
Moon void of course or in the Via Combusta, or the testimonies of the fortunes and
misfortunes were equal, it was said that astrologers should not judge the horoscope as
they could make mistakes in their calculations or judgement.
One interesting point could be made at this stage regarding a misprint that appeared in
Simmonite's book concerning the seventh cusp.
"You must always be wary when, in any question, you find the cusp of the VIth house
is afflicted, or the lord of the VIIth retrograde or impedited, and the matter at that
time not concerning the VIIth house but belonging to any other house. it is an argument
that the judgement of the astrologer will give no contentment to the querent, for the
VIIth house generally signifies the artist."
It should of course have read "You must always be wary when, in any question, you
find the cusp of the VIIth (seventh) house is afflicted". This error was taken up in
1897 by Raphael who said "if you find evil planets on the cusp of the 6th, your
answer shall give but poor satisfaction to the querent". Later in 1942 Geraldine
Davis wrote "Be very careful in your judgement when the cusp of the sixth house is
afflicted".
This misprint could have led to Ivy Goldstein Jacobson compounding the error by asserting
that:
"If the Moon aspects a malefic planet on the 6th cusp (sickness) the person may be
upset or sickened because of receiving the very information he requested; and if the Sun
is in the 6th house the querent is under some mental strain which could be aggravated by
the facts disclosed to him. The student should note this point and be guided accordingly
in giving a complete answer".
When the Moon appeared in the Via Combusta which is between 15 degrees Libra and 15
degrees Scorpio astrologers believed that they should not judge the horoscope. "The
astrologer ought to understand the matter propounded perfectly, or else he will give but
poor content to the querent within". Partridge thought that "the matter is
dubious and difficult to be judged". Nobody knew why this area of the horoscope had
such a bad reputation, yet by consulting Ptolemy's table of essential dignities and
debilities once again they could have puzzled it out for themselves.
While the Sun and Moon are in the Via Combusta, they are in fall and in the signs of the
zodiac where the malefics are very strong. The Sun's fall degree is 19 Libra within 2
degrees of Saturn's exaltation degree of 21 Libra, and the Moon's fall degree is 3
Scorpio, in the rulership, triplicity, terms and face of Mars. A glance at Ptolemy's
tables will show that the weakest position for the Sun in Libra is between 24 - 30
degrees, and for the Moon between 0 - 6 degrees of Scorpio. Consequently, these degree
areas are the most difficult for the Sun and the Moon and were the astrological reasons
for this considerations.
When the Moon though void of course appeared in Taurus, Cancer, Sagittarius and Pisces
Lilly believed that she was still capable of performing. No doubt he had read this in
Guido Bonatti's "The Astrologer's Guide" for which he had written an
"Address to the Ingenious Lovers of Art" in 1675. It is easy to understand why
he believed the Moon could operate while in Taurus and Cancer since those are her signs of
exaltation and rulership, and were she would be most powerful. Did Lilly then really think
that because the Moon was void of course in Sagittarius and Pisces, the two signs ruled by
Jupiter the greater benefic, that this alone was enough to give her strength to operate?
On the other hand, if the Moon is void of course in these two signs and between 20 - 30
degrees, then how would it be possible for her to operate as Lilly believed, when as
demonstrated earlier she would be peregrine and in the terms and face of the malefics? It
would seem that Lilly was merely repeating parrot fashion what Bonatti had written,
without attempting to give any thought or attempting to resolve, the answer to the
problem.
Conclusion
The considerations before judgement were invented by individual astrologers for personal
purposes and were therefore not observable and proven cosmic laws. They cannot prevent the
judgement of horaries. It is major aspects between planets that are fundamental, not only
to horary but to all branches of astrology. Therefore no amount of considerations can
prevent the application of major aspects between the significator of the querent and the
significator of the quesited, or the Moon and the significator of the quesited from
perfecting and giving an answer to the question.
Having demonstrated that these considerations were not part of observable and proven
cosmic law, I have concluded from these researches that they should not deter the
astrologer from judging a horoscope. In short, considerations before judgement are
generally not worth considering.
First published in Réalta.
vol 3. no 1. February 1996.
©
Maurice McCann 1996
Return to Articles
Return to Home page