Updated post on 13th April 2021.
Traditional considerations before judgement: As per William Lilly, a horary chart is not radical and is unsuitable for judgement if the following happens:
Early degrees on the ascendant (less than 3°), unless the Querent be very young, and his corporature, complexion and moles or scarres of his body agree with the quality of the sign ascending.
Late degrees on the ascendant (more than 27°).
Saturn in the 1st house or 7th house.
I always wondered why there are so many considerations before judgment rules before you judge a horary chart. I mean why and how would the querent know what is the right time to ask a question? The heavens hear the querent’s plight when a burning question is eating them up. And 9 out of 10 times, the heavens give the answer through the horary chart when questioned.
In my experience, the only few circumstances where the chart can be garbage is when –
- The querent has asked the same question multiple times over a very short period of time.
- Or when the question was captured at the wrong time than when the question was actually asked, i.e. the time was reported incorrectly.
- Another possibility could be the querent not having any real interest in the question but is testing the astrologer and his knowledge.
But in most cases what I have observed is that if I failed to see the correct answer, it was mostly because I didn’t read the chart correctly. The answer was there, all the while. However, two ‘considerations’ that says to ignore a chart that has less than 3 degree or more than 27 degree of the ascendant sign kind of makes sense. In either case, the ascendant could have changed into a different sign if the time had been reported incorrectly, even by a minute. Different ascendants means the houses would have changed entirely. And since the assignment of the correct house to the quesited is the heart and soul of horary, a wrong house assignment will give a wrong answer.
John Frawley gave another interesting perspective saying that astrologers in the 17th century did not want to give a negative answer to the king, who asked the question. And hence Frawley writ off these considerations saying they are not relevant in today’s time anymore.
Instead of the traditional ‘considerations before judgement’, Olivia Barclay recommends checking the planetary hour with the ascendant to know if a chart is valid. I.E. the planetary hour should be the same planet as that which rules the ascendant, or that rules the triplicity, or the ruler of the hour and the ruler of the ascendant should have the same nature – hot and dry, cold and moist and so on. As I haven’t tested it yet in my practice, I cannot write it off yet as unnecessary. In these modern times when we have electronic watches giving us precise time down to the very second, we can ignore this consideration because we noted the time correctly. And hence the chart is fit to be judged. So far not considering the considerations haven’t caused me any incorrect reading. As always, I use only what works in real life, theories aside.
In my practice, what I have noticed is that if the querent is asking a question for the first time, the chart may accurately represent him/her. However, when the querent has asked numerous horary questions within a week, the chart stops focussing on the querent’s physical description and reveals the answer to the question only. An example of such a chart is given below. The ascendant is in Scorpio. But the querent, which is me, has no remote resemblance or association of Scorpio in my birth chart. However, the answer I sought was found in this chart. Hence it is not advised to use the chart to describe the querent or the quesited unless explicitly asked.
What have you experienced in your practice? Do share your thoughts in the comments below.
Instead of the traditional ‘considerations before judgement’, follow these tried and tested methods to confirm the chart’s validity.