Twelfth Aphorism: Pitfalls of the Astrologer

12. Eveniunt quandoque in quaestionibus astrologorum iudicia non vera, vel propter errorem instrumentorum eorum, vel propter interrogantis insipientiam, vel quando Sol est circa gradum medii coeli, vel quando figurae, quae rem concedunt, vel denegant, sunt aequales.

"It sometimes happens that astrologers' judgments of questions are incorrect, either owing to defects in their instruments, or to the foolishness of the one propounding the question, or when the Sun is near the degree of the Midheaven, or when the configurations which promise an event and those which deny it are of equal valence."

The validity of Astrology is not here called into question. Traditional astrologers had no reason to doubt that an astrological chart, if rightly interpreted, would provide true and reliable information. Anyone with practical experience in Astrology will come to this same conclusion. Although we do not understand how Astrology works, we know that it does work. When errors are made, they are generally associated with the astrologer's judgment of the chart, not with the chart itself. 

Our aphorism enumerates four cases which may result in erroneous judgments by the astrologer.

The first of these is "defects in their instruments." This refers to the use of the Astrolabe or Sextant to determine the precise position of the heavenly bodies from direct observation, and to the use of time-keeping devices to ascertain the exact time of the chart (and hence to identify the all-important Rising Degree). It may also involve errors in erecting the chart itself (due to errors in the Ephemerides, Tables of Houses, or other charts consulted by the astrologer, as well as errors in calculation). With the advent of computer software, few astrologers continue to erect charts in the old-fashioned way. The result is that our work is no longer prone to errors of this kind. A related issue involves errors in the reported time and place of birth. This is a difficult problem to solve, and calls for the Rectification of the chart according to one of the recognized methods (Trutine of Hermes, Animodar, Analysis of Accidents). 

Beltrano writes as follows: "In Primary Direction, we have inherited a technology, a procedure of ancient origin which actually enables us to see into the future to some extent; crudely and indistinctly, perhaps--like St. Paul's "through a glass, darkly," or the blind man who "looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking" (Mark 8:24)--but nevertheless it allows us to transcend the assumed limits of human knowledge and gives us access to something we do not understand, an inexplicable factor which may be described as (x + 1). Using computers, we are now able to perform more calculations in half a day than one of the old professional astrologers could perform in a lifetime.  The implications of this are only beginning to be felt. One consequence is that, by implementing large numbers of calculations, we are now in a position to test and verify the various alternate procedures of Primary Direction.  Simply through the greatly increased speed and efficiency provided by computers, we are now able to go far beyond what our predecessors were able to do.  Assuming that the birth-time is known (or rectified) to within four minutes, Rumen Kolev has discovered that Directions to the Angles (whether calculated in mundo or in zodiaco) will correspond to major life-events with an efficiency of 95%" (The Recovery of the Ephesian Books, 2009).  

The second case concerns not the astrologer, but the querent. There are some who consult astrologers merely as a joke, or with a view to testing or discrediting the practitioner. Others are fools who come with no clear idea in mind and are unable to state their purpose clearly. Still others conceal their true purpose for various reasons. This has given rise to a whole tradition of Strictures before Judgment (or Strictures against Judgment), rules which, when applied to a Horary chart, enable the astrologer to determine whether or not the chart is Radical (fit for judgment). Some of these rules go back to Ptolemy, while others are of (later) Arabian origin. Several of them are specifically intended to identify the folly or disingenuity of the querent. 

For example, the chart is not Radical if the ruler of the Ascendant does not correspond to the Planetary Hour (by Identity, Triplicity, or Nature); if the Ascendant is in Early Degrees (first three degrees of its sign) or in Late Degrees (last three degrees of its sign); if the Moon is Void of Course; if the Moon is in the Via Combusta; if the Moon is in Late Degrees; if Saturn is in the Seventh House; if Saturn is in the First House (especially if retrograde); if the cusp of the Seventh House is afflicted; if the ruler of the Seventh House is afflicted or retrograde; if the ruler of the Ascendant is combust. Beltrano has demonstrated that the combined probability of one (or more) of these strictures applying to a given chart is over 90%. For this reason, he concludes that most of the "Strictures" should be seen as precautions, rather than as absolute prohibitions of the judgment of a chart. In addition, there are a number of procedures, such as Haephaestio's descriptions of the Dodecatemoria (already mentioned in connection with the Eleventh Aphorism), which enable the astrologer to ascertain the querent's true purpose with precision.

The third and fourth cases are purely astrological, and involve situations where the chart itself does not allow for a decisive judgment. In the third case, we are warned of the perils of judging a chart in which the Sun is close to the degree of the Midheaven. "Close" is probably to be understood according to the traditional definition of a Conjunction; that is, the degree of the M.C. itself, along with the three degrees preceding and the three degrees following--an arc of seven degrees in all. This amounts to an additional general stricture against the judgment of any chart. However, I have never come across this rule in any other astrological text, and am unable to explain its basis. It is said somewhere that the Sun aspects every degree of the ecliptic circle, and such a rule may arise from that idea, especially if the M.C. (not the Ascendant) is viewed as the fiduciary degree of the chart. Such a situation is obviously associated with the moments surrounding the Sun's culmination (noon), when shadows diminish to nothing and the Luminary loses its bearing as an index to East and West. I will have to devote further study to this question, in the hope of finding further references to this rule. In any case, such a configuration will arise exactly seven three-hundred-sixtieths (1.94%) of the time, and is not exemplified in our Inception Chart, where the Sun is actually below the horizon.

The fourth case applies to situations where two sets of valid considerations are equally balanced (or nearly so). As we have seen before (e.g. in our discussion of the Seventh Aphorism re. Superiors and Inferiors), it is sometimes difficult to apply certain rules because the considerations favoring two (or more) alternatives are of equal weight. This is the last of Lilly's Strictures before Judgment: "When the testimonies of Fortunes and Infortunes are equal, deferre [sic] judgment, it's not possible to know which way the Balance will turn: however, deferre your opinion till another question better inform you"  (Christian Astrology, 123). Gadbury gives a similar formulation of the same rule: "When the Testimonies in your Figure are equal, the Matter propounded ought not to be judged; for the Artist knows not which way the Balance may yeild [sic], wherefore he ought to defer judgement, until a more convenient time" (Genethlialogia, 237).

Again, it must be understood that any two astrologers evaluating a given situation will proceed from the same set of data and (assuming no mistakes are made) will erect identical charts. Errors arise not from the chart itself, but in the course of the Judgement of the chart. In modern astrological practice, the procedures for judging a chart are exceedingly nebulous, so that no two astrologers will come to the same result. However, if the traditional rules, definitions, and algorithms are implemented with the sort of precision exemplified in our discussion of these aphorisms, most of these vagaries will be eliminated.

Yet again!  For Beltrano, this is OLD HAT