waybread
Well-known member
Kannon, thanks. It's good to read the voice of experience.
A quick perusal of "rectification astrology" at amazon.com reveals half a dozen books currently in print, plus more available through used book sellers.
The idea that a chart can be rectified only if a time close to the birth time is known just doesn't hold up. Part of the reason is because many rectification methods are based upon the timing of events as they relate to the affairs of a particular house. Important events like the birth of a child, a career change, or serious illness relate to the 5th, 10th, and 6th houses respectively (unless one wishes to get further refinement, drawing upon medical astrology for the latter.)
Then once a working model of the chart is cast, one can add in additional events, to see if they validate the model or argue for further refinement.
To do this well is tremendously time-consuming, and depends upon the chart native having pretty good recall of dates. If an astrologer of Steven Forrest's stature no longer does chart rectification, the time requirement may well be the main reason. He is a popular speaker at astrological conferences, teacher, and author.
The problem of rectification reminds me of this article by Michael Munkasey http://www.scribd.com/doc/6495552/An-Astrological-House-Formulary#scribd in which he says that the "best" house system is the one that most accurately describes the topic in question. If the topic is best described by an 8th house moon, we don't use a system that puts the moon in the 7th or the 9th house.
This is why many horary astrologers prefer Regiomontanus houses, because they feel they give the best results; whereas those who explain mundane events or rectify charts are likely to prefer Placidus, because it seems to be the most time-sensitive of the house systems.
As Kannon noted, the astrologer further needs to know multiple predictive/post-dictive techniques: transits, progressions, solar arcs, profections, primary directions, and so on.
I have a copy of Laurie Efrein, How to Rectify a Birth Chart. (1987) She used a detailed worksheet and some basic principles to simplify the process of timing events. Like Kannon, she stresses the desirability of getting to know the native personally, to best detect the "me" in the chart. The "me" might be where the native most strongly expresses her personality, or it might be her personal appearance.
Given what we know about genetics (family inheritance) we may tread carefully around the former belief in red-headed Aries risings (possible only if genes permit,) and would look for behaviour and mannerisms as pointing to a likely first house.
My personal feeling is that if we can't nail down the birth time within a few minutes, we're best off using whole signs for natal chart interpretation. It lacks the sensitivity of Placidus, but then Placidus in a natal chart may give an impression of accuracy that doesn't pertain.
A quick perusal of "rectification astrology" at amazon.com reveals half a dozen books currently in print, plus more available through used book sellers.
The idea that a chart can be rectified only if a time close to the birth time is known just doesn't hold up. Part of the reason is because many rectification methods are based upon the timing of events as they relate to the affairs of a particular house. Important events like the birth of a child, a career change, or serious illness relate to the 5th, 10th, and 6th houses respectively (unless one wishes to get further refinement, drawing upon medical astrology for the latter.)
Then once a working model of the chart is cast, one can add in additional events, to see if they validate the model or argue for further refinement.
To do this well is tremendously time-consuming, and depends upon the chart native having pretty good recall of dates. If an astrologer of Steven Forrest's stature no longer does chart rectification, the time requirement may well be the main reason. He is a popular speaker at astrological conferences, teacher, and author.
The problem of rectification reminds me of this article by Michael Munkasey http://www.scribd.com/doc/6495552/An-Astrological-House-Formulary#scribd in which he says that the "best" house system is the one that most accurately describes the topic in question. If the topic is best described by an 8th house moon, we don't use a system that puts the moon in the 7th or the 9th house.
This is why many horary astrologers prefer Regiomontanus houses, because they feel they give the best results; whereas those who explain mundane events or rectify charts are likely to prefer Placidus, because it seems to be the most time-sensitive of the house systems.
As Kannon noted, the astrologer further needs to know multiple predictive/post-dictive techniques: transits, progressions, solar arcs, profections, primary directions, and so on.
I have a copy of Laurie Efrein, How to Rectify a Birth Chart. (1987) She used a detailed worksheet and some basic principles to simplify the process of timing events. Like Kannon, she stresses the desirability of getting to know the native personally, to best detect the "me" in the chart. The "me" might be where the native most strongly expresses her personality, or it might be her personal appearance.
Given what we know about genetics (family inheritance) we may tread carefully around the former belief in red-headed Aries risings (possible only if genes permit,) and would look for behaviour and mannerisms as pointing to a likely first house.
My personal feeling is that if we can't nail down the birth time within a few minutes, we're best off using whole signs for natal chart interpretation. It lacks the sensitivity of Placidus, but then Placidus in a natal chart may give an impression of accuracy that doesn't pertain.
Last edited: