Here is Karen Hamaker-Zondag, Handbook of Horary Astrology, in her chapter 3: "When not to pass judgment, " pp.15-19.
"...when the Ascendant is in the last three degrees of a sign." Basically the issue or circumstances have been going on for a while, to the point where the outcome has already been set in motion. The one exception she and Barclay make, based on B. Watters, Horary Astrology and the Judgment of Events, is when the querant is the same age as the degree: i.e., 29 in this case.
Right, and this actually has it's origins with Lilly.
KH-Z also lists the moon in the Via Combusta, and notes a lot of disagreement amongst astrologers about its meaning today. She gives an alternative reading by Watters that agrees with your delineation, Culpepper. However, she concludes that the majority of astrologers don't use it and anyone inclined to do so "should be very circumspect" (cough, ahem) in its use. In her own practice sometimes she found the Watters effect, but sometimes not; hence the need for extreme circumspection.
Yes well, not just the Moon Via Combust. ASC there carries meaning, as well as other planets. If I remeber correctly (Culpepper would know better) the only planet that does ok Via Combust is Saturn. As to the majority not using it, and anyone else being inclined to...again, it speaks to what I say below.
She notes some astrologers who give other ideas about when a dubious horary chart can be read, but there is no agreement.
Isn't there always?
Hi waybread. You probably don't read the horary boards often (though I may be mistaken) and so likely don't know that this issue re the considerations before judgement has been litigated ad nauseam lately. Many threads have been hijacked to discuss it, with one member in particular continually coming down on charts that do not meet a specific set of requirements.
Since it appears we are revisiting the idea...can we agree that most of the modern astrologers who read horary charts and use the considerations are relying on earlier horarists, such as Lilly and Bonatti, to come to their conclusions? I believe we can, since each and every one of what has morphed over time into a "
stricture against judgement" has it's origins in Bonatti's 146 Considerations, first translated into English by Coley and more recently by Dykes. And to be precise, the
considerations before judgement are just that...warnings of things or placements in a chart that may lead the astrologer to err,
as well as reasons why.
Over the years astrologers who do not know better have begun to lean on them as some sort of reason to not read a chart. Sometimes because they don't understand that they do not actually render a chart unreadable, sometimes because they are looking for an excuse to not read the chart--either because at the end of the day they do not have the skills, or because they don't want to.
According to Bonatti, the only chart that
should not be read, because the chart is invalid, is one in which the hour ruler and ASC ruler are not in agreement, meaning the Universe isn't looking at the question. Sort of the equivalent of the Magic 8 Ball saying "ask again later." Like, when you have a serious question.
According to ethics, the only other type of chart that should not be read is a chart of a
third party question that the querent has not been explicitly granted permission by the third party to ask. Questions such as "is my ex doing such and such," or curiosity questions like "will my friend get pregnant this year?" or "does the guy I like have a girlfriend?" though that last may be mitigated if there is an existing relationship between me and the guy I like and I want to make sure he isn't cheating....basically questions that are an abuse of horary to the extent that it allows us to spy on people.
Living to an old age shows up in my natal chart, so tonight I asked this question. All data is included with the attachment. Thanks in advance for any replies.
