Skyscript Astrology Forum

?Dear All,

This is a very interesting topic - thanks for posting Lilly's table, as I don't have the 3rd volume of CA. Anyway, I did the calculations for my own chart, and found it totally wrong. Herewith the calculations, as a matter of interest:

Moon is above the earth at 0Taurus11, Descendant is 20Pisces04. So absolute longitude of Moon is 30.11 and absolute longitude of Descendant is 350.04

So 30.11 (plus 360=390.11) - 350.04, gives 40.07. Thus 1 sign, 10 degrees and 7 minutes. Closest to that in the first columm, would be 1 sign 6 minutes, which, as the Moon is above the Earth, gives me 261 as "the number of days of the child's mansion" (A).

Next, born in November in a "common year", I get 334, plus the day on which I was born (the 1st), gives me 335 as "the number of the day of birth" (B). Subtract A from B (335 - 261) and we get 74. That would put it right about evenly between February and March, February being 1 day closer, so let's take February 28 of that year (1963), plus the 15 day difference and we end up with 15 March 1963. On that day the Moon was in Scorpio - not even close, as I have a Virgo Ascendant!! If I use March and then deduct the difference (which is 16 days in that case), I still get 15 March. The birth time will have to "move forward" with at least 2 hours for Scorpio to rise - I can accept a few minutes difference with the birth time, but not 2 hours...

I also note that, according to these calculations, I would have been born rather prematurely - being "conceived" on the 15th March and born on 1 November - well, that's about 7 weeks early - which is definately not the case!

Ida

Thanks for the feedback on your own chart Ida. Lilly stressed that he was only explaining these methods because they were taken seriously by other, very knowledgeable astrologers. He maintained that the only reliable way to rectify a nativity was by looking for correspondence between directions and known events and it was standard convention for astrologers of his time to begin a chart judgement with an explanation of how the chart had been verified and proved this way (ie., through 'accidents' directions and relation to 'revolutions').

But he does say that some astrologers swore by the results this ancient method produced. Either way it?s been a productive exercise for me to explore it a little more deeply than I have before. I think we can learn a lot from the techniques of the past ? even the dud ones if they illuminate what an astrologer was doing in a chart, and why.

Funny, I hadn't looked at the forum for a couple of days and then I found out that someone has studied exactly the same thing that I've been doing in the last few days, this Trutine of Hermes. I was reading a Finnish astrology book by Paul von Gerich, first published in 1925, and there this method is explained in a way that's easy to follow. The method of calculations differs a bit from that of Lilly's, but I think the basic idea is the same.

First you note the degree of the ascendant and the Moon in the horoscope calculated with the given time. We have four options here:
The Moon is waxing, it shows the degree of the ascendant in the conception chart.
- If the waxing Moon is above the horizon, the pregnancy lasts less than 273 days
- If the waxing Moon is under the horizon, the pregnancy lasts more than 273 days
The Moon is waning, it shows the degree of the descendant in the conception chart.
- If the wanign Moon is above the horizon, the pregnancy lasts more than 273 days
- If the waning Moon is under the horizon, the pregnancy lasts less than 273 days.

Then you count 273 days back from the birthday. You have to note the 29th of February only if the pregancy time includes it; if we take Tom as an example, he is born before the 29th of February, so we don't have to take that into the consideration.

If we go on with Tom's birthday, by counting 273 days backwards we get 23th of May 1947. Because Tom's Moon is waxing and above the horizon, it shows the degree of the ascendant in the conception chart and the pregnancy has lasted less than 273 days.

We start to look for the day after 23th of May 1947 when the Moon has been around Tom's given ascendant 29 Leo 16 (this is easy to do with Solar Fire5 Animate Chart option) and we get 26th May 1947 around 2.44 PM. Then we tune the ascendant of this conception chart around the degree where Tom's natal Moon is, 7 Cancer 56, and look where the Moon is now - it's 25 Leo 22.

So, according to the rule, this should be Tom's rectified ascendant. It doesn't differ much from the original 29 Leo 56 and it gives 5.02 PM as the birth time; that's twenty minutes earlier than the given time.

I don't know about the relevancy of this method but somehow I like it. My own birth time is by minute and from the hospital archives, but the Trutine of Hermes still claims that I've actually born 29 minutes earlier. Somehow I like the "new" birthtime better and when I check transits and directions with it, it's not bad. Actually I think it works better than the "real" time.

I've been wondering, that because I've born by Cesarean, should the "real" birthtime had been 29 minutes earlier than it now is? The Trutine of Hermes might give one explanaiton to the fact that our ascendant reflects our appearance and body, because scientifically those traits cannot in any way be determined at the moment of birth, but at the moment of conception, when the our genetical composition is outlined. Still our ascendant does reflect our appearance and body.

My wildest guess is that actually our "real" time of birth is determinded at the time of conception and no matter of the moment we're actually born, it's this moment derived from the conception moment that our life reflects. I've been wonder?ng that maybe one reason for astrology in the past days being more exact was because they worked with the (by one method or the other) rectified birth times, not with the exact ones! Well, seriously, I really don't know how it is.

By the way, when I read the discussion about Michael Jackson, I checked out his birth time mentioned here and noticed that most likely it's rectified by the Trutine of Hermes. If we assume Jackson has Gemini rising, this method gives exactly the same ascendant for him as is discussed here.

Interesting. At least you got a better result with Tom?s chart than I did. And I can also see now the logic of the leap year only being relevant if the birth time includes it. Either way though, you?re left with a result that you have to verify by its correspondence to life-events. I like the way that, traditionally, chart judgements commenced with an account of how the chart was reliable as shown by a list of important life-events matching up to important directions and returns. It seems like it?s a lot more work to rectify the horoscope and scrutinise all these past events first, but during the process we are assimilating important information, and that makes it a lot easier to proceed forward with confidence.

My wildest guess is that actually our "real" time of birth is determinded at the time of conception and no matter of the moment we're actually born, it's this moment derived from the conception moment that our life reflects. I've been wonder?ng that maybe one reason for astrology in the past days being more exact was because they worked with the (by one method or the other) rectified birth times, not with the exact ones! Well, seriously, I really don't know how it is.

If this is true, one interesting way of researching that would be comparing the charts of in vitro concepted babys with the charts of their births, what do you think ? That way you could have the exact time of conception, not a crude estimation....
Just a tought

hello,
i have skimmed through this thread a couple of times, and have reviewed the relevant sections in "Tools & Techniques" (i don't have any of Lilly's material), but I am still at a loss when trying to calculate the conception time.
I am desperately seeking a birth-time for a certain chart, so i will be attempting the Trutina Hermetis/Animodar/Accidents of the Native method to lock down an ascendent.
If any are willing to assist me, the info i have is...

August 20 1965
South Bronx, New York

thanks

Hello Estebongone and others,

For using Trutine of Hermes for rectification you must know the ascending sign for sure, otherwise there's no help from this method. So if you know only the date, then this method is not useful, because with it you start from the approximate positions of ascendant and the Moon and then kind of screw it until it's right. I don't know if this method works anyway, today I'm quite skeptical about it.

Yuzuru, what you said about in vitro concepted babies is an interesting thought. Wondering if anyone has done that kind of research... on the other hand if we think about the normal way of conception, it's all about which of the seeds "happen"(?) to reach the egg first and that determines our genetic code. We could think that the "energy of the moment" defines the genes which happen/are destined to (you can choose according to your personal philosophy ) come together in the moment of conception.

But in vitro conception there's not so much chance. So I don't know what part would the "energy of the moment" play there in defining the actual genetic constitution (which in part affects our body and our looks: the things that are traditionally associated with the ascendant) - but of course it would have an effect to the success of the conception; so parents interested in astrology might well like to elect the conception moment.

You base this method on the degree of the previous syzygy. If it was a new Moon, you take the degree of the New Moon, if it was a full Moon you take the degree of the luminary that was above the earth.

*************

Why don't you also try the exact degree of the syzygy itself disregarding the essential dignities?

I did it myself for my birth data and it worked excellently. The MC calculated that way differs from the exact position of my natal MC by only 11 minutes of arc, which in my case corresponds to *45 seconds* in time units!!!

Just give it a try.It may or may not work for all though.

I also wonder if the result obtained that way would be close enough to Tom's birth data.

Knowing my birth time to the exact minute by my mother's telling (thanks mom ) and also having precisely rectified to the seconds, last year I had attempted to verify it by trutine of hermes and remember finding a time of birth which was close to a minute to the actual birth time.

Later I tried the method with my son and friends who know their birth times to within a few minutes. The method generally gives good results and as a generalization within minutes to 2 degrees (3-5 degrees of deviation is rare)

Just my 2 cents!
Cheers,

[/quote]

Papretis,

My wildest guess is that actually our "real" time of birth is determinded at the time of conception and no matter of the moment we're actually born, it's this moment derived from the conception moment that our life reflects. I've been wonder?ng that maybe one reason for astrology in the past days being more exact was because they worked with the (by one method or the other) rectified birth times, not with the exact ones!

This is a very good point, and this is what I have been thinking. I feel that the astrologers of old were using these rectification methods not to determine the most precisely accurate birth time, but rather the most significant time to work with astrologically, regardless of whether we were taking our first breath at this time or not.

I was making a point similar to this on another thread before I was lined to here:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1995

I make the point that the time of birth may not actually be the most appropriate chart to analyse astrologically, but acts as the factir from which to determine that most appropriate chart via these rectification methods.

I also think that if this is the case then it gives us a wonderful advantage in discovering the appropriate charts for those whose birth times are completely unknown. This is because rather than having a 1 in 360 chance of accurately determining the degree of the Ascendant, and never feeling too sure, these possibilities via the animodar method are reduced to twelve possibilities, because we already know the appropriate degree, it's just a case of finding the right sign, which can be determined through directions.

Hi Draco and thank you for your comments,

I had buried this idea about Trutina Hermetis and the real(!?!) birth times as too wild speculation, but now I gave it another try. As I wrote, my own, recorded-by-minute birth time moves with Trutina Hermetis 29 minutes earlier. I took a look at primary directions and a couple of Solar Returns with the rectified birth time and well... primary directions have not been very clear for me with the official birth time, but with the TH time I got one important date almost exactly right (only seven days away from the exact date, which is spectacular with primary directions), the date I moved to another town in 1998, a big turn in life - with the TH time directed Moon (my Ascendant ruler) was exactly on my IC.

But Solar Returns were more interesting: one of the most important turns of my life happened in 1995 (I changed my whole life style for better) and I had a six degree orb Moon/Saturn opposition in the 1995 Solar Return chart (important planets, because they rule my ASC/DC axis and oppose each other in the natal chart). With the official birth time the Solar Return opposition is cadent, 7-13 degrees away from the MC/IC axis, but with the TH time it?s 1-5 degrees from the MC/IC axis, on both sides of it. Another important year was 2004 when I got married, and again I had a Moon/Saturn opposition in Solar Return with a 4 degree orb - with the official birth time it?s cadent again, 5-10 degrees from the ASC/DC axis, but with the rectified time it?s again on both sides of the axis, with 1-3 degree orb.

The idea sounds metaphysical and I could never say in my astrological community that ?yes, I was born by cesarean and my recorded birth time is 11.29, but actually I?ve born 29 minutes earlier? without being ridiculed but still... I think I must continue checking this out.

Hi Papretis, thanks for responding.

It was very interesting to read about the results you obtained from your researches.

I would give this a go with my own chart, but when my chart is rectified with these methods, I get a birth time only two minutes prior to the time I am given by my mother, and an ascendant degree just a degree prior to the original, so my rectified chart would not produce results much different to the original.

The thing is, with my own chart, when I use TH, the Moon is in Pisces for the supposed 'conception' date. My ascendant is Aquarius in the chart for the given time, but through the animodar method, it is the MC that I must adjust, which necessarily brings the ascendant back to Aquarius again.

I am interested in charts that give very different ascendants to that of the original chart, and what the astrological value of these rectified charts might be.

The idea sounds metaphysical and I could never say in my astrological community that ?yes, I was born by cesarean and my recorded birth time is 11.29, but actually I?ve born 29 minutes earlier? without being ridiculed

Even if you were not actually born twenty nine minutes earlier, then perhaps something significant happened astrologically at this moment that would act as a point from which to cast a horoscope from which many significant and meaningful influences could be identified, even if this moment does not mark entry into the world.

Is the rectification method meant to produce a new more 'accurate birth time' or is it just meant to provide a more significant horoscope to work from in some sense, even if the reason behind this eludes us.

It's a shame that those in your astrological community would consider you ridiculous for exploring this idea. I think it's fascinating and well worth looking into.

As my own rectification produces a result so similar to the original chart, then I thought I could look at the charts of celebrities whose rectified charts would differ greatly from the original, and see how this compares to directions and returns.

I think I must continue checking this out.

Please do. I'd be interested to read more about what you find.

Even if you were not actually born twenty nine minutes earlier, then perhaps something significant happened astrologically at this moment that would act as a point from which to cast a horoscope from which many significant and meaningful influences could be identified, even if this moment does not mark entry into the world.

Is the rectification method meant to produce a new more 'accurate birth time' or is it just meant to provide a more significant horoscope to work from in some sense, even if the reason behind this eludes us.

Yes, I would think so. I think my official birth time is accurate, but as you've pointed out, maybe the accurate birth time is not the exact moment we're born in the esoteric/horoscopical sense!