Skyscript Astrology Forum

Has anyone else has tried the rectification methods outlined in the nativities section of Lilly?s CA, and if so, what kind of results have you had?

Lilly says that the best way to rectify a chart is by the correspondence of directions and life events, but he also details the Trutine of Hermes, which says that the sign the Moon is in when the child is conceived should become the ascendant at birth; and the eclipse method of Animodar, which uses the angular distance of the almuten of the preceding syzygy.

Neither of these methods struck me as having any basis of reliability, purely from a theoretical point of view. But I calculated my day of conception according to the tables Lilly gives on p.502 and the Moon was in Cancer (my ascendant) on the day it determined. I also rectified the degree of the ascendant according to the Animodar method and it produced a result that is within 2 degrees of what I get according to my mother?s memory. So my experience was similar to what Lilly demonstrated in his example chart, which didn?t rely upon these methods but showed a good correspondence with them.

I?m still not convinced but interested to hear whether anyone else has found any substance in these methods.

I?m still not convinced but interested to hear whether anyone else has found any substance in these methods.

I believe Margaret Hone dismissed, or attempted to dismiss, the Trutine of Hermes as a method of rectification. She claimed certain exchanges could never take place at certain latitudes. I forget where I read this, though....

'Sepharial' wrote an extensive section on it in his "Manual of Astrology." He and EH Bailey called it the 'pre-natal epoch' (i.e., syzygy ante navitatem).

Here is a link to a (generally) reliable article (minus the theo-rosicrucianism):

http://www.rosicrucian.com/zineen/pamen034.htm

Does it work? I don't know. It requires faith, particularly if one has what is called an 'irregular epoch.' It requires some faith that the epoch rendered is more accurate than the recorded (rounded-up?) time registered by the hospital at birth. I'm still experimenting with it.

Hi Deb,

Has anyone else has tried the rectification methods outlined in the nativities section of Lilly?s CA, and if so, what kind of results have you had?

Try as I might, I cannot make head or tail out of his instructions. I'd love to test this idea, though. Any hints?

Tom

Hi Tom,

I think it?s like a lot of the passages in the early part of his nativities section ? they don?t always make a lot of sense until you follow the step by step instruction that he gives in his example, where you can actually check out what he?s doing. I?ll happily walk you through it if you don?t mind me putting your chart up (or send the data to me privately and I?ll just mention the bits I need to refer to).

With the Trutine of Hermes the first thing is to find the so called date of conception using his table, and for that you need to know if you were born in what he calls a common or bissextile year (what we call a normal or leap year). If your year of birth is evenly divided by 4 it?s a leap/bissextile year, if not it?s a normal/common year.

More anon?

Hi Andrew,
I can well imagine why someone would dismiss the theory of this. (I only tried it out to satisfy myself that there was nothing in it). But I can?t help being curious about the fact that this table in Lilly?s work produced reasonable results in his example and the one time I tried it out. I?m wondering whether it?s like those tables that give you a fairly reliable indication of your ascendant without having to work out the full chart.

Trust you to be awkward. From the way Lilly explains this I think you just take the year and don?t worry about the date within the year for this calculation. I'm not entirely sure though
I?ll get onto this tomorrow.

Hi Andrew,
I can well imagine why someone would dismiss the theory of this. (I only tried it out to satisfy myself that there was nothing in it). But I can?t help being curious about the fact that this table in Lilly?s work produced reasonable results in his example and the one time I tried it out. I?m wondering whether it?s like those tables that give you a fairly reliable indication of your ascendant without having to work out the full chart.

I now seem to recall that it was in her 'Modern Textbook of Astrology' that Margaret Hone dismissed the Trutine of Hermes. I no longer have the text at hand so I cannot reproduce what she wrote but I recall that it was very assertive (not unlike her advocacy of the 'equal house' system, perhaps?).

Sepharial and a few other astrologers seem to use the Trutine of Hermes as a method for precise rectification: the exact degree of the Moon at the pre-natal epoch is supposed to provide the true degree of the ascendant.

The Hindus use the crowning, or 'sirsodayam,' which takes place about five minutes before birth (though this must be variable?) as the birth moment.

If I recall correctly in the mid 17th century, the New Year didn't begin until March so this little anomoly wouldn't have presented itself to Lilly.

This is an interesting point. When the leap year was developed by Caesar, he had moved the beginning of the year to January 1st so there was no real problem. However, in Lilly's day, the beginning of the year was March 25th. February 29th came at the end of the year rather than near the beginning, so I would imagine that it was the year that was just ending that was the leap year. So for example, if we still started the year on March 25th, then Tom's birthday would land in 1947 rather than 1948. February 29th would still be 1947 so is it that year that is considered the leap year? If Tom was born in April it would be the next year and therefore not a leap year. I would imagine that this is how Lilly would have done it but I haven't looked at these methods so I don't know if it makes a difference to modern calculations.

Lilly?s instruction on p.502 , for the Trutine of Hermes, is to first of all calculate the angles and the Moon?s position for the time given:

If the Moon is above the earth you subtract the absolute longitude of the descendant from that of the Moon; if it?s below you subtract the ascendant from the Moon instead. Yours is above so we use the descendant.

Absolute longitude of Moon = 97.55 (add 360 to allow the subtraction)
= 457.55
Absolute longitude of desc =329.16
Result =128.39

Which is 4 signs, 8 degrees and 39 mins. We only need this to the nearest degree, so 4 signs and 9 degrees.

This is what we look up in the first half of the table on p.502. Under the first column headed ?signs and degrees? we find the nearest number to 4 signs, 9 degrees; which is 4 12 (5th entry up from the bottom). Then because the Moon is above the earth we go to the 3rd column headed ?Moon above the earth? and find the number alongside it: 269 ? this is known as ?the number of days of the child?s mansion? and we need to remember this for the next part. We?ll call it A.

Next, on p.503, Lilly tells us to refer to the second half of the table and find the month in which we were born. There are two sets of numbers, one is for common years and one is for leap years. I am taking yours as a leap year, so we take the number alongside February in the ?bissextile year? column, which is 60. We add this number to the day of the month you were born. You were born on 20 Feb so that?s 60+20, giving a result of 80, known as ?the number for the day of birth?. We?ll call it B.

Finally, subtract the number of days of the child?s mansion (A) from the number for the day of birth (B) to find the number of days for the conception.

B = 80
A = 269

A is a bigger number than B so to ease the calculate we have to add a year to B. Normally this would be 365 days but because you were born in a leap year we add 366 days (80 + 366 = 446).

B : 446
- A: 269
Result = 177

Now this is where it?s easy to get confused but it?s straightforward once you understand the table. We have to take this number (177) back to the second half of the table ? the Table of Months ? and find the month whose number has the closest match to ours. June in a common year has the closest match with 188. This number corresponds to the last day of June in the common year before your birth; that is June 30, 1947. Each number corresponds to a day so because this number is 11 over yours, you take 11 days off this date to find the date of your conception (30 ? 11 = 19), so your date of conception is supposed to be 19th June 1947.

The Moon was in Cancer that day, not Leo. This method is only supposed to confirm the sign of the ascendant, not the degree. Unfortunately yours is close, but doesn?t match, but Lilly mentions that many have erred by a day when a leap year is involved. If there?s anything you don?t understand in the calculation let me know and I?ll be a bit more explicit.

I?ll look at the Animodar method tomorrow.

Thought I?d pop a graphic of the table in for anyone who doesn?t have the 3rd volume of CA.
I?m fascinated by this table. Not because I expect it produces perfect results but because it seems to determine a date for conception that is at least feasible ? how does it do this when a substantial part of the calculation depends upon something as variable as the number of degrees between the Moon and the ascendant/descendant? It?s even more bizarre when you consider that if someone is needing to rectify their chart to clarify the sign on the ascendant, then the ?guestimate? they?ve used to calculate the distance between the angle and the Moon is unlikely to be accurate anyway! I?m thoroughly perplexed and intrigued by the logic of it.

Anyway, the Animodar method. I?ll get onto that now.

Animodar Method

This is supposed to correct the degree of the ascendant, not the sign ? you use the sign of your estimate.

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.

Your chart was preceded by a new Moon on 9 Feb 1948, 10:01 PM (EST ? your location) at 20.17 Aquarius.
You see which planet has most essential dignity in that degree. The chart for your lunation is nocturnal so:

Saturn has 5 points for sign rulership
Mercury has 3 points for triplicity rulership
Jupiter has 2 points for term rulership
The Moon has 1 point for ruling the face.

Therefore Saturn is the strongest planet by essential dignity in the degree of your previous lunation.

Now you go back to your own chart and look at whether Saturn is nearer to the ascendant or midheaven.

If it is nearer to the ascendant you alter your ascendant to the degree position of Saturn (disregard the signs involved). If it is nearer the midheaven, you alter the midheaven in your chart to the degree position of Saturn and then adjust your ascendant accordingly.

Saturn in your chart is very near to your ascendant so your rectified ascendant, in whatever sign you have estimated it to be, should be in the degree of Saturn in your nativity. Ie., 18.17. You have your estimated ascendant in Leo so the result is 18.17 Leo.

Thinking about this as I was working through your example made me totally convinced there is no real merit in it. The good news is my brain has clicked and I?ve suddenly realised what Galileo was doing in the 2nd chart of his own nativity. I?m not sure if you?ve looked into this but there is confusion over which chart is correct for him because he left two hand-drawn versions of his own nativity which are reproduced at http://www.skyscript.co.uk/galchart.html

Notice that the bottom chart has the ascendant at 14.33 Leo. Although it?s the second chart on the page (making it seem like a rectified version), we can be fairly positive that this was the first chart he calculated because the part of fortune in the top chart is wrong and has obviously been copied over from this one.

The previous lunation in his chart was a new Moon (on 12 Feb) at 2.53 Pisces. The planet with the most essential dignity at that degree was Venus, which ruled the sign by exaltation and the degree by term. Venus is at 21.37 Pisces, so Galileo has attempted to rectify his birth chart by this method, to 21.37 Leo. The one remaining anomaly is that Venus is close to Galileo?s descendant. If his method was exactly as Lilly has written it he would have changed the MC to 21.37, which would have put 28.42 Leo on the ascendant instead. But what I suspect has been omitted from Lilly?s instruction is that if the planet is closer to the asc-desc axis rather than the MC-IC axis you amend the ascendant degree (and change the MC if it?s vice versa). That makes a lot more sense so I feel pretty positive about this but if anyone has seen the animodar method explained in other traditional texts and can shed a bit more light on this, I?d be very grateful.