Drawing the chart yourself

Minderwiz

Thanks for the link to the Regiomontanus tables. I've downloaded them.

I checked your calculation both from midnight on 9th and midnight on 10th (I prefer to add rather than subtract). You made one error. 108.46 seconds is 1 minute 48.46 seconds, not 1 minute and 8 seconds.

So you need to subtract 40 seconds from your final ST, giving you 23:53:37 seconds, (I got 23:53:36 but a second makes virtually no difference.)

On the use of tables you should interpolate the answer from the table. That is you take the value for 52 minutes and the value for 56 minutes and estimate what the value would be for 53.5 minutes. The obvious solution is to 'split the difference' Looking at the table of houses in Filbey,that would seem to be a sound approximation as long as Sue doesn't want you to be as accurate as possible.

The same holds for the latitudes, you should interpolate the correct value.

If Sue is willing to give you the latitude (pardon the pun) to use the nearest latitude in the table, then use 51 degrees.

I did a mental approximation based on taking 70% of the difference between latitudes 50 and 51 and an even split between 52 minutes and 56 minutes and I ended up 9 minutes of longitude off the correct Ascendant. If you make that latter calculation more accurate you should get something that's near spot on.
 

inanna_tarot

Ah thank you Minderwiz for your correction :) Its helpful to have someone looking over my answers, all part of the learning (changing from counting to 100 to now counting to 60 is hard work on my grey cells when I'm on annual leave!). Thank you :)

Well, I've spent a lot of this evening looking at this, and even getting my partner to look at it to help with my maths (Oh how she would never have thought to be spending her Monday evening counting up to 60 with me lol).

I think I understand the basics now, the coursework I've got is helpful but I think there are a few things missing which I have found from other websites (always good to research around these things). I think I am getting the idea of the houses. I guess when you are a teacher and you do things all the time its easy to forget or not to emphasis the obvious little things to folks like me who are trying to remember if I'm meant to be adding or subtracting at this point lol.

The planets will be for another day lol.

Can I ask a silly question then...

Are the table of hours the same each year?

For example if I look up sidereal time 23:53:37 (or round it up to 23:54) would the house positions be the same if it was for this year, or next year or the previous year? Or do they change slightly?
 

Minderwiz

Can I ask a silly question then...

Are the table of hours the same each year?

For example if I look up sidereal time 23:53:37 (or round it up to 23:54) would the house positions be the same if it was for this year, or next year or the previous year? Or do they change slightly?

The table of houses is a constant but the sidereal time of midnight 9 March will change slightly from year to year. in 2014 it was 11:06:26, in 2015 it was 11:05:28 and in 2016 it will be 11:08:27. (2016 is a leap year)

It's not a great amount but iit has an impact. If you cast your chart for 13:00 9 Match 2016 you will find a slight difference in the Ascendant, and 1 to 2 degree difference in the house cusps.

Obviously the planets will be in different positions and the Sun will be nearly a degree out (remember it's a leap year) Try doing a chart using a computer for last year, same date same time and you'll find minor differences in the house cusps (and occasional significant ones). The Sun will be slightly different too, a matter of minutes of arc but still a little different. It's a useful exercise to see how things change from year to year.
 

inanna_tarot

Thank you Minderwiz for your help and information :D

I've picked up a copy of Natal Charting. It was £4 in one of the glastonbury bookshops :D And I managed to pick up a 1930s edition of Lilly's Introduction to Astrology which I just couldnt leave on the shelf :D
 

Minderwiz

Thank you Minderwiz for your help and information :D

I've picked up a copy of Natal Charting. It was £4 in one of the glastonbury bookshops :D And I managed to pick up a 1930s edition of Lilly's Introduction to Astrology which I just couldnt leave on the shelf :D

Obviously Filbey takes a different tack than Lilly, when it comes to Astrology but the process of setting up the chart is well covered. From memory Lilly's Introduction is largely reproduced in Christian Astrology Book 1 but as you say, you can't give up the opportunity :D

Did you manage to calculate and plot the planets' positions? There are references to proportional logarithms in Filbey but all you really need is a calculator. Filbey and the other sources on how to chart were written in the days before electronic calcuators existed or had become common. The only requirement is that the calculator follows the rules of mathematics (which cheap ones may not do). If in doubt key in 2+2x3.

The answer should be '8' not '12 because the multiplication takes precedence over the addition. Some cheap calculators do the addition first and then the multiplication. Having brackets is even better or of course you can use a spreadsheet.
 

inanna_tarot

No I havent got as far as the planets yet as my mother in law has been visiting. Hopefully tomorrow I'll get some headspace to have a go at working it out :)
Book1 of Lilly's CA does go into drawing up the chart, but I dont understand the concepts he's writing about enough to understand it olde worlde terms.
Rome wasnt built in a day - but this process has given me a huge amount of respect and admiration to those astrologers of yore who had no option but to draw out every chart themselves. :)
 

Barleywine

No I havent got as far as the planets yet as my mother in law has been visiting. Hopefully tomorrow I'll get some headspace to have a go at working it out :)
Book1 of Lilly's CA does go into drawing up the chart, but I dont understand the concepts he's writing about enough to understand it olde worlde terms.
Rome wasnt built in a day - but this process has given me a huge amount of respect and admiration to those astrologers of yore who had no option but to draw out every chart themselves. :)

I have binders full of hand-drawn charts, since I started in 1971 just before the ability to create computer charts appeared. The first astrological computer I saw was Rob Hand's Kaypro that he demonstrated at a lecture. I think before that in desktop computing came the Sinclair but there was no astrological software for it. Hand's computer was the size of a suitcase and must have weighed 40 pounds. You don't need to ask how slow it was :)
 

Minderwiz

I have binders full of hand-drawn charts, since I started in 1971 just before the ability to create computer charts appeared. The first astrological computer I saw was Rob Hand's Kaypro that he demonstrated at a lecture. I think before that in desktop computing came the Sinclair but there was no astrological software for it. Hand's computer was the size of a suitcase and must have weighed 40 pounds. You don't need to ask how slow it was :)

LOL!!! Yes, I started there too but I was so glad when calculators and then computers came along.

I had one of those Sinclairs (well three actually, ZX80, ZX81 and the ZX Spectrum) and whilst there was no astrological software, they were capable of doing the maths, which at least was an improvement on relying on my poor brain, pencil and paper. :D
 

dadsnook2000

Proportionalizing the degree-span to find the result you need.

This is why hand-calculation was so time consuming. The tables provide time or arc-positions for fixed increments. You need to proportion the differences in order to get the number needed. This used to be done using other tables or a slide rule or a proportional calculator. I have a circular proportional calculator and a sexagesimal calculator I purchased back around 1967, as well as 'log' tables, etc. It used to take about 20 minutes to lay out a chart that was accurate --- and this short time came only after much practice and having all the tools at hand. Not like now.

Now, consider this. If a house cusp is estimated to be at a certain degree-minutes value, what difference would it make if it was off by a value of 15 seconds or 3 minutes of arc? Unless you are doing primary directions, who would care. When I produce computerized charts I set my programs up to present/print on the degree values. That is close enough 99.9% of the time. Dave
 

Minderwiz

Now, consider this. If a house cusp is estimated to be at a certain degree-minutes value, what difference would it make if it was off by a value of 15 seconds or 3 minutes of arc? Unless you are doing primary directions, who would care. When I produce computerized charts I set my programs up to present/print on the degree values. That is close enough 99.9% of the time. Dave

Considering that there are several quadrant house systems in common use, which have far more 'error' in intermediate house cusps than 3 minutes of arc, you are absolutely right! Not only, who would care but also who should care - no one!! I would think that would include Primary Directions, though I'm sure I'd get a lot of argument on that one. LOL.


It think your argument also applies to planetary positions, if some form of orbs is allowed in deciding whether an aspect is in force or not. But as we could go into a whole thread on that one, I better not take it further LOL.