This thought-provoking question was emailed to me over the weekend and deserves a proper response.

Despite the obvious importance of the angles, it seems as though the Descendant (7th House Cusp) and the IC (4th House Cusp) are often the unmentioned step-siblings of their much more famous counterparts, the Ascendant (Asc) and the Midheaven (MC).

One possible explanation relates to the fact that the Asc and MC are always exactly opposite the Dsc and the IC respectively.  We could argue that we automatically consider the effects on the Dsc and the IC when we look at the aspects to the Asc and MC.  Looking at it another way, 180 degrees minus the degree of the aspect of any Planet or point to the Asc (or MC) will equal the degree of the aspect to the Dsc (or IC).  (The table later in this article will probably more clearly demonstrate the relationship between these aspects)

This answer works pretty well when we consider the major or Ptolemaic aspects, since when a Planet or point Trines the Asc, it is also Sextile the Dsc, etc.  So arguably we do account (at least to some degree) for both angular contacts in one fell swoop.  We could say that the Ptolemaic angular contacts with the Asc and Dsc (or MC and IC) exhibit similar flavors -- either challenging or beneficial -- so it is relatively easy to extrapolate the same type influence to the lesser-used angles.

But when we begin to ask the same questions for the so-called minor aspects things become less obvious and sometimes downright murky.  The flavor of these linked aspects (totaling the requisite 180 degrees) are not as clear-cut as with the major aspects.

Specifically, the Quincunx -- suggesting a necessary adjustment -- is coupled with the ho-hum Semisextile.  And the powerful obsessive-compulsive Quindecile matches up with a 15 degree aspect that is far from dynamic in its application.  And the creativity potential suggested by the Quintile pairs up with a nameless 108 degree aspect that is of no practical use.

OK, so where am I going with all this?  Doesn't it make sense that if a minor aspect is worth analysis when it connects with the Asc or MC, shouldn't we also consider that same aspect when it relates to the Dsc or the IC and not throw the more meaningful aspect out with the more obvious but much weaker step-sibling?

Consider a client with Saturn in Virgo Quindecile the Dsc.  Would it not be reasonable to wonder if there might be control issues or a relentlessly critical attitude toward the intimate partner?

Or how about a Quincunx from the Moon in Capricorn to the IC?  Wouldn't we want to explore how (and why) the emotions are restricted or controlled in the home environment?

The beauty and attraction of astrology is that we can never hope to understand it all.  Just when we feel that we have a good grasp of what's happening in the Horoscope, we find ourselves asking more questions.  And some of these questions require us to think, analyze, and explore.  When we do, everyone benefits.

Top of Page