"By thy mask I shall (not) know thee"

I admire the work of C.E.O. Carter, British astrologer of the early to mid 20th century. Some of his words sound dated now, but it adds to their charm. This quote of his, lifted from the Wessex Astrologer Group site HERE is interesting.

"On the Ascendant as a Mask:
Recently we have heard a good deal to the effect that the rising sign, and in particular the ascending degree, is a mask which the native wears before the world but which conceals his true self.
As I have stated in the Lodge, this proposition does not seem self-evidently true. It seems to derive from the practice, in Alan Leo times, of correlating the Sun with the 'individuality' and the Moon with the 'personality', using these words in their well-known theosophical senses. 'Personality' is further derived from the Latin persona = something one makes a noise through, hence a mask such as actors were wont to wear, with a wide-open mouth. Then, apparently, this idea of a mask was transferred to the ascending sign...
I suggest that it is not the rising, but the setting degree, that is more truly a mask, for it is through this that we contact other people, and unless we have very strong personalities (in the usual, not the theosophical, sense) we do modify our demeanour according to the man or woman who confronts us..." [From an Editorial in The Astrologer's Quarterly, September 1951]


The idea of the ascendant being a mask, or lens through which we see the outer world and it sees us, has never felt right to me. I've come to my own conclusion that the sign on the ascendant is simply one more ingredient in the recipe of a personality, mixing with, sharpening or softening, highlighting or shading other ingredients. This is just my own view, and probably could be put down to how my own astrological makeup allows me to perceive things.

Charles Carter's idea makes a lot of sense to me. Some other astrologers have said that the descendant indicates "what we need", in a partner, or in life. I like Carter's idea much better, and it seems to work in all the charts I've been able to check so far. Admitedly this is not a large number, because times of birth have been elusive in many of my close connections throughout life.

My own descendant is in Capricorn. I've been told more than once that I come over as too serious, solid, reliable = Capricorn. This makes my revolutionary Aquarian Sun bristle! As Mercury lies in Capricorn in my chart I've usually blamed the impression I seem to give on that placement. Capricorn is not the real me, but it could easily be what others see first, when they don't know me. I seriously doubt that anyone sees my rising sign (Cancer). I'm anything but motherly. I've never been a mother, not domesticated (I am house-trained, but barely!) I'm ultra sensitive and emotional but nobody could perceive that unless they knew me very well.

I tried Mr Carter's theory on the chart of HeWhoKnows. He has Leo ascending, Aquarius on the descendant. He has told me many times that when he was young he always tried to be original and different, not to conform with the fads of his contemporaries - in the way he dressed, his hair, his taste in music, the way he spoke. That says Aquarius to me, not Leo. He's matured now, less avant garde in most things, but still Leo remains well hidden, just a part of the mix of his real self, his Moon is there too. When I first stumbled over him on the internet the impression I got was of a school teacher, professor or somesuch. It turned out that he was none of these, but his demeanor was definitely more Aquarius than Leo. His eldest daughter has a similar ascendant and these remarks could apply equally to her.

For me, Charles Carter nailed this. His theory is something I shall always keep in mind.