©2013
J. Lee Lehman, PhD
(Note: The
material in this essay is covered in much greater detail in Chapter
One of my book, Astrology of Sustainability,1)
Patrick Curry has
provided a fascinating blueprint for us of the forces that shaped the
development of early modern astrology, specifically through the
trials (literally) and tribulations (figuratively) of Alan Leo
(1860-1917).2
Briefly, Leo was the inventor of the “shilling horoscope.”
Utilizing the mails through advertising in magazines, Leo created a
very profitable enterprise for himself by allowing the public to send
away for a horoscope, which was computed by one employee, and then
fleshed out with a page on the Sun sign, a page on the Moon sign, and
so forth. This style of working had both the advantage of allowing
many people to explore astrology at a much reduced price, and it
allowed Leo to become very wealthy through the low time commitment to
each chart . Unfortunately, he ran afoul of the English
fortune-telling laws. After he was indicted, and acquitted on a
technicality, Leo asked his lawyer how he could prevent this in the
future. His lawyer essentially said: don't tell fortunes! In an
attempt to comply with at least the letter of the law, Leo removed
the more predictive language of his shilling horoscopes, and changed
the descriptions to character analysis: a more psycho-spiritual
perspective. In the process, he also declared that this is what
astrology does: its describes, not predicts. Ironically, he was then
arraigned again for fortune-telling, and this time, he was convicted.
Leo's change in
wording truly was a watershed moment in astrological interpretation.
Leo's own private delineations showed a complete continuity with
prior trends of astrological prediction. The 19th century
had witnessed some simplification of astrological technique, compared
to the more detailed classical methods in place through the end of
the 17th century. There were the specific challenges of
integrating Uranus and then Neptune into astrological usage. There
were the continual questions raised by the differences between
Western and Vedic astrology, a topic highlighted by the increasing
interest in Indian religion by Westerners in general through the 19th
century, and specifically in the Theosophical Society.
But Leo was not
acting in a vacuum. The impact of these ideas hit other parts of
astrology as well, not just natal interpretation. One of the easier
ways to observe the change is in Leo's own astrological magazines.
The ones before 1900 reflect the “old” ways, and in them, we see
the earlier mix of different styles of astrology, but with a distinct
predictive slant. These magazines, for example, have horary charts
interpreted in a fairly conventional way. Leo's own horary examples
were even collected together into a work on horary!3
But surely one of
the major questions of the time would remain mundane astrology. The
historical method of mundane astrology which had developed over
centuries enunciated a hierarchy of charts and conjunctions to be
observed: from the Great Mutation cycle of Jupiter and Saturn which
lasted centuries, to the change of element (mutation) in that series
of conjunctions, the individual Jupiter-Saturn conjunction, the
Mars-Saturn and Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions, the Aries Ingress, and
the other cardinal ingresses, lunations, and eclipses for a
particular year. This series allowed the astrologer to talk about
both long and short-term trends. The ancient authors had also noted
the extreme difficulty in attempting to create a chart for the
Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions, realizing that it was next to impossible
to calculate the exact instant of the conjunction. The first time it
was accepted as possible was the 17thcentury, with
Kepler's and Heydon's direct observations of the Jupiter-Saturn
conjunction. Even with direct observation in hand, contemporaries
warned about the errors in such calculations, a worry that our modern
equations confirm.4
As a result, the tendency was to delineate the Aries Ingress or
lunation prior to the known conjunction, rather than the
conjunctional chart itself. Astrologers living in the decades after
Kepler and Heydon reverted to the ancient methods precisely because
of these perceived methodological problems, which were discussed in
the works of the day.
The astrologers of
the 17th century were still integrating the “new”
calculational advances of Kepler and the heliocentric theories, and
there was serious astronomical knowledge and interest displayed by
some of their numbers, such as Vincent Wing. What is hard for us to
appreciate now is that their astronomical practices and equations
lacked the precision that we have become accustomed to – and for
good reason. Astronomical precision in observation was still a huge
topic in the 17th century, following great advances by
practitioners such as Tycho Brahe, and the instrument makers of
Louvain. But they could still not approach the observational accuracy
of mechanized instruments of both ground-based and satellite-based
machines of the 20th century. But quite apart from this,
different astronomical measurements have different accuracies
associated with them: and any ephemeris is only as accurate as the
equations used to generate it.5
One offshoot of this astronomical consideration – known,
interestingly, to our 17th century forebears – is that
we can obtain much more accurate results for the positions of a birth
chart, than for the time of a planetary conjunction or station. In
other words, the routine stuff of astrology – birth charts and
horary charts – are reasonably accurate. But station times are not.
It is unfortunate, but the knowledge of this simple fact is one of
the things that was lost when astrology lost its university moorings
at the end of the 17th century, and went largely
underground for a century.
In the 19th
century, astrology was dusted off, and challenged with the discovery
of the outer planets. However, in mundane astrology, we can see that
the job of rediscovery had worked rather well. During the U.S. Civil
War, Luke Broughton (1828-1899) published the “Monthly Planetary
Reader,” in which he did traditional mundane predictions of the
course of the war. Broughton's method was traditionally classical,
and his method seemed to work quite well, with Broughton even
predicting Lincoln's assassination, and later, McKinley's.
But the 19th
century also saw many astrologers experimenting with new methods. In
mundane, this was partly justified by the greater globalization of
the astrological enterprise. Unlike in the 17th century,
the telegraph and faster ships brought news of foreign politics and
wars more quickly to a public that became used to hearing of events
on distant shores.
One of the
astrologers who helped to pioneer this transition was Sepharial
(1864-1929). In his columns on monthly events, he
transformed mundane astrology in a number of ways. We can summarize
his methodology as follows:
- The sign placements of the planets have replaced any celestial conjunction as the top headline. This allowed him to predict that these planets would affect countries ruled that sign.
- He reduced the Mars-Saturn conjunction to a mere transit, instead of an event worth analyzing in its own right.
- He did discuss lunations, but his discussion was mainly of planetary conjunctions or aspects occurring in the chart, but these conjunctions are largely inferior conjunctions to superior planet configurations already in play.
Sepharial wrote
specifically on the interpretation of the Jupiter-Saturn Conjunction
in Transits and Planetary Periods. In fact, this work should
be seen as the genesis of the methods of working with the
Jupiter-Saturn conjunction still being used in the 1920s and 1930s.
In this work, he developed a system for working with the
conjunctional chart, and then following it through time with
secondary progressions or directions. Sadly, this work showed no
knowledge of the problems in calculation associated with attempting
to arrive at a chart of this nature.6
One obvious change
that had to be addressed in the modern period was the discovery of
yet more superior planets, thereby adding more transits to the mix..
And I have to wonder
whether the shift in Sepharial's interpretations to the use of signs
as being part of an attempt to re-envision how to get the “where”
right. This seems transitional to astrocartography, but
unfortunately, the emphasis on sign seems to have stuck as much for
its convenience in generating copy for monthly deadlines than for
producing real predictive power.
The methods that
Sepharial was beginning to experiment with for approaching mundane as
a truly global art only needed reinforcing as time went on. World War
I (the Great War, as it was styled before World War II imposed a
numbering system) was fought globally. The emergence of new world
powers continued to challenge capabilities of astrology to keep up
with globalization.
Between the wars, we
can use the Astrological Quarterly to understand these
developments. The Editor, Charles Carter, wrote extensively on
mundane, and there were contributions by others as well.
A good example was
L. Protheroe Smith, entitled “The Year 1927,” which featured the
Jupiter-Saturn conjunction of 1921.7
He begins his article by saying:
“I make no apology for once more drawing your attention to the
forgoing figure, for the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the
year 1921. I have discussed it here before, and I shall do so again
whenever I am asked to speak on National Astrology during the period
over which it rules. Because, although perhaps less is known
concerning this branch of our work than almost any other, yet there
is reason to believe that national destiny runs in cycles; and we
get, I think, a glimpse of this cyclical process in the
Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions which recur at intervals of approximately
20 years.” (page 4)
So far, this could
have been written by Masha' Allah – except for the phrase “national
destiny.” We have moved into the period of democracies and other
governmental forms, where the Head of State may only last in that
role for a few years – rarely for life.
However, a close
examination of the article reveals major differences. First of all,
his year is a calendar year: not a year as defined by the Aries
Ingress. In fact, there are no cardinal ingresses to be seen at all!
What is present is a chart purporting to be for the exact moment of
the conjunction – something we have already seen has some serious
astronomical challenges associated with it.
His chart comes out
to approximately 45 minutes off our modern calculation! How can
this be? There are two components to the problem:
- In the era before the computer, the accuracy of planetary positions in an ephemeris was not as high as now. This is the major source of the error in Protheroe-Smith's case.
- Trying to come up with the exact moment of a slow conjunction such as this from an old ephemeris, which gives static positions for each day, is truly impossible. Positions were given to the nearest minute. You can't just interpolate the exact moment, because a minute isn't sufficiently accurate for a body that only moves a few minutes per day! Is that position of 1 degree 56 minutes really 56 minutes, or 55.51, or 56.49 minutes? You don't know! You can even see whether your current computer program has conquered this problem by comparing a timed transit list to using the ephemeris generator to see if you get the same time!
But the chart
published has the deceptive appearance of correctness, because
both Jupiter and Saturn are in the same minute of arc. Jupiter was
moving by 13' per day, and Saturn by 7' – this is a good
illustration of the degree of uncertainty of these conjunction charts
– and exactly why Vincent Wing warned about this problem over two
centuries earlier. Uncertainty by twelve hours wrecks havoc with the
houses! So we must begin by being suspicious of anything he says
about the Jupiter-Saturn that is house-based.
Since he is not
using ingresses, or eclipses, or lunations, what is he doing to
predict 1927? Why, he's progressing this already suspect
Jupiter-Saturn conjunctional chart, using the method pioneered by
Sepharial!
Secondary
progressions did not exist until the 17th c. when Placidus invented
them in an attempt to reproduce Ptolemy's method of directing. I
don't object to their use here because they are new. The genesis of
the idea for doing something like this exists in the classical
material, which mentions directing revolutionary charts – although
this would have been by primary direction. But if the method is going
to shift, it's important to test it out. How can one test it out on a
chart which is already suspicious?
Protheroe Smith used
the progression to focus on the progressed Moon, by sign and house
placement. He also does transits from the year to the progressed
placements, and aspects of the progressed Moon to the dubious
conjunctional chart.
I should mention
that Protheroe Smith's articles continued to grace the Quarterly
for some years to come. And both he and his editor clearly believed
that he was getting good results from such a tenuous method. How can
this be? This methodological problem does not negate transits by
themselves, nor does it negate the importance of the planetary
placements at the time of the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction itself – a
conjunction Protheroe Smith clearly had come to know intimately.
Later, Carter would present the “new” Jupiter-Saturn conjunction
for 1940 during the war – and again, it would be inaccurate, though
not so much as the 1920 one. However, but then, Carter had severely
reduced his discussion of it, suggesting that, on some level, he had
realized that it was not the major predictor that it was believed to
be in 1927!
In the same issue,
“Taurus” reported on the total eclipse, visible in London on 29
June 1927.8
After a review of the astronomy, the eclipse was interpreted
astrologically, using aspect patterns. Planets are used exclusively
through their house positions: no house rulerships are noted at all.
There clearly was a
lot of experimentation going on, in many respects paralleling the
development of modern natal astrology, with its simplification of the
ancient systems, along with a much heightened dependence upon the
aspect patterns as the primary method of delineation.
From here, we can
pick up the history as it is presented in Baigent, Campion, and
Harvey. As Nicholas Campion pointed out in his chapter, “The
National Horoscope: Mundane Astrology and Political Theory,” the
current modern reliance on the national horoscope is quite new. It
was impossible in Europe until only a few centuries ago, with the
development of the modern state.9
He also discusses the relationship of the state to the national
leader, “the birth chart of the leader becomes a working horoscope
for the collective” (page 109). As Campion has pointed out
elsewhere, the development of the national horoscope as a preferred
method for the analysis of mundane effects came in the wake of the
failure of British astrologers to predict World War II. We can see it
in use in the lead-up as well, witness C.E.O. Carter's references to
a chart for the Fascist Regime and to the French Republic in the
March-April-May 1939 issue of the Quarterly.10
The theory has been presented that incorrect predictions by R.H.
Naylor and others concerning the war led to a wholesale re-evaluation
of mundane methods, leading to two primary developments:
- Greater utilization of national charts to pinpoint hot spots
- Work by Barbault and Gouchon initially, then buttressed by Baigent, Campion, and Harvey to elaborate the meanings of the new superior planet cycles involving Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto.
While this is
undoubtedly true, I suggest also examining a chart for the Aries
Ingress 1939 shown here.
Figure 1. Aries
Ingress 1939, calculated for Berlin and London.
Either way you cut
it, an Aries Ingress with Mars exalted in a partile square to the Sun
looks like a war. And yet, in an article in the Quarterly by Estelle
Gardner entitled “National Astrology,” she reviews that chart –
and does not so much as mention the word “war.” Doing the chart
for London, she merely remarks that the Pluto Rising may denote the
association of Pluto with National Socialism and Fascism!1
How did she miss this? It's worth remembering that England at this
time was strongly neutral and anti-war. There was also a significant
political faction favoring the Nazis. One sure-fire way to mess up
your predictions is to hold too dearly to your own pet theory of How
Things Are. If you cannot imagine war, then you cannot
predict it either.
Charles Carter
himself joined in the prediction of “no-war-in-1939!” in the
June-July-August 1939 issue of the Quarterly, using as his
evidence the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction for 1901 – a chart which is
as flawed in its calculation as the 1921 chart that I discussed in
relation to Protheroe Smith's article. Then, adhering to the same
method, Carter used secondaries to progress the chart to 1939,
divining easy aspects for the immediate future.2
And yet, in his following Editorial that he wrote on August 1st, he
said:
“I am writing this on the first day of August, with the atmosphere
around me somewhat milder (under the influence of Jupiter stationary)
than it was a few weeks ago (under Mars stationary). Nevertheless
there is a widespread belief that things will move rapidly and
dangerously at least or about the end of the month. And the August
lunation is a strange one; Sun and Moon rise at Berlin, square Uranus
in M.C.”3
It would seem that
the sudden beginning of the invasion of Poland looked exactly like
that lunation. It was only strange if you couldn't envision war as
the meaning. What failed the British astrologers was not the ancient
techniques, but Sepharial's modification of them, combined with
unwillingness to interpret what they were seeing, but wouldn't
countenance.
Discussion
It's difficult to
impossible to predict what you cannot imagine happening. Carter's
words were split: when he used Protheroe Smith's methods, the result
he got suggested “no war.” But the chart for the lunation itself
as well as the Aries Ingress showed what was in fact the correct
answer – but the inconvenient one. It was not the old method that
failed, but the new one.
Unfortunately, there
has been too much of a trend in astrology to not worry much about the
astronomy of what we do. Here, clearly, the British astrologers did
not want to worry about the precision of Sepharial's method. Today,
it is still true that finding the precise instant of a conjunction or
other aspect is difficult, and so even now, attempting a chart for an
outer planet aspect has its pitfalls.
It is also troubling
to note that the method that failed was a new one: but that did not
seem to be the take-home lesson. Yes, Sepharial's method did
eventually disappear, but was this acknowledgement of the failure, or
Planck's Principle, by which a theory doesn't die out until its
adherents do? In the fourth issue of the Quarterly for 1939, now with
the Germans already on the move, Carter predicted the end of the War
in 1941, In this prediction, he was still referring to the bogus 1921
Jupiter-Saturn chart. Carter referred extensively to charts of the
various countries involved, or of the heads of state in the absence
of a country chart, while bemoaning the absence of a chart for
Britain (he explicitly rejected the UK chart for 1801). He suggested
a new system of symbolic directions based on a passage from Isiah
which would have resulted in mortal peril for Hitler in less than a
year. In a list of charts relevant to the study of the war, Carter
included the mutation chart (not great mutation, as he stated) of the
Jupiter-Saturn conjunction of 1842, when the conjunction series moved
into Earth. Again, the problems with the calculation of the precise
moment of the conjunction meant that the chart has the wrong
Ascendant and MC by a sign, once again weakening the chart
considerably as a predictor of the future. We should mention that
Carter's charts did have Pluto marked in them, so he was attempting
to include Pluto as well.
Carter did
circumspectly predict the entry of the USA into the war after
November 10, 1941, based upon the station of Mars, but herein lies
another tale. He was right: 7 December 1941 marked the entry of the
USA as a result of the attack at Pearl Harbor, But again, the
astronomy was a problem. Carter stated that this station would occur
with Mars conjunct the Ascendant in Washington, but a modern
rendition gives Mars conjunct the Descendant – not a bad symbol for
the attack by Japan (=7th house, enemy of the USA), but
again. We see how accuracy was being hampered by astronomical
factors. In the same issue (September-October-November 1941; written
approximately August), Carter reiterated his prediction for the war
ending in 1942, this time based upon secondary progressions of the
chart of Britain, Italy, Mussolini, Hitler, and of the German
Empire.
By 1942, Carter had
realized how difficult the job of prediction had become:
“If publication grows more difficult [referring to paper
rationing], so also does prediction. We have now six or seven Great
Powers actively engaged in hostilities, for the most part on several
fronts, and there are a number of lesser belligerents on each side.
Thus the outlook is becoming ever more complex, with good and bad
features interwoven and helpful and harmful periods in quick
succession.” (Vol. 16(1): 1).
Part of the desire
for better charts for countries and heads of state rested on a simple
fact of geography applied astrologically: the chart for an ingress,
eclipse, or lunation was not substantially different in London or
Berlin because the two capitals are simply not far enough apart to
make it so. And this was always the challenge with Europe:
comparatively small states mean that relocation of a chart for the
different countries results in similar charts, even when the
countries are experiencing substantially different outcomes. What to
do? This was actually why Carter was so concerned about having
country charts or charts of the ruler – the geography demanded the
approach. But then, confronted with grand alliances of multiple
countries, the complexity of the situation became overwhelming.
I have to feel for
Carter. Reading the entries through 1943 and into 1944, this had to
have been wearing on him. One almost gets the sense he was ready to
return to any other kind of astrology – as I'm sure all his readers
were equally ready to return to their lives without war. Could this
be a factor in why he missed D-Day in June 1944? Remember that Carter
was prognosticating based on the New Moons only: D-Day was planned
for the Full Moon. For May, Carter had said this:
“The Gemini ingress shows Pluto setting at Washington, still
supported by Uranus – an indication of heavy fighting.... The
lunation, on the 22nd [of May], is trine Neptune but falls
in the 12th at London, with Saturn just risen. It seems an
uninteresting figure, but Jupiter is on the cusp 3 (Campanus), which
may do something to mitigate traveling conditions and the paper
shortage.”4
We shall consider
just how “uninteresting” this figure is in a moment, but let's
also see Carter's predictions for June. Because of his use of New
Moons, this refers to after D-Day, but of course what D-Day did was
to open fighting on another front, which certainly did increase the
amount of it:
“The New Moon falls, on the 20th, in 29 Gemini, between
Venus and Saturn, being also square to Neptune.
“It does not seem an outstandingly important figure for us, but at
Washington Venus is on the midheaven, with the Lights and Saturn near
by. A brilliant position but for Saturn, yet nevertheless calculated
on the whole to bring some eminent success to our Allies.”5
Let's reconsider
these charts, and see whether Carter actually missed anything.
We should remind
ourselves that the planning for D-Day was massive, and that the
staging was happening in England, even if much of the operation was
American, and it was under the command of American General
Eisenhower. And foremost in that planning was secrecy and deception –
certainly Neptune, if we choose to use an Outer planet! And talk
about deception! General Patton was assigned as leader of the
completely fictitious First US Army Group, while really secretly
commanding the brand new and barely trained Third Army, which would
be deployed after the initial D-Day landing. Patton's bogus Group was
the decoy to make the Germans believe that the inevitable assault
would occur other than where it in fact did. So the lunation partile
trine Neptune is extremely descriptive of what was going on – but
in a way that Carter could not possibly have realized at the time.
Score One for Carter noting the Neptune – we leave the details to
“stranger than truth.”
However, there are
factors which we may note that were not of Carter's early modern
approach to delineation. We note the position of Mars at 29 degrees
of Cancer conjunct the benefic North Node, in the 2nd
house. Let's pull this apart. First, the use of out-of-sign aspects
explicitly goes back to the Arabs. Secondly, let's consider Mars more
closely. The sports prediction work I did with Bernadette Brady
demonstrated that the malefics in Fall and Detriment are much more
dangerous in a contest (and hence war) than the other placements –
we can consider these positions super-charged. Now, that is obviously
not a piece of information that Carter had access to in his day.
However, it is odd that he ignored Mars in a critical degree – the
29th. Furthermore, the 2nd house is especially
important, because in conflict charts, the 2nd house is
like your second in a duel: it's your allies, those fighting on your
behalf.1
So here are the Americans on British soil, staging the largest
mobilization of troops in history for an invasion, so how can this
not be 2nd house?
D-Day was scheduled
for June 5th, but was delayed one day because of weather.
At the Full Moon on June 6th, the invasion began. Here at
the MC for the lunation is Neptune. The entire Allied plan hinged on
the Nazis believing that the invasion would occur in a different
place than it did, so that the troops could get ashore without being
bombed immediately into their graves. The Ruler of the Ascendant was
Jupiter, in in-sect Triplicity, cadent, but in an appropriate house
for foreign invasion, the 9th. Also, repeatedly, classical
sources reiterate that the 3rd-9th axis is less malefic and stronger
than the 6th-12th. Meanwhile, Mercury, ruling
the enemy, is peregrine and in the 6th house – truly a
bad position. The army of Britain's Ally was Saturn – and Saturn
was in a dangerous position, the 7th house, but dignified
by Triplicity. Among the key words I had established for Triplicity
is precisely luck – and the Americans that night had the luck –
the luck that their Neptunian ruse had worked and the weather held!
All of the strategic
planning of the Allies had suggested that if the beachhead was
successful, then the rest of the plan was, if not easy, at least
carrying an acceptable probability of success. By the New Moon in
June, this next phase was well under way. In Carter's analysis, the
period of D-Day had actually fallen under his May predictions, and he
had already discussed those retrospectively in the same issue in
which he gave June prospectively. He did note in the retrospective
discussion that Mars going through Leo should affect France, Romania,
and Italy – which certainly was true.
As we examine the
New Moon for June 20th, we may add some features that
Carter did not discuss. The combined Allied army is given by Mars,
not exactly strong by dignity, but applying to the benefic Jupiter,
which was in Triplicity, and thus strong enough to aid Mars. Mars is
separating from Pluto, perhaps the signature of that very fragile and
dangerous moment when the troops hit the shore. Meanwhile Venus,
ruling the Axis army, is peregrine, in the 8th house, and
combust!
Carter himself
acknowledged that he had not forecast this with his comments in the
following issue:
“On the 6th (a day later than originally planned,
because of the weather) the invasion of Normandy began. I can make no
claim to have foreseen this momentous event, though obviously a time
when there were two powerful and violent conjunctions in the heavens
[Mars-Pluto and Venus-Uranus] was appropriate enough for a hazardous
and audacious undertaking.”2
After D-Day, the war
proceeded apace, looking ever more grim for the Axis. And it is
indeed by this time of November 6, 1944, the revision date of his
article, that events seemed to be coming to a close. The Soviets were
progressing through Eastern Europe. The Allied armies had reached the
Western boundary of Germany, with the free French fighting their way
East to the Rhine. Athens was liberated; Rommel was dead. However,
Carter was now hedging his bets a bit. In referring to the Aries
Ingress 1945, he said:
“At Tokio Pluto is on the nadir, depicting defeat. But I look to
1946, so far as one can judge from the Mikado's geniture and epoch,
for the total Japanese collapse.
“Unhappily, this ingress is evil for the United States. Neptune is
just below the ascendant, in quadriture to Saturn just past the
midheaven. This formation seems to point to very difficult times
indeed. In a sense, this agrees with our belief that the European war
will end under or even before the time of, this ingress.”3
Carter was off by
quite a margin on Japan, and his V-E prediction was vague. This
ingress, or before? His negativity about the US suggests before, so
the “during” part (which turned out to be right) seemed more like
hedging. Actually, the negativity was a good call, because that
period represented the death of President Franklin Roosevelt. He
correctly noted that the lunation for April in Berlin looked bad for
the Germans, and commented about whether the capital would even stay
there, presumably because of the extent of Allied penetration into
Germany. He then noted that the April and May lunations did not look
good for London, and that May looked bad for Washington. Accordingly,
he missed entirely V-E (Victory in Europe) Day May 8th,
barely a week after Hitler had committed suicide.
Why did he miss it?
There's one chart he never referred to throughout his long years of
these prognostications: the Aries Ingress for 1939, the year it all
began. If we add that chart to the Aries Ingress charts for 1945 that
Carter discussed, we can see something about why this particular
ingress was so important.
For that fateful
Aries Ingress in Berlin in 1939, Saturn in Aries culminated. As I
mentioned, the malefics in the signs of their Detriments and Falls
are extremely strong when it comes to combat and destruction.
Saturn's Fall is Mars' ruling sign, just as Mars' Detriment in Libra
is Saturn's Exaltation. So this is an extremely belligerent Saturn in
Aries – poised to do damage. But it isn't quite time yet: Pluto is
at 29 Cancer, just on the brink of changing signs, and Mars is happy
in its Exaltation. However, the partile square of Mars and the Sun
really sets up the very dangerous pattern that is already ready to
leap out of this chart. This Aries Ingress is just a few hours after
a New Moon, with the Moon still combust. The focus of the 9th
house is on foreign affairs, and the tone is martial.
But there is a
warning in this chart. Saturn rules the enemy: the 7th
house. That Saturn ruling the enemy is stronger than the Sun: they
are matched by points (+4 for the Sun in Exaltation; -4 for the Sun
in Fall; the points represent the strength, and they are equally
strong, if in opposite directions). But Saturn is a superior,
and it is culminating, the angularity making it much stronger than
the Sun. Thus, the chart says that if Germany initiates a war during
this period, then they will lose. And Germany did, because the fixed
sign rising means that this Aries Ingress was the only one needed to
interpret the year.
Let's compare the
Aries Ingress for 1945 to 1939. First, when we compare the positions
for Berlin and for London in 1945, we see the focus of activity is
Berlin. London had Jupiter conjunct the MC: the Greater Benefic, but
in questionable condition, being in Detriment and retrograde. So it's
good, BUT... In Berlin, The Sun-Neptune opposition is very close to
the MC/IC axis, with Uranus at the Descendant. But it is when we
compare to 1939 that we really see how much more significant this
highly angular chart is. 1945 Saturn has come almost to the square of
1939 Moon. In 1945, Moon is in an approaching conjunction to Saturn.
This conjunction is occurring very close to the 8th house
cusp – death. Jupiter is almost exactly opposite its 1939 position;
and 1945 Mercury is within a degree of 1939 Mercury. These kind of
resonance patterns are very important in the study of returns – a
topic I discussed at length in Classical Solar Returns,
although Ramesey applied the same ideas with mundane returns.1
Resonances of same signs or opposite signs bring the relationships
together and emphasize the importance of the year.
In Carter's
retrospective analysis of VE Day, he mentioned that the chart he was
using for Germany had Saturn at 4 Capricorn. We see this degree
important in both the 1939 and 1945 charts, so it does seem odd that
his interpretation in advance was not a bit more firm. In his next
installment of predictions, he correctly spotted the danger to
Churchill's position as Prime Minister right after the conclusion of
the War because of the solar eclipse of July 9th, which he
also noted adversely affected the Japanese emperor. This was the
final installment of the “Month to Month” mundane predictions
that had evolved during the war.
It goes without
saying that it is much more difficult to work in real time as Carter
did, than to explain the outcome after the fact. But I have already
mentioned the 19th century astrologer Luke Broughton.
Broughton published a monthly magazine during the American Civil War
in which he made monthly wartime predictions using the cardinal
ingresses, eclipses, and lunations.
Given the
methodology, there is much in common between Broughton's and Carter's
methods. But there is also a considerable difference: Broughton used
classical methods fairly strictly, whereas Carter did not use them at
all.
When I discovered
Broughton's work on the Civil War some fifteen years ago, rather than
publishing a detailed discussion such as this, I saved the example to
be used by my mundane students. There is nothing like comparing
predictions to actual results to develop an appreciation for the
techniques that produce, and those that don't. Broughton did work
with the charts of the generals of both sides of the War, but
generally, he had only birth dates, not birth times. So mostly, he
stuck to the usual mundane charts. His accuracy seemed to be somewhat
better than Carter's, but we must admit that the complexity of
alliances and a much larger global theater had to make Carter's job
more difficult.
In an editorial in
1945, Carter said:
“Most astrologers probably possess Zadkiel's Grammar,
published in 1910 by G. Bell & Sons together with Lilly's
Introduction;...”2
This simple
statement reminds us of something amazingly important. While modern
students of Lilly reject that particular version as an unfortunate
abridgment, Carter's reference to its ubiquity reminds us that
through the 1940's, just about every serious student of astrology in
Britain if not other English-speaking countries had a decent, if not
wonderful, introduction to classical methods sitting right on their
bookshelves. The obvious question is, why didn't these people pay
more attention to what they had?
We have seen
repeatedly how adding back some classical method through house
rulerships and dignity added to the accuracy of the interpretation.
So why didn't they see it? Earlier, we saw that Carter
referred to Ramesey's rules of elections, which means that he had
access to Ramesey's work on mundane in the very same volume. Carter
showed evidence that he indeed knew this material: for example, his
reference to the cardinal sign rising for the Aries Ingress 1945 in
Washington DC denoting a duration for the effects of only one
quarter.3
Here was even more detail about mundane methods that Carter again
ignored. Why?
I can only conclude
that Carter and his contemporaries were so seduced by Sepharial's
re-packaging of mundane astrology that they didn't critically examine
which pieces of their system were working, and which weren't. Again,
thinking of the prospect of doing all these hand calculations, not to
mention attempting to follow so many charts manually itself provided
an almost insurmountable task.
However, if the
lesson that Carter Et Al “learned” from the war was that the old
method didn't work, then they learned the wrong lessons. In one
sense, we could almost say that the real “old methods” hadn't
been tried!
-------
2Vol
19(1):1.
3Vol.
19(1):6. The reference in Ramesey is: Ramesey,
William. Astrologia Restaurata, or,
Astrologie Restored Being an Introduction to the General and Chief
Part of the Language of the Stars : In 4 Books ... : With a Table of
the Most Material Things Therein Contained.
London: Printed for Robert, 1654, p.
215.
1See,
for example: Partridge,
John. Mikropanastron, or, an
Astrological Vade Mecum Briefly Teaching the Whole Art of Astrology,
Viz. Questions, Nativities, with All Its Parts, and the Whole
Doctrine of Elections, Never So Comprised, nor Compiled before, So
That the Young Student May Learn as Much Here as in the Great
Volumes of Guido, Haly or Origanus.
microform. Printed for William Bromwich ... London, 1679, p. 42.
2Vol.
18(3): 67.
3Vol.
18(4): 89.
1Gardner,
Estelle. National Astrology. Astrological Quarterly, Vol 13,
No 1, 1939, pp 3-8.
2Carter,
C.E.O. Editorial. Astrological Quarterly, Vol 13, No 2, pp
45-47.
3Carter,
C.E.O. Editorial. Astrological Quarterly, Vol 13, No 3, p 89.
4Vol.
18(1): 8.
5Vol
18(2): 37 (written May 14, 1944).
2Curry,
P. (1992). A confusion of prophets :
Victorian and Edwardian astrology.
London, Collins & Brown, Chapter 5.
5An
absolutely critical discussion of this is found in Mark Pottenger's
article, “Accuracy of Astrological Calculation,” pp. 159-176 in
Pottenger, Mark,
Editor. Astrological Research Methods
Volume I: An Isar Anthology (Vol. I). .
Los Angeles: International Society for Astrological Research, 1995.
6
Sepharial. Transits and Planetary Periods; a
Book of Practical Hints to Students of Astrology.
New York,: S. Weiser, 1970, pp 70-81.
7Astrological
Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp 4-11.
9
Baigent, Michael, Nicholas Campion, and Charles Harvey. Mundane
Astrology.
An Aquarian Astrology Handbook. Wellingborough, Northamptonshire:
Aquarian Press, 1984. The chapter referred to is pp 95-111.
10P
1.
