The problems of national charts have been discussed many times here on Skyscript. There are frequently numerous competing charts for the same nation. The classic example is probably, the USA but there are many others. Added to this the timing of key historical moments are often unclear so this often leads to interminable debates on timing charts and numerous rectified charts.

While I would not advocate abandoning national charts entirely their limitations seem undeniable at times.

Many traditional astrologers claim they have an answer to this problem. In particular they advocate using the Aries ingress chart prior to the date the government is complete and the king ascends the throne. In the modern world this would include a fundamental change in government such a change from a monarchy to a republic or adoption of a democratic constitution.

For example, the United States of America only came into legal existence on March 4th 1789. Before this time the Federal institutions of Presidency, Congress and Supreme Court did not exist. The first French Republic came into existence on 22nd of September 1792. Modern Brazil could be dated from November 15th 1889 when the country became a republic. However, rather than seeking a timed event chart the the traditional perspective would be to look at the Aries Ingress chart prior to the change of government.

I was planning to display these charts but before I do so I would like to check something with the more knowledgeable students of traditional astrology. In particular, would one always rely on an Aries ingress chart prior to a new dynasty or government? If the prior Aries ingress had a cardinal or mutable sign rising would the nearest ingress prior to the new government be used in preference the Aries ingress chart?

Once we have sorted out that point I would hope members could contribute ideas on what dates people perceive as inaugural dates for different nations. Clearly, its more difficult for some countries. For example when would one date modern Britain from? Equally what about Germany? Should one adopt 1918 when the country became a republic? Or 1949 when the Federal Republic was formed with its new constitution or 1990 with unification?

Mark

n particular, would one always rely on an Aries ingress chart prior to a new dynasty or government?

Sorry, Mark, there is no consensus between traditional astrologers. I use the Aries ingress always, because I believe that Abu Mashar used the minor ingresses only for different purposes. But of course many have different opinions (Estebon for instance). I remember that Steven discussed this, but at the time he was also looking at the two alternatives.

Once we have sorted out that point I would hope members could contribute ideas on what dates people perceive as inaugural dates for different nations.

The usual practice would be to base the ingress on the possession of the first ruler under the new law. Steven one time defended that a 1918 chart would be better for germany, and we shouldn?t consider the gaps inside the ruling as complete new rulings

Sorry, Mark, there is no consensus between traditional astrologers.

Hi Yuzuru,

At least traditional astrology has that in common with modern astrology.

Oh well its an interesting research topic. I suppose one can test it with with things like transits, profections, fidaria etc. I have looked at a few national charts where the subsequent ingresses closer to the political change seem more reflective. For example the Libra ingress for Brazil in 1889. The Aries ingress for Brazil in 1889 had a cardinal rising sign.

Regarding Germany it does seem a new foundation ingress chart is very appropriate with a change over from a monarchy to a democratic republic. On the eatablishment of the Weimar Republic in 1918 Germany changed from being an autocratic monarchy to a democratic republic.

However, the issue is whether any subsequent fundamental change of a nation's constitution requires a new ingress too. The Federal Republic of Germany adopted a new constitution in 1949. This was set up quite differently from the Weimar Republic. This was the template for the post unification with East Germany too. Equally, modern Brazil is now govered under the new constitution that came into effect in 1988. Is this a substantial enough change in government to dispense with an ingress chart from 1889? Equally, in the case of France we have the choice of the 5 different republics established on a different legal and constitutional basis.

With Britain its precisely the opposite problem as there seems no clear date we can refer to. As the original idea was about change of 'dynasty' and Britain is still a constitutional monarchy I thought of the Proclamation of the House of Windsor in 1917. Its true it simply represented a change of royal titles. However, it also represented a fundamental end to British monarchy's links to Germany and Hanovarian or Saxe-Coburg dynasty. The modern British monarchy dates from the proclamation of the House of Windsor. However, perhaps a pivotal date constitutionally was the 'Glorious revolution' of 1688 which could be seen as the basis of modern constitutional monarchy in Britain. The accession of William and Mary to the throne was on very restricted terms dictated by Parliament. The only minor problem is that Scotland wasn't united with England politically at this point. Alternatives are the Union with Scotland in 1707 or Ireland in 1801.

Did somebody say ingress charts were more straightforward than national charts?

Mark

For example, the United States of America only came into legal existence on March 4th 1789.

The United states as currently constituted came into existence with the ratification of the US Constitution on Sept 17 1787 in Philadelphia or if we prefer on June 1788 when the states ratified it. George Washington was inaugurated on April 30, 1789, in New York City.. That would be the actual beginning of the current US Government.

Prior to that the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation and that Document refers to the nation as the United States.

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union

This document was ratified on March 1 1781 and remained in force until the current Constitution was adopted or Washington was inaugurated.

I point this out not to be nit picky but rather to second Mark's point that national charts bring their own sets of problems to the table. The Articles of Confederation were a failure pure and simple. The current Constitution is a success. Which one do we use if any? Did the US begin on July 4 1776, or later after ratification? Why not use a chart for the Battle of Bunker Hill? Taking up arms against the mother country is surely an act of independence?

John Frawley once demonstrated a chart for the US using the Jupiter Saturn conjunction prior to US Independence. Ironically or perhaps not, for those who see the USA as a "Cancer nation" because the Sun was in Cancer on July 4, Frawley's chart has Cancer rising. We know the medieval astrologers didn't really use that sort of chart because of the difficulties in determining the moment of exact conjunction. They used the following or previous Aries Ingress, I forget which. I get confused with all the techniques. I think the following Ingress makes more sense. We do have the wherewithal to accurately calculate a Jupiter Saturn Conjunction so why not use that chart cast for a particular location and use the Ingress charts that follow the way we would use solar returns and a nativity? Clearly there is a lot of research to be done.

In particular, would one always rely on an Aries ingress chart prior to a new dynasty or government? If the prior Aries ingress had a cardinal or mutable sign rising would the nearest ingress prior to the new government be used in preference the Aries ingress chart?

While it might be tempting to use another chart with cardinal angles, I'd prefer we stay with what the cosmos give us rather than doing chart shopping for something that appears more appropriate.

Tom

The previous one.

The 1789 chart has scorpio rising

Markc wrote:
For example, the United States of America only came into legal existence on March 4th 1789.

Tom wrote:
The United states as currently constituted came into existence with the ratification of the US Constitution on Sept 17 1787 in Philadelphia or if we prefer on June 1788 when the states ratified it.

There seems to be some ambiguity on when it actually came into effect. Hence there are three variations of a federal USA chart one could use. In particular: signing, required ratification or de facto date it began. The new constitution was signed by representatives of the states on September 17th 1787. Campion states the constitution was 'placed in operation' after the first 9 of the 13 states ratified. This occured when New Hampshire became the 9th state to ratify on 21st June 1787. However, Nicholas Campion continues:

On 2nd July 1788 the Congress of Confederation arranged for the new federal government to begin on March 4th 1788. ...According to Grant and Kraum, the constitution came into effect at 00.00 hours. on 4 March 1789, Philadelphia the capital. The Book of World Horoscopes, p371

George Washington was inaugurated on April 30, 1789, in New York City.. That would be the actual beginning of the current US Government.

An important point. Otherwise Ben Dykes and Steven Birchfield's suggestion of using the ingress chart for 1789 makes no sense as the new constitution was already in place by March 4th 1789. However, as you state the first President only took up office after this on April 30th. He was inaugurated in New York as the later Federal capital in Washington was still being built.

Tom wrote:

Prior to that the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation and that Document refers to the nation as the United States.

Quote:
To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union

Actually the Declaration of Independence in 1776 is the first document to use the term 'United States of America' in its last paragraph. There is certainly a case that the USA could be dated from the Articles of Confederation. However, as a political entity it was a drastically different from the modern American political system. The states retained significant powers and sovereignty which could often neutralize the weak Confederal government.

Using Abu Mashar's idea of one dynasty replacing another the birth of the modern USA seems to really occur in 1789. The institutions that make the USA what it is today: constitution, President, House of Representatives, Senate, and Supreme Court all took effect in that year.

I point this out not to be nit picky but rather to second Mark's point that national charts bring their own sets of problems to the table. The Articles of Confederation were a failure pure and simple. The current Constitution is a success. Which one do we use if any? Did the US begin on July 4 1776, or later after ratification? Why not use a chart for the Battle of Bunker Hill? Taking up arms against the mother country is surely an act of independence?

As you know we had an extremely long thread slugging that one out some years back! So many possible charts for various dates. I dont fancy getting into that one again in a hurry. Its a complex miasma.

Still for those that want to look at some of the arguments here is the link to that mega thread:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3151

I highly recommend Nicholas Campion's discussion of the competing USA horoscopes in his excellent book 'The Book of World Horoscopes'.

John Frawley once demonstrated a chart for the US using the Jupiter Saturn conjunction prior to US Independence. Ironically or perhaps not, for those who see the USA as a "Cancer nation" because the Sun was in Cancer on July 4, Frawley's chart has Cancer rising.

Yes I know this is a chart you have worked with a fair bit over the last few years. Its a bit beyond an Aries ingress chart but it would be useful to display here. It does seem that Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions were part of the meta picture within which ingress charts, and eclipse charts fitted.

The whole issue of expecting charts to match national characteristics is something we tend to assume today. I remain unclear whether this was ever an expectation of medieval ingress charts for dynasties. However, I dont have Abu Mashar's book on this so I am happy to be proved wrong. Its interesting Lilly described the fledgling colonies of North America as under the influence of Gemini. However, rather than following an ingress chart I suspect he was applying Ptolemy's ideas in the Tetrabiblos where nations association with signs was determined by their direction. Thus air signs indicate the west while Gemini in particular indicates a west by south direction. The continuing popularity of the July 4th 1776 Gemini Rising chart for the USA is interesting. Despite having little chance of being historically accurate the idea of a Gemini factor in American national character is something many people would accept. Equally, whatever chart you pick for the early USA the qualities of the sign of Cancer do seem quite descriptive of American character too.

Do ingress charts have a totally different function? As Yuzuru mentioned the Aries Ingress for 1789 has Scorpio rising. That may not seem highly descriptive of American character but it does seem to represent American government quite well. There are actually numerous political charts tied to the USA government that have Scorpio rising too. For example the chart for the first continental congress. the articles of confederation and the chart for the Federal USA assuming de facto powers on 04 March 1789. In recent, years there has also been an argument made for a Scorpio rising chart fot July 4th 1776.

We know the medieval astrologers didn't really use that sort of chart because of the difficulties in determining the moment of exact conjunction. They used the following or previous Aries Ingress, I forget which. I get confused with all the techniques. I think the following Ingress makes more sense. We do have the wherewithal to accurately calculate a Jupiter Saturn Conjunction so why not use that chart cast for a particular location and use the Ingress charts that follow the way we would use solar returns and a nativity? Clearly there is a lot of research to be done

.

Certainly Abu Ma'shar did not use the exact astronomical conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn. However, not all medieval astrologers concurred. For example Ibn Ezra strongly advocated using the actual motions of Jupiter and Saturn.

Markc wrote:
In particular, would one always rely on an Aries ingress chart prior to a new dynasty or government? If the prior Aries ingress had a cardinal or mutable sign rising would the nearest ingress prior to the new government be used in preference the Aries ingress chart?

Tom wrote:
While it might be tempting to use another chart with cardinal angles, I'd prefer we stay with what the cosmos give us rather than doing chart shopping for something that appears more appropriate.

I dont really think that is what is being suggested. Noone is suggesting an astrological shopping exercise where you simply pick the ingress you like the look of best. As you are aware when we do an annual Aries ingress we only use one chart for the year if a fixed sign is rising. However, if a mutable sign is rising at the Aries ingress we look at the Libra ingress too. If the sign rising on the Aries ingress is cardinal we look at all four ingress charts for the year. I am simply suggesting we consider a similar approach to inaugural charts for nations. Thus if a mutable sign was rising at the Aries Ingress and if a new regime occured after the Libra ingress we could look at that chart as the closest operative ingress. Its just something I am exploring just now.

Anyway, here is the inaugural Aries ingress chart prior to the beginning of the Federal USA.

Hi Tom,

Regarding your discussion of the use of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle and Aries ingress charts I found this extremely useful post in an old thread by Steven Birchfield. Its very clear and I think well worth quoting in full as this information isn't easy to find elsewhere. Here is Steven's very helpful summary of Abu Ma'shar's use of Jupiter-Saturn conjuctions (and other conjunctions) and Aries ingress charts.

Mark
_____________________________________________________________
Posted by Steven Birchfield

First, the ancients did advocate using a conjunction chart to see the rise of new dynasties and religions. It was not just any conjunction chart though. The conjunctions were divided into 3 kinds and each kind was particular to itself but a also part of the conjunction preceding it in these divisions.

I'm going to quote Abu Ma'shar here because he lays out in a very exposition which conjunctions were looked to for what.

[12] Since the things from which to deduce advanced knowledge of the occurrences of general <types> and their particular instances in future times are gained from six elements,

So he is going to divide conjunctions (not just those of Jupiter and Saturn) as to what information is gained from what chart. Without going into a lot of quoting here these six types of conjunctions are:

1st element: Jupiter and Saturns conjunctions occuring in the sign of Aries. In their mean motion this would be every 960 years.

2nd element: Jupiter and Saturn's conjunctions occuring each shift of Triplicity. In their mean motion this occurs every 240 years.

3rd element: Mars and Saturn's conjunctions occuring in the sign of Cancer. Again their mean motion would have this occur every 30 years.

4th element: Jupiter and Saturn's conjunctions in every sign which occurs every 20 years.

5th element: The chart of the lunation, either conjunctional (new moon) or preventional (full moon) just preceding the Sun's ingress into Aries.

6th element: The chart of the lunation just preceding the Sun's entrance into each sign.

Now a just a word about these charts. They were not the chart cast at the moment of the conjunction itself but they were,

Quote:
the celestial bodies? positions in the horoscopes of the revolution of the years in which the conjunction of the two superior planets occurs...

The "horoscope of the revolution of the year" is the ingress of the Sun into Aries. You will not find a single chart from these ancients cast at the moment of the conjunction. They are all cast at the ingress of the Sun into Aries for the year they occur. There are 17 charts of conjunctions in Masha'allah's work and all of them are cast at the ingress of the Sun into Aries for the year of the conjunction. This is true also of Abu Ma'shar's charts.

The other thing we need to be aware of is that these conjunctions of the superiors was based on their mean motions. I struggled for a long time with this conception because 1) all of these astrologers used a theoretical conjunction based on the mean motions of these two planets and 2) these ?mean? conjunctions do not occur in reality! The whole of these considerations is based entirely on a ?theoretical? conjunction!

As I said I had a very hard time coming to terms with this thought. By profession I am a civil and structural Engineer. I deal with physical laws and mathematics on a daily basis. For me to accept this conception was certainly a trial for my ?scientific? sensitivities.

In the end I have come to terms with it. The main reason in coming to terms with it was the fact that this is not the only place in astrology where an ?ideal? conception lies at the roots of delineation! The zodiac in its beginning and end is an ?idealised? conception! The signs are not so nicely distributed in handy 30? increments! The dwads or dodecatemoria are 2?? conceptions that idealise the physical relationship of the Suns ?mean? motion and the moon?s ?mean? motion! So there are many such ?ideal? conceptions. All of these things made me realise that perhaps there was a lot more to astrologers like Abu Ma?shar; especially with regards to ?influence? and significations of the astrologicals.

But back to the topic. After defining these 6 elements Abu Ma'shar tells us;

Quote:
In the presence of one of these times that we have defined, one looks at the horoscopes of those times, and the location of the celestial bodies? in them, and all their natural and accidental conditions <which> from their essence and from <their> the Sun and the sphere, and one discovers (1) the nature of their indication from the planets which have predominance over the principal positions, and (2) the time of it according to what the indicators point out. Then one looks at the indications of these six principles. This is divided into three divisions.

These six principle charts or 'elements' have specific indications of which there are 3 divisions:

The first division is concerning 'universal states' in the largest sense of proportion. These things affect "the world" so to speak. They indicated general and universal matters i.e. floods, earthquakes, epidemics, and the like and what happens in dynasties in those times and in the amount of the length of the lives (respect) of their people and in what strongly tends towards universal matters. (1) If the shift indicates a religion then it gives indications for what happens to religions. (2) If the shift indicates a dynasty then it gives indications for what happens to dynasties. (3) Otherwise, the shift gives indications for what happens in the dynasties of kings of the current religion or dynasty.

There were specific things from these charts that indicate these matters

Quote:
The second is proper to the sum of the parts of those universal <states>, like the property of the indicators of the conjunction of the two malefics in Cancer, and the conjunction of the two superior <planets> in each of the signs, for the condition of chiefs among leaders and nobles in that transit.

These were what the conjunctions of the two malefics in Cancer and the conjunctions of Saturn and Jupiter every 20 years indicated. They indicated what happens to high, respectable families (people in positions of power and authority and wealth etc) in that conjunction.

Quote:
The third is divided into many divisions in which all the indicators share in the parts of the universal <states> taken individually, like the sharing of the indicators of years and quarters and months in the conditions of the people, the air and all meteorological phenomena, fertility, barrenness, and the like.

These indications were found in the charts of the pre-ingress lunations.

I can't go into all the details of the indicators and how they were used here in this post. Abu Ma'shar uses a book of over 500 pages to do just that <g>!

But, they also used within this scheme, beginning charts of kingdoms and dynasties and their purposes and indications were also pretty specific within the outline of their method. To determine what happens to the people of that that specific dynasty and their rulers etc. These charts were based on when the ruler of that kingdom or dynasty acceded the throne. And they cast both a chart of the revolution of the year of the acceding to power and ot the time if it was Known (in which case the chart was articularly concerning that ruler and his rule). Kusyar Ibn Laban (an astrologer soon after Abu Ma'shar) writes of their practice;

Quote:
One may judge the religions and the dynasties whose beginning is not known. Then the ascendant of the year when this religion and dynasty became manifest is their ascendant. The planets of it (i.e., the ascendant) are the planets of them (i.e., the religion and dynasty). One may judge the conditions of Caliphs and authorities in them (i.e., the religion and dynasty) from the ascendants of their nativities, or from the ascendants of their sitting on the throne of the kingdom, or from the ascendants of their entering into the city and rulership; provided that nothing is known of what preceded ?it?.

....Both charts though had a different role in the scheme of delineation and predicition. It was not a 'one chart tells all'! They used several charts and as the charts became more specific, the universals significations were seen in them and there was always a reference point upward in the heirarchy of these charts so that the greater universal charts were 'illuminated' by revelations in these lesser and more specific charts. The old adage of not being able to see the forest because of the trees.

Steven

As you know we had an extremely long thread slugging that one out some years back! So many possible charts for various dates. I dont fancy getting into that one again in a hurry. Its a complex miasma.

This and all the previous counterpoints just solidify, for me anyway, the extreme weakness of national charts. Look at all that you wrote and yet there is no conclusion, only more possibilities, more argument, more disagreement. A skeptic could have a field day with all this. I think CEO Carter unleashed a Frankenstein, and long ago we lost control of the monster.

Then:

Certainly Abu Ma'shar did not use the exact astronomical conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn. However, not all medieval astrologers concurred. For example Ibn Ezra strongly advocated using the actual motions of Jupiter and Saturn.

Nice, but if that moment could not be calculated within hours what good was it? This point was made by Morin. It doesn?t matter if it is the finest method ever, or who endorses, if it cannot be accurately calculated. That this is no longer the case, only means we are looking at the Value of the method for the first time.

As you are aware when we do an annual Aries ingress we only use one chart for the year if a fixed sign is rising. However, if a mutable sign is rising at the Aries ingress we look at the Libra ingress too.

This is not a universally accepted method. The one you cite was used, but not everyone did it that way.

Tom