thanks tom!

any thoughts on the primary directions hieroz was using to help with his prediction? what chart would he have made the pds off of?

making them off the 1939 ingress chart doesn't make sense to me. using the 45 degree aspect sun and uranus would connect in the zodiac pds in june. converse sun 120 ascendant aug 19th. converse venus forms a sextile to mars in the mundane pds using naibod key on aug 31st.

Not bad in my opinion. Not bad at all.

What I'd call 'proper prediction'!

This has been really great Tom. As the person who asked you to give a bit more detail about this, I can't thank you enough.

You're most welcome Deb and it was fun. I have to confess, I worked with this on and off over a period of years. I could never seem to find the way to explain it briefly enough for a Forum post. All my efforts were just too long to post. This time, without reference to previous attempts (which I may no longer have) I managed to do it without much difficulty. I suppose ultimately we're right. There is a time for everything.

James, I seemed to have erred and I apologize for that. I took a quick look at page 224 and saw this quote:

Aphorism 3 of Chapter 12 of the first section indicates to us how to determine more precisely the date of the event by means of directions.

I took that to mean primary directions but that is not what was meant. He meant directing The lunation of Aug 15. I have not worked this out and the quote is a bit vague, so here goes.

1. By directions. We read there in effect: "They (the effects) are produced by the fact of the directions of the luminaries or of the angles, especially the ASC, towards some congruent promittors as well as towards some of the rulers of the universal chart. In the course of the lunation the 15th of August to the 13th of September we were able to calculate three directions of this kind:

Let's stop here a second and figure this out. He is directing a chart artificially I think. Morin advocated for example directing the solar return so that all the planets made a complete revolution in one year. We can eyeball this by figuring that each planet would make a complete revolution by moving one degree plus a little bit each day. There are various ways to do this, and Morin published a table in Volume 23, but he said it was Cardan's and it wasn't as good as his. But I can't find his and how much difference could there be anyway?

Notice here he is overcoming my earlier objection and claiming the new Moon of Aug 15 is in effect until the next new Moon not the next lunation as I stated. I don't know if Hieroz is taking a liberty or I didn't understand it. I'll have to check on that. I'm not sure how he did the directing, i.e. if he directed the chart 360 degrees in two weeks or did something else. This comes as something of a surprise to me as Morin was big on his natural philosophy, meaning he didn't like artificial movements and concepts, e.g. the terms and faces, not to mention profections, and woe be onto the astrologer who tried to persuade him of the value of horary. But here he is doing primitive solar arc directions.

Anyway I have to run off for a bit. I'll leave you with the rest of the quote and anyone is free to try to figure this out before I'm able to return to it.

MC Square Mars on 11 September
Sun opposite Saturn, about the 3rd of September.
Moon opposite Saturn around the 8th of September

Note he uses the MC (Aries in these charts), and the rulers of the year. This looks worth investigating and I'll do that later and add how transits were used.

okay, thanks for that tom.

i have tried messing around a few different ways, but i don't see how hieroz came those directions off either chart. i will come back to later or perhaps someone more knowledgeable will chime in. meanwhile here is a chart for the aug 15 1939 lunation set to paris france. in this chart we see mars square the midheaven while saturn is in a conjunction with it. meanwhile the new moon conjunction is being squared directly by uranus.


screen shot windows 7

Just catching up with this highly informative thread. Thanks Tom

For general information this topic first came up in this old thread which focused more on the failure of British astrologers such as Charles Carter to predict WWII. Hieroz and Morin are discussed in that old thread too.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... sc&start=0

Carter concluded the traditional ingress charts were to blame rather than his poor delineation of the charts. He therefore went on to propose the idea of the national chart in his 1951 book 'Introduction To Political Astrology'. As we all know for good or ill the national chart caught on astrologically like a house on fire following Carter's promotion of the idea.

The idea that traditional Ingress charts ( rather than Carter) had totally failed is quite pervasive amongst modern astrologers today. Nicholas Campion actually reinforces Carter's argument in his well respected Book of World Horoscopes.

See this typical selection from a web piece by the American political astrologer Michael O'Reilly:

In 1951 renowned British astrologer Charles Carter wrote the groundbreaking book Introduction to Political Astrology. Carter used the term "political astrology" to differentiate it from the traditional practice of mundane astrology which had failed miserably to predict the rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany. Carter's insights inspired astrologers to begin monitoring national events by examining national horoscopes.

Today, political astrology is an exciting branch of astrology filled with great potential for practical application in the real world. By using an accurate national horoscope, the astrologer can make meaningful forecasts, much like a meteorologist makes weather forecasts. The challenge for those interested in political astrology is finding and working with an accurate national horoscope.Political Astrology.

The 'challenge' O'Reilly alludes to can sometimes seems more like an elusive end of the rainbow quest with a variety of national charts for one country being passionately advocated their supporters. The numerous charts proposed for the USA is an extreme example of this phenomena. Nevertheless, I still think national charts have usefulness but I think we need to get away from the tendency to view them like natal charts.

Moreover, if you dig a little deeper you see that the origin of national charts doesn't actually begin start with Carter. Some 19th century American astrologers were using the July 4th chart as a national chart. More often with a Libra rising chart.

Anyway, sorry to digress somewhat from Tom's fascinating thread.

Mark

Interesting ... but I am so not with Carter on this. The worst thing is when someone makes an important mundane prediction based on little more than a transit in a national chart. The kind of approach demonstrated here is much more persuasive. Charts have to connect within a scheme, with cycles following through from one event to another.
I hope we can get to the bottom of the direction system Hierzog used - I had a quick look but I'm puzzled too.

Deb wrote:

Interesting ... but I am so not with Carter on this.

As this is Skyscript I would hardly expected any other response. I agree if you actually study the Aries and Cancer ingress charts for 1939 (located for London, Paris and Berlin) its hard to see how Carter reached the conclusion he did. Anyway, as I stated in my updated comment above if we dont like national charts we need to blame the Americans for starting it!

I am writing an article just now incorporating a proposed national chart for Scotland so I guess I have a vested interest in disagreeing. That is not to say I am unaware of the inherent problems with national charts. I am also very interested in learning more about this traditional approach Tom is setting out here.

Deb wrote:

The worst thing is when someone makes an important mundane prediction based on little more than a transit in a national chart. The kind of approach demonstrated here is much more persuasive.

Very true but you are comparing absolute worst modern practice with absolute best traditional. Hardly a fair comparison. A better comparison would be the work of someone like Regulus Astrology on the US chart who looks at all kind of traditional factors in a national chart.

Deb wrote:

Charts have to connect within a scheme, with cycles following through from one event to another.

Agreed.

Mark

if we don't like national charts we need to blame the Americans for starting it!

Waaaaaaait a minute. Hold everything. Sibly was English and Al Biruni was not an American or I don't think he was. They predated any American Astrology.

My own gut feeling re: WWII, was that no astrologer or anyone else for that matter, wanted to see war anywhere. World War I ended in 1918 making it a mere 21 years before 1939. Imagine, if you will, having lived through the trauma of a major conflict with all its destruction in 1993 and people were asking if there was going to be another one. No sane person would want any part of it. It's hard for us to imagine the devastation particularly in France. Fascism was considered "progressive" and the wave of the future, who needed war? After all WWI was the War to End All Wars. I don't imagine too many people wanted to burst that bubble.

This is the biggest problem facing mundane astrology or political astrology, getting our biases out of it. But we all come to the chart with a worldview and it isn't easy to turn it off.

What I like about these charts is that it is tougher to maintain optimism if we accept the idea that Saturn and Mars are malefic. If the bad actors keep popping up, it's only logical that bad things will happen. If we take the cotton candy approach that there is no such thing as a malefic, and everything is beautiful in its own way, then we will never predict war. That would be OK if war were eliminated, but the world is a long way from that.

Morin's approach as demonstrated by Hieroz makes it really difficult to be optimistic with these charts, and as we now know, optimism was not called for. But the key to these charts and predicting what are now subsequent events, is the selection of the lord or lords of the year. If any other planet or planets were selected, the prediction would have been way off.

I'm going to try to figure out how Hieroz directed the lunation chart and then, maybe after Christmas, post something on picking the lords of the year. Let's try to figure this out.

Tom wrote:

Waaaaaaait a minute. Hold everything. Sibly was English and Al Biruni was not an American or I don't think he was. They predated any American Astrology.

I should clarify. I was discussing the modern phenomena of national charts so we can let Al Biruni quietly rest in peace. Exactly, what Sibly was up to is a subject of considerable debate and controversy. At the risk of serious oversimplification of his position Campion concludes Sibly wasn't proposing putting together the data for a national chart based on an assumed timed inception in the way modern national charts are conceived.

Whether that is the case or not the reality is that practical astrological attention on what Sibly proposed seems to have been quite late. Nevertheless, we have the idea of the national chart evolving from 19th century/early twentieth century amongst American astrologers who all focused on July 4th 1776 chart.

In a strict sense then Nicholas Campion was incorrect in suggesting the genesis of the modern 'national chart' begins with Charles Carter.

Decades before Evangeline Adams came along turn of the century US astrologers like John Hazelrigg and Ernest Green were using a Libra rising chart timed for July 4th for the USA. Earlier in the 19th century Luke Broughton made his famous prediction of war in 1861 based ( I think?) on an assumed US chart dating back to July 4th 1776.

We also know Alan and Bessie Leo visited the USA and met these astrologers. Carter very probably picked up these ideas via Alan Leo.

So Charles Carter's innovation was not to develop the notion of a national chart but rather apply this common American practice to other countries.

I should probably give the link to an old but highly informative thread opened by Philip Graves that gave information on these figures. Nearly, everything I have gleamed on this subject is due to Philip's pioneering research:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewt ... de58a2099d

Mark

I should probably give the link to an old but highly informative thread opened by Philip Graves that gave information on these figures. Nearly, everything I have gleamed on this subject is due to Philip's pioneering research:

Ironically, as I was reading this and you mentioned Luke Broughton, I as going to suggest we contact Phillip Graves as he has copies of many issues of Broughton's Planetary Reader where his use of a national chart could be verified. I will also check Broughton's "The Elements of Astrology" for similar verification.

However you don't get off the hook so easily. You cite Hazelrigg. He was one of Broughton's students and Broughton, although living in Philadelphia and New York, was born in England.