©2013
J. Lee Lehman, PhD
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).
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
The award ‘Towards a high definition view of cytoskeleton remodelling by the bacterial pathogen Salmonella’
supports work in a relatively new area for Vassilis, building on his
introduction of an innovative experimental approach to study mammalian
membrane signalling platforms outside the cell, and his biochemical
characterisation of pathogen effectors that subvert the host cell
biology. It follows his similarly membrane-focussed work on bacterial
toxin biogenesis, the TolC cell exit duct structure and the detailed
structure and operation of cell membrane machines for protein export and
multidrug efflux.
