Lee Lehman has just posted a blog in which she explores the changes that took place in astrology during the 19th and early 20th century, and how this impacted on the failure of British astrologers to predict WWII

See http://leephd.blogspot.co.uk/

Thank You Geoffrey

Very interesting research. I will look forward to studying this in more depth at the weekend. Thank you for sharing this link with us.

Mark

thanks geoffrey.. i enjoyed reading the article.

it makes one wonder about any predictions off a jupiter/saturn conjunction chart from the deeper past considering how it was next to impossible to time the jupiter/saturn conjunction.. relying on a spring ingress chart makes sense in that regard..

there are a few things i would like to comment/question in her article.. feel free to comment or respond if inclined..

"Either way you cut it, an Aries Ingress with Mars exalted in a partile square to the Sun looks like a war."

i don't know that i agree with lehman in this quote above. while the sun and mars rule the ascendant and midheaven in both ingress charts to berlin and london, i don't know if i would make that type of prediction just off that square.. if either planet ruled over the 7th maybe i would understand this a little bit more. saturn in aries on the midheaven and ruling the 7th in the berlin chart makes more sense..

"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."

i am glad she said that!

"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."

this is a good observation that doesn't get discussed much. i appreciate her saying that as well..

thanks for sharing the article geoffrey. i like the historical overview which she spent the time to understand better and then proceeded to share. it was really interesting.

Lee Lehman wrote:
"Either way you cut it, an Aries Ingress with Mars exalted in a partile square to the Sun looks like a war."

I think this it a pivotal observation in Lee's piece. Would a classically trained astrologer look at those charts and say, "War is coming!" right off the bat? If so, then the rest of Lee's observations follow on. If Lee is putting too much weight on that square - even though it is partile - perhaps we should hold a little more sympathy for Carter.

I would be interested in what others think of that square.

Lee's general thesis is that if English (British) astrologers had stuck to the rules and methods of traditional/classical astrology, they would have seen war coming. I would be interested in the opinion of others on that.

geoffrey,

the more i think of the article i read from yesterday the more i think there are some obvious inconsistencies in her overview on carters work. on the one hand she makes a passing comment on the over emphasis of modern astrologers on aspects, while at the same time resting her case for war on an exact aspect ( trad folks replace exact with partile ) of mars and sun.

i quote from her article here "...with its simplification of the ancient systems, along with a much heightened dependence upon the aspect patterns as the primary method of delineation.


she mentions how planets in detriment act much worse but ignores, or makes no mention of the sign position of this same mars/square square in her analysis. to quote from her article "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."

i find all that inconsistent, but she isn't here to defend herself.. i would be curious to know how she explains all this.

war happens a lot of the time on the planet.. using an aries ingress chart to predict war seems like a tricky undertaking. if one is going to throw out the older system of giving signs to countries - ptolemys idea, (or one i believe he suggested some time ago) and replace it with national horoscopes that are often a big problem as well... falling back on only aries ingress charts appears difficult at best.

i enjoyed reading sahl ibn bishr's book 'the introduction to the science of the judgments of the stars".. in this book there is a few sections that pertain to war. one of them page 171 in james holdens book is titled "An Election for Going to War" which runs 3 pages.. if you don't have the book, i think you'd enjoy reading what he says. i don't know if anyone follows these guidelines anymore!

a few aries ingress charts you might enjoy looking more closely to make a comparision with the 1939 charts that lehman focused on for war might nclude 1950 - south or north korea location, 1967 - israel or arab locations, and 2013 - korea as location. the fact is war takes place in different parts of the world on a fairly regular basis.. how does one tie it to a particular location other then a localized aries ingress chart?
here is a link with a list of wars from 1945 to 1989
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... E2%80%9389

Geoffrey wrote:

Lee Lehman wrote:
"Either way you cut it, an Aries Ingress with Mars exalted in a partile square to the Sun looks like a war."

Lee's general thesis is that if English (British) astrologers had stuck to the rules and methods of traditional/classical astrology, they would have seen war coming. I would be interested in the opinion of others on that.