The astronomy of the Moon need not delay us long. We are all familiar with its appearance. We are told that flights to the Moon may soon be possible and gifted authors have already described what such experiences would be like and what would probably be found on the Moon. But with a good pair of binoculars one can get a good notion of the lunar landscape, and I believe that with a big telescope even an object of the size of an average suburban villa would be plainly visible.

The mythology of the Moon: well, there is naturally any amount of this and those who wish to pursue this path cannot do better than read H. S. Bellamy's books, some of which are in the library. You can then form your own opinions as to the theory he expounds, that there have been two previous terrestrial satellites which broke up under gravitational stress and caused the floods and other calamities of which accounts survive in so many countries. These accounts are indeed often strikingly alike, and, according to Bellamy, are true to what would have happened if a satellite had disintegrated and showered down upon the earth in molten fragments.

In the Arcane Tradition of the Chaldeans, our spiritual ancestors, we are told that "the One spake, and immediately the Three came forth: and these three are the Logoi which are the primary expression of Deity. There is a close analogy here with our three Quadruplicities, which show the principles of movement, station and oscillation, or the positive, the negative and the plusminus principle that links these two. Of these the three first Signs are the primary zodiacal representatives: AriesSun, the positive, Taurus-Moon the negative, and Gemini-Mercury the link of intercommunication without which the other two would stand apart in eternal separation.

This primal Triad is reflected throughout the Cosmos. Aristotle wrote "all things are three, and three is everywhere." Iamblichus and Proclus said the one is the number of identity, two of procession and differentiation, and three of the return of all things to their first principles. This preoccupation with threefoldness has persisted up to our own times, for, through Hegel, it descended to Marx and his famous dialectic.

In the Family, we see the three as Father-Mother-Child, Osiris-Isis-Horus.

In the beginning the Second Logos is Demeter, the Great EarthMother, and this Principle is expressed through all the Cosmic Worlds. As we descend through these intellectually, we find it differentiated under the names of many goddesses, representing particular aspects of the same Root-Idea.

In exoteric Astrology we find only two definitely female bodies -- the Moon, the Mother, and Venus, the Bride. Mercury is traditionally regarded as hermaphroditic and many think that this is also true of Neptune.

Other female deities occur among the Asteroids, e.g. Ceres, Pallas, Juno and Vesta. But one finds all sorts of names in that field, even Carnegia and Rockefelleria, as well as Marlenia! These also have numbers and one wonders why it was necessary that they should have anything else!

However we are not now discussing Venus or the Asteroids, but the Moon, Luna, Selene, lady of Cancer and exaltationruler of Taurus.

She is very important -- you all know that.

As significatrix of the family, she rules all that we inherit; and that is much. Family prejudices, habits of life and feeling and thought, and, outside these, the various biases we inherit from the big family, the nation and race to which we individually belong. These are like a cocoon round a pupa; they protect it until the insect is ready to be born, the individualised self is ready to emerge. Then we ought to detach ourselves from them, and unfold our own wings for our own flight. When a butterfly fails to free itself altogether from the chrysalis, it is born with its wings deformed, and that is what often happens to us. The man who harks back too much to his lunar self, his family and birthplace, and so on, is to some extent undeveloped. It reaches an extreme expression in the phrase, "What was good enough for granddad is good enough for me," or, "Well, that's how we always did it,: as if that were a conclusive argument. Old people who are reverting to a replica of infantile helplessness often use that sort of language, and even seek to return to their native soil to end their days, as the Chinese, a very lunar nation, do, or did. "Old ways are best" runs a Chinese proverb; how very Cancerian!

But here we get a paradox, for the Cancerian is far from being a stayathome; in fact, he is a great one to roam over land and sea. It is a restless sign, and the Moon is a restless body. It has, in its own way, plenty of enterprise. Except for immigration laws, the Chinese would be everywhere, and the Scotch are much the same. Always true to type: shrewd, hardworking Cancer.

Admittedly, the Negroes are also said to be under Cancer, and they have an admirable dislike of hard work, and, so far as I know, have no desire to travel for travelling's sake. Their racial horoscope no doubt has other features. The Americans, with a powerful Cancer satellitium in the national horoscope, love travelling but sentimentalise freely about mother and home.

Cancer and the Moon have persistence and grit, of a quiet kind. Their strength of will, general capability, and backbone are by no means as obvious as they are with many Leos, but they have a fineness of feeling that your average Leo lacks. They have a quiet Scotch sort of humour, whereas Leo has a sense of fun and the comic but usually little or no humor. (Of course they all deny this).

Cancer often has a fine sense of language and is musical. Its active imagination frequently makes it eminent in creative work, and the GeminiCancer combination often occurs in imaginative writers.

Do we like our Cancers?

Much depends upon our own horoscopes, what planets we have in Cancer, if any, and now our Moon is configured. I think rough -and-ready people find them trying. They are sensitive and often appear to take offense unnecessarily. The crab, admittedly, is not an attractive animal. As children our seaside pleasures are diminished by fear of its onsets on out toes, and mother, however find we may be of her, has the unpopular duty of constantly interfering with what seem to us our legitimate childish pleasures.

Mrs. Home tells us, in the Modern Text Book, that Cancer may be snappish. I regret to say that I have often experiences this propensity and I do not like. There is also the crabbed kind of Cancer which, without being actually snappy, seems to grizzle and faultfindthe Thomas Carlyle type.

But there is a good deal more in Cancer that all this.

When you come in the guise of one in trouble, they are kind and helpful. Just as Leo will play the part of the affectionate but authoritative father, so Cancer will perform that of the protective mother: thus both signs are well fitted to help others as professional astrologers. Sun will encourage and cheer on e on; Moon will console and comfort. But we do not always want that sort of thing: we want, sometimes, to meet people on equal terms and not as suppliants, or as adoptive fathers and mothers. In that case Aquarius is better; it is interested in people as persons, and not as bundles of trouble.

The Moon not only gives sympathy but seems often to need it. According to my observation it is extremely prone to be, or to believe itself to be, overworked. Probably this is often true, for after all it is an active cardinal sign, but is not overstrong physically, and easily worries.

Thus Cancerians have a grievance in that they were not born a little later under the robust Leo, with its come-what-may attitude.

I fancy that Moon rising, in particular, is rarely hale and hearty and its imagination is apt to run riot, picturing coming disasters, not always for itself but more often for its "chicks" if it has any. Dr. Carey put the tissue-remedy calcium floride under this sign, and one of its best-known symptoms is an irrational dread of poverty. George Bernard Shaw, who is supposed to have had Luna rising, is said to have developed a firm belief in old age that the more he earned, the less he would get. But even nowadays that is not so.

I suppose it is possible to have an active but perfectly health and wholesome imagination, but it doesn't usually work that way, wherefore the lunar type seems to merit our sympathy, especially if a bad Saturn is also at work.

However, it would be wrong to push the duality principle too far and to argue that, as the Sun is Life, so the Moon must be Death, and so on. The contrast is rather that the Sun is outer and the Moon inner life, and many Cancerians could tell of a rich inner life.

As for Moon in the Signs, descriptions of these positions occur in most of the text-books and there is not much one can hope to add to these, though one never knows, in astrology, when some fresh item will crop up, or some peculiarly apt and illuminating phrase be coined.

Even more perhaps that with Leo, a Cancer ascendant depends upon the Moon's sign position for its expression.

Here are a few samples:

Aries: Emile Zola

Taurus: Adler, the psychologist, Joseph Chamberlain (t.a.)

Gemini: Rudyard Kipling

Cancer: Lord Byron (time doubtful), Doris and Aileen Woods, society entertainers' William Blake

Leo: Mr. Jinarajadasa

Virgo: Benjamin Britten

Libra: P. J. Harwood, early advocate of E-H-D, General Ludendorff, Marie Antoinette, Duchess of Windsor

Scorpio: Lord Halifax, Kaiser William II

Sagittary: D. S. Windell, Thomas Carlyle, Professor Einstein

Capricorn: James Barrie

Aquarius: Rider Haggard, The Young Pretender, The Labour Party

Pisces: RimskyKorsakoff

It is possible that some Cancerians may find items in this list interesting. Sometimes one can see the "common feature" all right, but in other cases such likenesses as there are have been obscured by other factors.

Several cases illustrate what I take to be one of the chief Cancerian difficulties: namely, that they love the limelight and yet are innately shy people. We have all heard how actors sometimes undergo agonies of stagefright, even after they have been on the stage for many years and achieved success. This seems to illustrate what I mean, though I don't maintain that only Cancer suffers in this way. Sometimes it is involved in scandals and is most unwilling to be dragged into the limelight, but has to submit. Sometimes, like Byron, there are various impulses driving one way and the other.

Shyness is, of course, only one form of fear, or apprehensiveness. Interesting word, that: "apprehensive" means really catching hold of, just as a crab does with its nippers, and yet it has come to have a secondary significance of anxiety, from which, in some form or another, most Cancers appear too suffer.

As with the Signs, so with the Aspects. They have been described in the text-books and there is no point in my repeating the descriptions to you now.

Generally I would say that the Moon is best when configured with Venus, Jupiter and Neptune. It is moderately congenial with the Sun, Mercury and perhaps Saturn and it has least natural affinity with Mars and Uranus. Moon/Mars can be rough and crude. Such people often have scant regard for others' feelings, whilst, if Mars is operative on its lower levels there can be immorality, treachery and deceit. Still, such configurations have the virtues of their failings. The health is often robust and the courage pronounced.

I have always found Moon/Mars transits to correlate with definite conditions, not serious but disagreeable. Some astrologers, including Mr. Edgar Bray, in his own field one of the best, say that transits don't work if there is much difference of latitude, but my Moon has nearly 5 degrees of latitude and that doesn't seem to diminish the effects of transits.

Besides latitude there is another factor that may have to be taken into account with the Moon, namely parallax. This may alter its apparent position by as much as a degree, I believe. the old primary directionists always found the Moon uncertain and made some queer attempts to find out why. I don't think they hit on parallax, or on the obvious fact that, even in a couple of houts, which would equal about 30 years in their system, its position would move a degree or so.

I have spoken of Moon and Mars. Moon and Uranus have so little in common that sometimes their aspects, especially the conformative ones, effect little. That is what trines and sextiles so often signify; a person who swims with the tide, the natural conformist. Well, Uranus is so much the opposite of this that a Moon trine Uranus may cancel out, except that externally you would get occasional benefits.

As regards prominent fixed stars, the constellation of the Crab doesn't contain any -- none are above the 4th magnitude. It cuts a poor figure in the sky beside Leo on the one hand and Gemini on the other. there is, however, the star cluster Praesepe, "the Beehive," which can be seen, as myriads of distinct stars, in a pair of binoculars.

The sign Cancer comes off better, for it holds Tejat, Dirah, Alhena, Wasat, Propus and Pollux, all within about 7 degrees of the ecliptic, whilst Sirius itself, and three other first magnitude stars, Canopus, Procyon and Castor, fall in Cancer, in terms of longitudethis makes four first magnitude stars in one sign, Castor being of the 2nd but Pollux of the 1st.

How one is to consider stars with much latitude, whether one should take their latitude into account or take it as a rule that all astrological value comes via the ecliptic, as a general circle of reference, we cannot discuss at the moment. As for their significances, I do not believe the Arabian descriptions are worth the paper they are written upon; I regard them as unmitigated trash. The whole subject of the stars is exceedingly involved; but it is difficult to believe, when one sees them in the heavens, that they have no message or meaning for us. But it isn't written in Arabic!

As I have said before, progressed Sun trine Castor and Pollux coincided in my case with important Gemini events, to wit, the publication of my first book and the starting of the Quarterly. Both these directions were within a month or so. I can't link Sun trine Sirius with anything, and yet the star Sirius does seem to have a connection, in nativities, with bigness in some sense or other. Sometimes the bigness takes the form of the native having a very big opinion on himself!

The word "paradox" has been used already.

Another point that seems paradoxical is that the lunar principle, as being related to the 4th house, is said to rule both infancy and old age -- the end of life, the grave. This raises difficulties, since obviously one may be born a pauper and die a millionaire, or vice versa. But the doctrine of the "A" and "M" houses might help here. Since the circumstances of babyhood do not depend upon ourselves, at least in this life, we might expect the 4th "M" house to relate to it, and the 4th "A" house to denote our end, which does, in most cases, depend (at any rate to some extent) upon ourselves.

Marshal Petain ended his days in prolonged and senile confinement. By poli-equatorial division Neptune and Jupiter are in the 4th house, the latter square Moon and Saturn, which appropriate enough. I know nothing of his infancy. Venus is exactly on the I.C., if the recorded time is exactly correct: I should say it isn't.

The "A" and "M" theory is an attractive doctrine, but it will probable be some years before we shall be able to decide how far it agrees with fact.

Personally, reverting to our original point, I would judge early family conditions from the Moon, as far as one can judge such things a all, whilst I am pretty sure that malefics near the I.C. or in the 4th house do effect the close of life and sometimes even indicate a violent or sudden end. On the other hand, a well-configured 4th is a good thing to look forward to, as the evening of life comes on.

It has been affirmed that twelve great religions have been given to mankind and naturally we should expect this and claim that each has a zodiacal correspondent. Be that as it may, Confucianism appears Cancerian, with its immense emphasis upon family life, filial duties, careful ritual and ceremony, and devotion of politics and the State. Confucius spent his life trying to get some monarch to allow him to act as his prime minister, but the philosopher met with scant encouragement. One local dignitary did try him for a spell and then decided that dancinggirls were more amusing. The sage, with Cancer sensitiveness, resigned. I do not know if Cancer is as a rule religious. Confucius was not, in our sense. "Respect spiritual beings and have nothing to do with them," was his motto; but what sort of spirits he had in mind I do not know.

Ancestor-worship is a truly Cancer trait and its overthrow, in modern China, as Uranus passes through this sign, is significant. Worshipping one's ancestors may be foolish, but it is at least as reasonable as the adoration of some more or less disreputable "Big Brother".

Now as to the lunar reputation for inconstancy.

I think a lunar friend may alter in his moods and you may not know how you will find him at any particular time; but they are very faithful, taken in the long view, and despite the snarls (Canis Major and Minor) and the Cancer snaps, the time comes when one feels they are really rather fond of one, and that one is, oneself, fond of them.

Please note, I speak throughout of Cancer rising, not Sun in Cancer.

Another virtue, which whey seem to borrow from their polar opposite Capricorn, is thoroughness and conscientious exactitude, both as regards their facts and their expression thereof. They write neatly and carefully and often with a nice choice of language. So far as revision of the MS. is concerned, my Cancerian contributors are an editorial joy; their work is commaperfect. I would refer to Mr. Martin Harvey's work on the correct birthtimes of English monarchs as an example of painstaking exactness, by which most astrologers could benefit. One might almost say he has ransacked the libraries of Western Europe for evidence. Mr. G. H. Bailey's passion for mathematical precision is equally well known: many a time have my knuckles been rapped. But it was all for my good, or, what is much more important, for the good of astrology.

Again, I have learnt to respect Cancerian judgment. When its peculiar prejudices are not involved, Cancer is remarkably shrewd and perspicacious. We all know of the canny Scot, the astute Yorkshireman, the industrious and sagacious Chinaman, the hardheaded Dutchman. All these people appear to have a gift for business, based on hard work and that special perceptiveness that successful businessmen possess. They can see and seize opportunity.

The middle of the sign seems to have a special relation to financial success in a big way. Cecil Rhodes, Sun 14th degree, Rockefeller, Sun 15th, Jay Gould, Jupiter 16th, N.N. 987, Venus in trine from 16 Pisces.

When talking of Cancer it is natural to turn homeward, and in the case of the Lodge we have a good reason for doing so.

I think the Cancerian predominance in our Lodge map has something to do with the esprit de corps that we have developed and which has held some of us together for so many years. It has also given us a commodious home and it may also have some connection with the publicity that has come through the Quarterly and made us known throughout the world. But I think the failings commonly attributed to Cancer have been avoided. I don't think we are clannish, but rather our doors are open to all and everyone; nor are we silly or superstitious, anxious to talk about wonderful past incarnations and so forth.

One might expect the transit of Uranus through Cancer to cause some upsets and rifts in our customary harmony; but these do not seem as yet to have been serious.

Presumably the time will come -- as it must surely come to all human organisations -- when the Lodge will have done its work and served its purpose, and it will make way for other and different associations. But the story of Astrology during the last thirty years or so would, I venture to suggest, have been very different, had there been no Lodge or Quarterly, and we may sincerely hope that the Faculty will figure as prominently and usefully in the history of the next generation. If its aims and point of view should be somewhat different from that of the Lodge, this is really not a matter for regret, because it is right that each entity should have its own character: one does not wish one's offspring to be mere copies of father and mother. (Or is that precisely what Cancer does expect?)

Yes, the Lodge has done good work and those who have taken part in it have reason for quiet satisfaction as the years go on.

Since the ascendant of the Lodge was, apparently, the Goat, we cannot actually call ourselves "Children of the Crab". But undeniably this sign has had a great deal to do with our work, so, as loyal members of the Lodge, let us stick up for Cancer and proclaim that, in spite of shell and claws and ungainly behaviour, it is a good fellow! If not exactly a jolly one.