An Encyclopaedia of Psychological Astrology

By Charles E.O. Carter (1887 - 1968).

199 Pages | First published in 1924, fourth edition in 1954, reprinted | Softcover | The Theosophical Publishing House, London | ISBN: 722950691.

Together with:

'OBSERVATIONS ON THE ASTROLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ABOUT FIFTY DISEASES, AND AN INTRODUCTORY ESSAY ON THE ZODIACAL SIGNS.'

This work is an attempt to produce a useful astrological Encyclopaedia of Character, and, as far as data permit, of Disease. That part of astrological study, which comes under the term 'destiny' (i.e. financial success, marriage etc.) I have omitted, because it is fully discussed in an increasing number of sound text-books. Naturally, in writing a book of this description, which is original in design, and to a large extent, in matter, the author has been strictly limited by data. Properly there can be no other limit to an 'Encyclopaedia' of any sort: so long as one's studies continue. so long can one go on collecting and collating evidence. It is therefore the author's hope, should this work appear to win the approval of the astrological world, at a later date to bring out a fresh recension, amplified by the results of further investigations and cleansed, if I may say so, by the purgatorial fires of criticism, which a book of this kind, in which almost every statement is fair game for discussion, is sure to arouse.

From the 'Special Note' (p. 11):

" Of late years it has been especially borne home to me that we are apt to exaggerate the difference between so-called 'good' and 'bad' aspects. Both in compiling cases for my book Astrological Aspects and in examining horoscopes for the present work, I have noticed that the same bodies will, in a class of similar cases, occur again and again in aspect, but that the nature of the aspect is far from constant. Further, in making lists of persons with two bodies in 'good' aspect and of other persons with the same bodies in 'bad' aspect, it was often difficult to see that the former had been any more fortunate in the matters involved than those in the second category, and, in other cases, those with 'bad' aspects seemed no worse off than those, who had 'good' ones. This statement may call forth the protests of many, but I invite the incredulous to collect a few dozen cases and study them, as I have done. "