this topic came to mind recently while watching 2 videos, one of which was shared by dima of Volker Schendels interview with luis ribiero... the other was volkers interview with stephen birchfield.. both men seem very attached to the term 'traditional' astrology to define what and who they are ( traditional astrologers) and to articulate that working with the outer planets - uranus, neptune and pluto is blasphemous! i have to thank volker for his interest in asking these questions..

the use of the expression 'traditional' astrology only came up in the past 20 -30 years and was never in use prior to the availability of these older texts on astrology becoming available in the 1990s.. i believe the first book to come into the astrology community was 'christian astrology' by william lilly sometime around 1993... this also coincided with the initiation of project hindsight which had as one of its tasks to make many ancient astrological manuscripts from the past available to the astrological community.

having gotten involved in astrology in the mid 1970's myself, no one was using this term 'traditional' astrology, or referring to themselves as 'traditional' astrologers.. fast forward to the 21st century and the term was increasingly in usage... as i said, the term seems to be used in a very wide manner and would appear to include hellenist, medieval, arabic and lord knows what else with the use of the term... i suppose there are specialists in all of the subcategories...

meanwhile, everything else that doesn't conform to these 'teachings' or 'practicing' methods (the exclusion of the outers, asteroids and etc), would appear to be derogatorily referenced as 'modern' astrology by some in this same community of 'traditional' astrologers... i did see robert hand was using the term 'post modern' sometime in the early 2000's so, maybe that was another way to suggest something significant had happened in the astrology community in the 1990's and thus the need for a new term to articulate these changes..

some might be more attuned to these language developments in the changing landscape of the literature available to astrologers from 1990s forward, or not... but when i think of it, all astrologers share an interest in astrology.. it makes sense they we would all appreciate and respect those with a different emphasis or leaning to be tolerant and not suggest anything is superior to anything else... in fact i would argue it was these same ''modern'' astrologers who were responsible for and curious in what astrologers of the past were doing, so as to want to study and learn from them! in this regard we all owe a degree of respect and appreciation for the work of others in the astrological community for making a much richer field of study available to as all...

and, i will suggest that astrologers never stop coming up with insights into the use of astrology and that while these ideas may not easily fit into prearranged or preconceived ideas regarding astrological practice, they still warrant a level of respect and appreciation from all the astrological community in a spirit of our affinity for the small segment of people who are actually quite interested in this topic!!!

to each, their own!

Personally, I would disagree that there is any derogatory implication in the terms 'modern' and 'traditional'. I see them as purely descriptive, although it may be argued that they are too broad, vague or general. But as a historian I would claim that there is in fact a 'great tradition' of horoscopy astrology spanning about two millennia (from around the 2nd century BCE to the early 19th century CE), which, although not completely uniform or static, is remarkably consistent and resilient in terms of its basic symbolism as well as its areas of application, and to a large extent its technical content.

Before any radical changes were made to this body of knowledge and practice, there was no need for the term 'traditional'; it was known simply as 'astrology'. It is probably true, therefore, that the term 'traditional astrology' is of fairly recent origin. The term 'modern astrology, on the other hand, dates back to at least 130 years ago, when, far from carrying any derogatory overtones, it was proudly used by Alan Leo and his associates as a designation of their technically simplified and deliberately Theosophized version of the art, focusing on 'symbolical and metaphysical studies'. In 1895, Leo launched his magazine Modern Astrology, in the opening issue of which he wrote: 'The time has come to modernise the ancient system of Astrology.' This was not a matter of slow, organic change, such as will take place within any living tradition of knowledge, but rather a conscious and intentional break with tradition in a number of important respects.

Leo's creation was so successful that within a couple of generations, very few practitioners were even aware of what had gone before, or how great changes had been made. Old books went out of print and became very rare, and there was no internet or WayBack Machine. The label 'modern' had been dropped, and 'astrology', at least in the Anglophone western world, now referred largely to Leo's simplified astrology (which in the meantime had added a generous dollop of primarily Jungian depth psychology to its Theosophical ideological framework).

It was only with the rediscovery (among the body of practising astrologers) of older texts, starting with Lilly's Christian Astrology in the 1980s and moving gradually back into the medieval and ancient epochs, that the need arose for a term distinguishing the 'pre-Leo' types of astrology from the 'post-Leo' ones. 'Traditional' was, I think, a very natural choice, and not really ideologically charged. Naturally those of us who prefer to work with older forms of astrology do so because we consider them better in one or more ways (more descriptively/predictively accurate, more internally consistent, more nuanced, philosophically sounder, etc.), just as those who once deliberately rejected those older forms thought the opposite; but the terms themselves are, to my mind, fairly innocuous.

The term 'modern astrology, on the other hand, dates back to at least 130 years ago, when, far from carrying any derogatory overtones, it was proudly used by Alan Leo and his associates.

In the French world, a similar movement started called 'scientific astrology' led by Henri Selva, Paul Choisnard and Karl Ernst Krafft.
In the 20th century, "astrology had become a product to sell, instead of a craft to practice." (Patrice Guinard).
But there was also Alexandre Volguine,
scholar, historian, instigator in the translation of ancient documents, founder of the Cahiers Astrologiques (Nice) in 1938, considered the best French astrology magazine, published until 1983.
He brought back into favour the "ruler of nativity" and developed the "planetary frames" technique (close to the midpoints of the German Witte).
And a favorite remained Morin de Villefranche whose texts were frequently featured in magazines or articles.
So modern or scientific was never too far from the tradition.
One main critic that needs to be adressed from the tradition is the language, fatalistic in most instances, and not very well suited to the modern world.
An example is the notion of In Sect and Out of Sect. The notion of the group, the family and where you belong was more important in ancient times.
Today, the world has become a huge community with technology and you can find alliances or a family around the world now. It is technically possible to have an 'Out of Sect' group of people sharing something not mainstream or socially acceptable which would have been banned not long ago.

martin and ouranos

thanks for your commentary!

martin - to quote myself "would appear to be derogatorily referenced as 'modern' astrology by some"... the terms themselves are quite innocuous.. i agree with you.. i am not sure if the term 'modern' astrology got traction with alan leo.. it's possible... skyscript has a few articles for anyone interested on both alan leo and evangeline adams who were living and practicing astrology around the same time..

https://www.skyscript.co.uk/Alan_Leo.html
https://www.skyscript.co.uk/adams.html

you're right about the availability of 'christian astrology' coming a bit earlier - 1985, although i am not sure the exact history around this development... there are some interesting notes in the forward to derek applebys book 'horary astrology' from goeffrey cornelius, which articulates some of this history..

i am not sure when posters at skyscript reference the term 'modern' astrology they are thinking of alan leos work so much as a general term to indicate everything that is not 'traditional'.. it seems to be used as a grab bag of ideas outside the realm of whatever they define as 'traditional' astrology... i am not sure of the use of these terms in the two links below..

https://www.astro.com/astrowiki/en/Modern_Astrology
https://www.astro.com/astrowiki/en/Trad ... _Astrology

ouranos

the first time i was made aware of sect was probably in one of robert hands books from 1995 - 'night and day' planetary sect in astrology....

i am not sure how morins work got incorporated in all of this, as i gather it wasn't completely lost in history.. perhaps the astrologers in france continued to work with his large volume of work on astrology.. i don't know.. maybe it was largely lost until the more recent translations from james holden and etc. etc.?

i have a few english translations of alexandre volguines books - the ruler of the nativity and lunar astrology... i like what you say in your post at the end..

Hi james_m,

Happy New Year!

james_m wrote: Wed Jan 01, 2025 4:37 pm meanwhile, everything else that doesn't conform to these 'teachings' or 'practicing' methods (the exclusion of the outers, asteroids and etc), would appear to be derogatorily referenced as 'modern' astrology by some in this same community of 'traditional' astrologers... i did see robert hand was using the term 'post modern' sometime in the early 2000's so, maybe that was another way to suggest something significant had happened in the astrology community in the 1990's and thus the need for a new term to articulate these changes..

I have noticed the term "modern" astrology used derogatorily too. To use the term "modern" astrology derogatorily is ironic, in my opinion. Even if modern astrologers incorporate psychology into natal delineations and include Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, and asteroids, they are still mostly practicing traditional astrology since the core methodologies used in modern astrology are rooted in traditional astrology. Thus, if the term "modern" astrology is used as a covert insult, it ironically reflects back on the insulter.

Speaking of psychology, psychology would suggest that behind a superiority complex there is insecurity and unresolved resentment, which is projected onto others as a way to cope with unaddressed internal struggles. Although this kind of information doesn't necessarily solve the issue at hand, it can help one understand that the behaviour of a difficult individual is a reflection of their own issues and is not personal.

james_m wrote: Wed Jan 01, 2025 4:37 pm some might be more attuned to these language developments in the changing landscape of the literature available to astrologers from 1990s forward, or not... but when i think of it, all astrologers share an interest in astrology.. it makes sense they we would all appreciate and respect those with a different emphasis or leaning to be tolerant and not suggest anything is superior to anything else... in fact i would argue it was these same ''modern'' astrologers who were responsible for and curious in what astrologers of the past were doing, so as to want to study and learn from them! in this regard we all owe a degree of respect and appreciation for the work of others in the astrological community for making a much richer field of study available to as all...

Very well put and could not agree more.

james_m wrote: Wed Jan 01, 2025 4:37 pm and, i will suggest that astrologers never stop coming up with insights into the use of astrology and that while these ideas may not easily fit into prearranged or preconceived ideas regarding astrological practice, they still warrant a level of respect and appreciation from all the astrological community in a spirit of our affinity for the small segment of people who are actually quite interested in this topic!!!

to each, their own!

This approach is fair and just. It does no harm to keep an open mind!


Cheers,

Yfke

thanks yfke! happy new year to you as well...

in an attempt to stay on a positive note, i would like to accentuate the positive.. it is true i did share the word 'derogatory' in my initial post, but as you note - much of what others say, is often a reflection on them, and i would say the same for myself too, lol! challenging others comes naturally to me but i think of it in a positive sense...

some of what i see said in astrological circles reminds me of what i would associate with a religious ideological belief system... for example, this is the one true astrology and all those other astrological practices are blasphemous, lol... i used that word blasphemous in my original post too, because that is the impression i get off some astrological practitioners too sometimes..

if i take a long view, i think blips that happen in the short term, get lost in the strands of history that make up the fiber we live in at present... who knows what astrology will look like in the future... in the meantime, i find it all very fascinating and continue to be interested in learning more about it...

Hi james_m,

It is an underrated skill to challenge things in a constructive manner! I appreciate that. Inevitably, either unintentionally or due to this subject being a hot one in other environments, some will scrutinize everything but the keyword, "some," in your initial post and miss your valid point that, "we all owe a degree of respect and appreciation for the work of others in the astrological community for making a much richer field of study available to as all."

Chances are, if we are thinking the same thing, others are too. It is only a matter of time before the crowd throws tomatoes at the some (I am attempting to make this lighthearted—maybe in vain).

The one true astrology... I have yet to see this one. Blasphemous indeed, yet hilarious nonetheless!

Here's to future astrological discoveries: ancient and new.


With starry regards,

Yfke

thanks yfke

i agree with what you say here.. lets wait and see if some other folks reading these threads will chime in on how they perceive all this... cheers james!