Display posts from previous
Sort by

Mystery Chart No. 15 Revealed

1 by Tom
Usual Caveat: If you want to work with the Mystery Chart without knowing the name of the native, read no further.

The traditional forum is an odd place for a discussion of the chart of this particular native, but given his influence in astrology, we might wish to have a traditional look at his chart. If this had been done early in his life, the entire study may have turned out differently. Our native is the occultist, theosophist and astrologer, Marc Edmond Jones. What Alan Leo is in English astrology, Jones is to American astrology.

From an early age Jones was fascinated by geometric patterns. He liked seeing patterns and putting things together, and finding function in them. In 1903 at the age of 16, Jones made a Christian commitment, but the following year he began to study Theosophy. He would study it for the rest of his life. He didn?t come to astrology until 1913 when his chart was interpreted by one Ella Woods. He evidently taken by the subject and began to study horary astrology, which he would practice almost his entire life.

Jones would come to reject the astrology of the late 19th and early 20th century and remake it. His criticism of astrologer Elizabeth Aldrich was typical. In Jones? view she would look up anything that could possibly be of relevance and put it in the back of her mind. Eventually she would present her insights based on all the information she stored in her memory. In Jones opinion this was ?omen astrology? and he dismissed it as ?intuitive.? His dismissal of intuition over logic would probably surprise more than a few modern astrologers who know of his later work, but not how he arrived there.

Jones wished to base astrology on logic, but he had to base his logic on something. He tried to develop a history of astrology upon which to base his beliefs, but none existed in the early 20th century. At least none existed in English. He haltingly wrote one, in pieces. His history of astrology was largely based on what Theosophists had to say about the subject. Consequently Jones came to the conclusion that he was ?restoring? astrology to its original pure state. He called it ?Sabian Astrology.? When asked about his Sabian system he wrote to the inquirer:

The Sabian system is my own name for the reconstruction of the Chaldean or Babylonian science as far as I have been able to dig it out through sources here and there. That is, it is a recovery on my part not an invention. So far I have not been able to get much of anything in writing concerning it, and have nothing that I can send you although a little later on I will have a full correspondence course.

In other words, he was making it up as he went along. No such system of astrology ever existed at any time. What he was also doing, knowingly or not, was laying the groundwork for psychological astrology. He detested prediction, despite his horary work, and if astrologers don?t predict then they must do something else. His system eliminated the distinction between malefic and benefic planets, dropped prediction in order to eliminate the ?fatalism? and claimed the planets and other symbols indicated ?potentialities? or possibilities in the individual. From here it was a short, easy step for Dane Rudhyar to graft psychology on to the symbols and a new astrology was born.

Jones? love of patterns is easily seen in his work The Guide to Horoscope Interpretation (1941). Jones divides the patterns formed by the planets in a circular chart into seven groups, and once properly assigned the astrologer can make generalized deductions from the pattern and use it as a basis for delineation. This is similar to what a traditional astrologer does when he determines temperament. I is a broad brush stroke used to understand the more specific delineations that follow.

Jones is also, to my knowledge the ?inventor? or ?discoverer,? if you will, of certain aspect configurations such as the ?T-square.? ?Grand Cross,? and perhaps others. If he wasn?t the first to use these things he surely laid the groundwork for them. An interesting contrast is in Jean Baptiste Morin?s Astrologia Gallica Book 23 Revolutions. Morin discusses the chart of Gustav Adolphus, King of Sweden. He pays particular attention to a configuration of Saturn opposing Jupiter, Lord ASC, and both being squared by Mars ? a T-square. He notes the effects of planets hitting these natal placements in solar and lunar returns and never once describes the original configuration as anything but an opposition and two squares. Jones would have jumped all over the T-square.

The configuration in Jones? chart that I find most striking is the trine from Mars to the MC, Saturn, and the Moon. Mars is Jones? lord ASC. In aspect with the planet of destruction (too strong a word for what Jones did but it fits) and the ruler of the 9th as well as the MC we can see Jones? work or activity will ?destroy? or radically change something and that something will be in the world of ideas. OR if we look at Saturn as structure rather than destruction we can still see him bringing about changes in the structure of something intellectual. Jones sanguine temperament tells us that we are not dealing with a violent or overtly aggressive nature, so despite Mars? involvement it is unlikely that we are dealing with a military type of change.


Jones? is probably best known as the astrologer who developed the ?Sabian Symbols.? In 1925 while living in San Diego California he took psychic Elsie Wheeler to a park where she ?developed? a symbol for each of the 360 degrees of the zodiac. Jones wrote these down and worked with them, but did not publish the Sabian Symbols until 1953. Despite his claims that these symbols were part of some original ancient astrology, there is simpy no evidence of degree symbols in any known astrological system until Jones published his book The Sabian Symbols in Astrology.

He was a tireless promoter of astrology and worked and lectured until his death in March of 1980, at the age of 91. For better or for worse Jones provided the bridge from what is, unfairly in my view, characterized as ?fatalistic? astrology to psychological astrology using a system of his own creation that had no historical basis despite his claims of antiquity.

Re: Mystery Chart No. 15 Revealed

2 by Andrew
Despite his claims that these symbols were part of some original ancient astrology, there is simpy no evidence of degree symbols in any known astrological system until Jones published his book The Sabian Symbols in Astrology.
I'm no fan of Marc Jones: his writing, like Dane Rudhyar's, is burdened by barely comprehensible sentence structure. However, I'd like to point out that Christopher Warnock has published a book entitled Astrological Optics by Johannes Angelus:
Astrological Optics is an English translation, first published in 1655, of a rare Latin book on natal astrology. It is invaluable for astrological magic because it contains a fascinating list of images for each degree of the Zodiac, perfect for fine tuning astrological talismans and talisman design to the user's Ascendant.
http://www.lulu.com/browse/book_view.ph ... fBuyItem=3

Warnock writes that Angelus used these images to describe people born with a particular degree rising; for example, Angelus writes:
In the 9th degree of Cancer there arises the image of a woman holding a distaff in her right hand. It imports a laborious person.
I personally recommend Sepharial's translation of La Volasfera, a set of degree symbols dating back to the Italian Renaissance and recorded by Antonio Borelli in the 16th century. I find these far superior to the degree symbols developed by Jones and Wheeler. Originally, Jones wished to "recast" the degree symbols developed by Charubel; I've never found these any more insightful than those developed by Jones, but if you're interested, you can purchase a book that contains both the Sepharial and the Charubel degree symbols here:

http://www.astroamerica.com/sabian2.html#c28

I've found it helpful to read the degree symbol for the ascendant, the midheaven, the Moon, the Sun, and Sors (pars fortunae).

There is also a book called Zodiacal Symbology by Isidore Kozminsky, but his degree symbols seem largely derivative of Sepharial's, which might account for their popularity in some circles.

Andrew

5 by Tom
It's very difficult to find out anything 'tangible' concerning Jones' life.
You're right. I found a useful website that lists the major events of his life:

http://www.sabian.org/mej.htm,

but it tells us precious little of the man. He did marry in 1926 and remained married until her death over 50 years later. There is no mention of children. From what I have read, he was a tireless writer, he travelled and moved frequently, and he studied his entire life. Although he dropped out of high school in 1907, he would return to formal studies and even earn a PhD in 1948.

He's definitely a sanguine temperament, but as for his personality, I can't get a handle on it either. The two things that stand out are an early fascination, if not downright obsession, with geometric patterns, and an insatiable desire to learn.

The odd part of his personality is his irrational belief that he was recreating an original astrology for which no historical evidence existed. It's as though he wanted astrology's history to be a certain way, and so he persuaded himself that it was that way and invented evidence to support it.

Robert Zoller observed that Jones' influence was due to the charismatic nature of his personality, and not the cogency of his arguments.

Tom

6 by RC
Has anyone read his horary books?

Its funny this was our mystery man as I had been reading some about him and his techniques a while back. For Yes / no type questions, he emphasized the importance of the house in question and aspects between the opposite house as indicating a Yes if they were conjunct or trine by 3 degrees from what I've gathered.

He has a couple of horary books which I thought I'd like to look at.

RC

7 by Deb
Has anyone read his horary books?
Hi RC,
Marc Edmond Jones figures strongly in one of the horary articles I recently published on site, which points out that he had much greater influence on the resurrection of horary in recent times than most people realise. The section following this link discusses the importance of his influence.

Prediction, Providence, and the Power of the 'Self' in Horary
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/horary_predi ... tml#15back

In footnote 17 of that article I offer my opinion of his book, Problem Solving by Horary Astrology. This explains why, although it was in some ways very important, as a practical guide it was quite dreadful:
Jones tries to make his book all things to all people. It deals with a specialist subject and yet he aims it at the popular market, and so the first 100 pages or so are taken up explaining such elementary principles as what the zodiac is and the difference between the ecliptic and equator, etc. He feels obliged to detail everything needed to be known in order to manually cast a chart, forcing such explanations as what sidereal time is and how to calculate angles. Although this part of the book goes on and on, the instruction is still very rushed and incomplete, presumably so that Jones can get around to horary; so from the start there is a sense of confusion that makes his explanations seem incomprehensible even for an experienced astrologer. By the time he gets around to outlining horary techniques it all feels very tedious and laborious. He is neither detailed nor illuminating in his explanations of the actual principles of horary. There are very few practical examples and references to these are scattered; one comment regarding the chart appearing in one place, another appearing elsewhere. In all, it is a very long winded text which would probably confuse most students more than it enlightened them. He obviously had a passion for horary to write a book of over 400 pages about it, but his mistake was to market it at the man in the street, when no-one but a die-hard enthusiast would be willing to mine his nuggets of gold from the surrounding dross.
Despite this, I think that Jones? suggestion on how and why horary works is very important, and ought to be more widely known. The article explains his views in the section I have recommended. I am not aware of him writing any other text on horary.

8 by RC
Deb wrote:
Has anyone read his horary books?

.... He obviously had a passion for horary to write a book of over 400 pages about it, but his mistake was to market it at the man in the street, when no-one but a die-hard enthusiast would be willing to mine his nuggets of gold from the surrounding dross.
Despite this, I think that Jones? suggestion on how and why horary works is very important, and ought to be more widely known. The article explains his views in the section I have recommended. I am not aware of him writing any other text on horary..

Oh thank you Deb. I hate getting a book and finding it written in such a dull and technical yet disjointed manner as you describe. I will go to that article. I should have known anything of value would be on your site!

I guess writing was not his strong point. :lol:

Rae

9 by Tom
RC:

You mistakenly put what follows on the wrong thread. THis belongs on the "revealed thread. I'm reproducing it here, and removing the other:
RC wrote:
The chart shows he/she is famous w/ moon & Saturn conjoining MC.
....
Moon and saturn together (natural enemies) in 9th house trying to move into 10th. hmm.


Perhaps what was indicated here, was the fact that he fought the traditional system of astrology - I read on his site he found it difficult to dilineate a chart and not always accurate or something to that effect. For that reason, he sought to invent a new system, trying to bring it to popularity and success (10th) MC.

10 by Tom
Perhaps what was indicated here, was the fact that he fought the traditional system of astrology - I read on his site he found it difficult to dilineate a chart and not always accurate or something to that effect. For that reason, he sought to invent a new system, trying to bring it to popularity and success (10th) MC.
I've had a hard time getting a handle on exactly what Jones thought he was doing, as it sometimes conflicted with he actually did. I've always seen the problem with 19th century astrology is that it lacked something that 17th century astrology had that was lost in the 18th century. Reading it is like drinking decaffeinated coffee as opposed to a fine Ethiopian brew. It works in an pinch. Although there were some fine astrologers in the 19th century, none of them seemed to have what Lilly had for example, or so it seems to me.

Patrick Curry's book A Confusion of Prophets, is useful on this topic. Curry demonstrates the shift in astrology by giving us short biographies of the major 19th century English astrologers beginning with John Varley who is by anyone's definition, a traditional astrologer, and moving through Raphael, the first Zadkiel, Pearce, Garnett, and ending with Alan Leo. Many, if not all of the later English astrologers tried to bring astrology up to date while claiming to hang on to its roots.

I've maintained that the near death of astrology in the 18th century resulted in a lack of quality materials and teachers and resulted in less of a grasp of astrology's fundamentals. The "paradigm shift" brought about by the "Enlightenment" didn't help either. Kim Farnell and others disagree, but I don't want to get too far afield.

In the US Broughton was a nuts and bolts astrologer like Varley, Garnett, and Pearce, but what came after him in the US was influenced rather heavily by the Theosophists and their vision. What is striking about Lilly, Gadbury, and then Worsdale, Varley, Pearce et al is the lack of the occultism in their practice that we do find in some 19th century and later astrologers.

Jones comes along and looks at astrology as it is practiced and rejects the predictive nature as fatalistic and wanting. Despite that what he calls fatalistic is probably closer to astrology's roots than he realizes, he then tries to avoid prediction while claiming to be returning astrology to some kind of pristine nature that never existed. Jones had no access to any history of astrology because none existed when he was forming his ideas. Thorndike would come a little later. Therefore Jones simply made up a lot of stuff, all the while claiming to detest "intuition." The thrust of Jones' ideas and the excuses for them would be picked up by people like Dane Rudhyar and later Stephen Arroyo both of whom claimed to have studied all forms of astrology and found it wanting and in need of rescue. Like Jones they eschewed the fatalism of the "old" astrology (they used examples as far back as the 19th century), and, in Kim's memorable phrase, "wrote in Theosophy" to the delight of people who were taught to respect what they cannot understand and the chagrin of those who were taught that the English language is inherently coherent.

I will admit to being in favor of something Jones tried to do without commenting on its practical value and that is the chart patterns. Many people, too many people, will grasp the basics then look at a chart and have no idea where to begin. In most cases I would venture this is not their fault. They were taught a lot about symbols, heard praise heaped upon words like "synthesis" and "synastry," but not given anything practical as in "where to begin." Jones' formations are a starting point. The astrologer can look at the chart regardless of which planets are where, and come up with a broad overview with which to apply the other symbols. Millions of people have Jupiter in Sagittarius and they are not all alike. Even those with Jupiter in Sagittarius in the same house aren't all alike, but if we associate Jupiter in Sagittarius in the 9th with the meaning of the chart pattern, we have a bit more to apply to the native. Noel Tyl does the same thing with a fewer patterns. This is, at least, a place to begin. Whether Jones' system has real value, I'll leave to others.

He is clearly not a traditional astrologer. He is among the first to reject the concepts of malefic and benefic. He disdained prediction as an abuse of astrology yet practiced horary astrology. Leo dismissed horary as the "curse of the astrologer and ruination of the science," yet he wrote a book on it. What is it with these guys? I guess the necessity to eat trumps principle at dinner time.

Jones' influence was and is pervasive in modern astrology. He paved the way for Dane Rudhyar and contemporary psychological astrology. That he might have trouble with delineation is not surprising since he was working with a subject whose historical fundamentals he had not mastered because he was largely unaware of them. In his own way he was a lot like the beginning student who didn't know where to begin, but he charged ahead anyway.

An interesting comparison to Jones is his American contemporary Evangeline Adams. Unlike Jones, Adams, who was far better known than he until the time of her death (death is a real popularity killer for some), never founded any "school" of astrology. She had no followers. Her books are beginners' texts at best and contain a lot of self promotion. She was heavily predictive, a bit theatrical, but she left no writings that indicated an interest in theory or astrology's history. Unlike Broughton who left famous pupils to carry on, Adams left a library and from what I've read a good one. Adams' astrology was more reminiscent of Broughton and Lilly (she owned an original copy of Christian Astrology) than anything influenced by Theosophy. If we allow for some promotional exaggeration, we are still left with an impressive list of clients. She left a decent fortune behind that she must have earned somehow.

Aleister Crowley, not the most objective of sources, savaged Adams in an article he titled "How Horoscopes are Faked." Although he didn't mention her by name, obviously he was smart enough to avoid a libel suit, he did describe her physical appearance, and made more than a few uncomplimentary remarks about her abilities and knowledge. Crowley stuck a lot closer to the tradition than did Jones, but he wallowed in his share of occultism as well.

Jones did what he did. He begat Rudhyar who begat others who followed that path. We seem to be back on track a bit now. Much has been accomplished since 1974, when Gadbury's "Nativity of King Charls" was published in England and Morin's volume 21 was published in two translations in the US. These were followed by Robert Zoller's work The Arabic Parts in Astrology. None of these had the impact of the Regulus Press re-publication of Christian Astrology in 1985(?). There are now sufficient histories available to build on even if there is the ever present confusion in the art. If we lose that we lose some of astrology's charm.

We don't need a Jones, or anyone else to bring astrology back to its roots. We have a better handle on those roots, and could even use them to help with psychological astrology, should someone want to do so. Because of the research and publication of so many translations we are not likely to see another Jones. We'll always have our differences and our arguments over who is an isn't pure in some way or other. We are ruled by Mercury after all.

Tom

11 by RC
Deb wrote:
... I am not aware of him writing any other text on horary.
Deb,

I think I may have thought one of these had some horary reading in them but I probably misread that:

Astrology: How and Why it Works and
Essentials of Astrological Analysis.

I wasn't able to find any other book on horary only.

RC
!! Read first: forum policies
Recent topics
Post Reply

Return to “Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques”