PFN wrote:I personally think Frawley books are the best for starting.

I do not think that any student should begin with natal. Horary have all the important concepts and gears you toward practice. Frawley books are loaded with concepts understandable in a concrete way, which is important for anyone running from the excessive subjectivity of modern astrology. Although containing heavy criticism, it's fun as hell to read as well, and is totally anti new age, which I find most pleasing.

When going natal, aim for the ancient writers, they do better.

I've been studying modern astrology for about 18 years, so am pretty familiar with its basics of interpreting natal charts and their derivatives. I have looked at horary astrology and own books on it by Karen Hamaker-Zondag and Olivia Barclay but I choose not to do horary for several reasons.

I spent a while this past week in just a super book store in Vancouver, BC (Banyan Books) which carries two of Frawley's books, but neither was a primer on traditional astrology. [Hey, I can do my own critique of modern astrology! And I am also aware of when/how it works pretty well.] One difficulty that I have applying some of the ancient writers like Ptolemy is that they wrote for a very different era, mentality, and type of society than the ones I inhabit.

If anyone can recommend a good primer written by one of our contemporaries on natal chart interpretation via traditional astrology, I would love to hear about it.

For a basic intro into the language and thought processes behind the older writers, Joseph Crane's texts are useful, both are available from AstroAmerica

A Practical Guide to Traditional Astrology

and

Astrological Roots: The Hellenistic Legacy

As a traditional astrologer, I would say that if modern astrology works for you and you are happy with it, stick to it !

No reason to change what you are doing just because a book is available ! The reason I and most of traditional astrologers turn to traditional is a sense of frustration with modern astrology methods and theories.

Traditional astrology is more of bunch of techniques from the old days... is also a particular "mindset" about the nature of the universe, of men, and the purpose of astrology.

I have noticed a trend of some modern astrologers to use traditional astrology as a pool for new fashionable techniques, but without taking the trouble to understand their historical context, creating chimeras on the process.

Which is, obviously, unnecessary. Modern astrology has its own set of tools for achieve its particular goals and world vision. Traditional astrology has a different set of tool, but also a different set of goals and world vision.

In my opinion it is like Vedic Astrology: it is a completely different system, but with dangerous similarities. To really learn vedic astrology you really have to make a jump and forget what you learn about western astrology, or you will be mixing the two forever. The same with traditional and modern.

Thanks very much, janeg and yuzuru. I sure don't want to start another row between traditional and modern astrologers here! I would only note that modern astrology contains diverse schools of thought, and they don't all agree with one another. My feeling is that if a technique really works, I'd like to know about it, regardless of its source, but subject to the usual energy constraints....[so much astrology, so little time!]

I am very interested in the origins of various astrological truisms, and happily dig through old sources to answer questions about "why things are the way they are."

For traditional? I'd try James Holden's A History of Horoscopic Astrology, Lee Lehman's Classical Astrology for Modern Living, and either Dorotheus of Sidon's Carmen Astrologicum, or Ibn Ezra's The Beginning of Wisdom and The Book of Nativities and Revolutions.

Or all of them, and a few more. You can substitute other traditional writers, I just really like Ibn Ezra and he's CLEAR. But you need to read the history first, just to get an idea, though Lee covers a fair bit in CAFML, but not as much as Holden's book does. But even Lee's book assumes you have some background in some kind of astrology to start with.

If you can get hold of the MP3s of the ARHAT seminar on classical from I think 1998? that's probably the best intro I've found so far - it assumes you're a modern astrologer and introduces you to some classical thought and techniques.

Waybread wrote:

BTW, I would love to hear from experienced traditional astrologers their favourite intro textbook; not for horary astrology (which I don't do) but for analyzing nativities.

The Judgments of Nativities by Abu Ali Al Khayyat. This little book, translated by Holden, is a gold mine of information if you have the background. Christian Astrology Book III on nativities has been given an undeserved bad rap as a second rate work. It only seems that way because Lilly's work on horary is so exemplary. Which brings me to the point of my response.

There are all sorts of good traditional texts, but , to my knowledge, there are no out and out beginner's works for traditional astrology. They all seem to require a background in some kind of astrology. The closest thing to it is Joseph Crane's A Practical Handbook for Traditional Astrology. Otherwise its "Find a tutor and get to work."

Tom

waybread wrote:Thanks very much, janeg and yuzuru. I sure don't want to start another row between traditional and modern astrologers here! I would only note that modern astrology contains diverse schools of thought, and they don't all agree with one another. My feeling is that if a technique really works, I'd like to know about it, regardless of its source, but subject to the usual energy constraints....[so much astrology, so little time!]

I am very interested in the origins of various astrological truisms, and happily dig through old sources to answer questions about "why things are the way they are."

Actually, since you have a background in modern and seem open to the experience, I'd go all out and get something like Bonatti's Book of Astronomy, published by Ben Dykes. It's pretty comprehensive for the trad. astrology of the period, and will give you some idea of what you can expect if you investigate further (I'd recommend much further back ). One caveat, Bonatti is not a particular easy read, he does thrown a whole bunch of stuff together and not in the most pleasing fashion, but you should be able to handle it.

I'm sure Ben Dykes' translation of Bonatti is wonderful (I've downloaded the freebie PDF teasers), but his writing style is like Gabe said - and you want a background in classical before you tackle it.

And even though it's worth it if you can afford it, some of us would have to re-mortgage the house to get it.

Definitely a worthwhile text, don't get me wrong, but it's a fairly serious investment.

Thanks again to everyone that replied, and, for the fantastic links and advice, I'll definitely get to work.

David.