Skyscript Astrology Forum

Kirk wrote:
My guess is that the modern emphasis on signs due to the influence of sun sign astrology has led to a simple use of each chart factor as significant on its own. Modern astrology allows easy use of single chart factors ('He's a Cancer so he's sensitive and cherishes home life'). Ancient and medieval astrology requires bringing the various factors together and building a case before making such statements. Their statements can be confusing if we approach the ancient writings in the usual modern manner of modern astrology.

Could you provide some examples from the more recent serious literature? As someone who has been exposed to a fair deal of this material I have found this not to be the case, i.e a Cancer Sun may not be 'sensitve and cherish home life' it all depends, although this would be a wishy washy statement to make in any event and not one I would expect from a more sophisticated thinker.

waybread wrote: Mithra, at the risk or incurring your ire, is it fair of me to suggest that you don't really practice a whole-cloth traditional astrology, but rather that you apply a set of techniques developed in the past to current astrological questions? And to the extent that we argue that Ptolemy didn't really mean that someone like me with Saturn opposite Mars (and moon opposite Mercury) would literally be a murderer or temple-robber, that is the extent to which we modify and modernize his material to suit our present sensibilities. I don't fit any of Ptolemy's descriptors for this aspect.

You aren't incurring my ire. I'm not upset at all. I can tell you aren't trying to be a jerk, which is pretty much the only thing that will turn me off.

I don't see that many cases where I have to modernize the interpretations, but there are a few exceptions: one is considerations about slavery which I treat as indications of extreme difficulty rather than a state-sponsered condition (taking some cues from Zoller there). Then again I'm using Bonatti the most rather than Ptolemy directly.

However since we're talking about marriage, Bonatti's headings are:

-On the natives marriages, partners, and enemies openly opposing him (all 7th house matters).
-On the native's manner of the venereal act
-Of what sort the native's wife is going to be
-On the time of the wife, when she will be taken, and on the number of wives, and on its durability in general.
-Then a chapter of the above material except for women
-How the marriage may be known by what is signified by Venus, Mars, and Saturn
-What would happen to the native because of his partners and from hos partners participating with him

Basically this deals with , will I be married, how many times, what will my spouse be like, will they be good in bed, and how will people see my marriage. Nothing terribly culture specific. Perhaps the most archaic looking section is about sex. However, all you need to do is ignore how Bonatti feels about certain sexual acts and pay attention to the indications themselves. No biggie.

The kinds of things you take older cultures into account are things like lifespan and some medical considerations, plus slavery like I mentioned above. I don't do lifespan estimates for clients, so I don't have much to say there.

However things like marriage, finances, career (for the most part) and figuring out the likelihood of childbirth are pretty solid.

I imagine Bonatti didn't discuss same sex marriage?

I think that (a) the traditional vs. modern argument is probably too general to be useful; that we should be talking about particular techniques or astrologers instead. (b) There are plenty of goofball and good astrologers on both sides of the divide. But this is such an interesting discussion that I hope no one minds me taking a provocative view in order to push it a little further.

Kirk, thanks for helpfully delineating some of the differences in how to interpret lists of character traits given by the older astrologers vs. the ones today.

I still have trouble with the quote by Ptolemy I gave above, however, because I don't think any of it is helpful or correct. If he gives the worst that could happen, I don't see anything likely to happen. Well, maybe if I count saturated fat as a "forbidden food"....! I am not trying to personalize the discussion, but just to use my birth chart as an example. And there's a lot more dire material in Tetrabiblos where that one quote came from.

So this is an example of what I mean by "goofball astrologers of the past," without taking away from the good work that Ptolemy did, like his work on latitude and longitude and his world map.

If I turn to Manilius, Astronomica, sec. 290, I learn that someone with Spica rising might be a profit-making farmer, a miller, a baker, or that he might also be "a man who carves panelled ceilings in the sacred temples, creating a second heaven in the Thunderer's abode." [i.e., the god Jupiter.] Then a bunch of Manilius's delineations are tied into agriculture as it was practiced in his day (1st century BC) which involved plowing with oxen and donkeys. So I find this all really fascinating, but not a sound basis for giving a modern urbanite a decent chart-reading.

If I turn to the 12th century The Book of Secrets of Albertus Magnus,
"A Short Discourse on the Nature, and Qualities of the Seven Planets" sec. 9, I learn that if Mars is the lord of someone's nativity, he is liable to die from "violent death, or else to fall down from an high place." Well, if this were even close to the mark, actuarial scientists and the life insurance industry would be all over it. Then Albert's book is packed with just bizarre superstitions and magical charms, most of which are too icky to mention here.

And here's the rub. The more one waters down or explains away what these authors actually wrote, as not amenable to a plain or transparent reading, the less their work really stands on its own merits. We might better call traditional astrology today "Nouveau Hellenistic" or "Medieval Revival." And we might better focus upon the particular authors or techniques. whose work really does seem to be applicable today.

Then if we take as a critique of modern astrology a blanket statement like, "'He's a Cancer so he's sensitive and cherishes home life", we also have to unpack it a little. I think we have to distinguish between serious modern astrology and pop astrology. A serious modern astrologer [well except maybe Linda Goodman] doesn't just focus on sun sign astrology. She would look at the entire chart in multiple different ways to determine what is going on with an individual, just as a traditional astrologer would, although using different methods.

We need to avoid the fallacy of over-generalization, as well as a straw man debate technique, in which a spurious image of an enemy is created because it is easier to demolish than the real person's position.

And of course, everyone starts somewhere. Fledgling astrologers try their wings before they are ready to fly.

It is no more fair for a traditional astrologer to critique modern astrology on the basis of its lowest and most ridicuous common denominator than it would be for me to dismiss the whole of medieval astrology on the basis of Albertus Magnus. [As readers here know, traditional astrologies had plenty of their own contemporary critics, apart from anyone today.]

If I really wanted to spend a lot of time with a chart, I wouldn't know enough traditional astrology to look at terms, face, joy, and so on; but I might very well look at dwads, some harmonics, and possibly a few judiciously selected asteroids. This all takes time and, dare I hope, a more advanced level of knowledge than mere sun-sign astrology.

Kirk--sorry, but I didn't grasp why you took exception to my use of the words "of course" when I indicated that slavery in the Antebellum American South would affect marriage.

Mark--I think the low life expectancy of past historical periods should have had a huge impact on people's outlook on life, and the astrology that emerged in that context.

Mithra6, thanks for your explanation of Bonatti. I'll see if I can find his work, and report back. And thanks for thinking I'm not a jerk.

Hi waybread,

Agree with point A).

waybread wrote: I still have trouble with the quote by Ptolemy I gave above, however, because I don't think any of it is helpful or correct.

Actually since I'm still not sure you're "doing it right" so to speak, I am also not sure your opinion is applicable. Unless you mean to say that nothing bad can or should be said about a native, a position which I don't agree with. I don't advocate giving a cruel judgment either, but let's be honest; people as a general rule are messed up. It's part of why they would come to an astrologer (or any 'spiritual' adviser) in the first place. People want some help, and the pabulum that quite a few (note, not all) people pass off in modern astrological circles doesn't help. I'd rather they try a different current than forsake the whole enterprise.

As for Manilius et al., nobody needed PowerPoint presentations back then. Clearly there is required adaptation when making these sort of judgments, it doesn't make them 'goofball', we are the goofballs if we don't use our brains and think about what we are doing. And you basically constructed your examples into a straw-man argument, btw.

GR wrote:Hi waybread,

Agree with point A).

waybread wrote: I still have trouble with the quote by Ptolemy I gave above, however, because I don't think any of it is helpful or correct.

Actually since I'm still not sure you're "doing it right" so to speak, I am also not sure your opinion is applicable. Unless you mean to say that nothing bad can or should be said about a native, a position which I don't agree with. I don't advocate giving a cruel judgment either, but let's be honest; people as a general rule are messed up. It's part of why they would come to an astrologer (or any 'spiritual' adviser) in the first place. People want some help, and the pabulum that quite a few (note, not all) people pass off in modern astrological circles doesn't help. I'd rather they try a different current than forsake the whole enterprise.

As for Manilius et al., nobody needed PowerPoint presentations back then. Clearly there is required adaptation when making these sort of judgments, it doesn't make them 'goofball', we are the goofballs if we don't use our brains and think about what we are doing. And you basically constructed your examples into a straw-man argument, btw.

Gabe, for the sake of debate, let's suppose that I did not use the Ptolemy quote correctly. I think I did, having considered the positions of my moon and Mercury, but I could be mistaken. I think my point nevertheless stands, because one would have to be a thoroughly despicable human being for this delineation--as well as others in Tetrabiblos-- to be correct; and then most despicable human beings today are not temple robbers and the rest of it.

I never argued that "nothing bad can... be said about a native." I personally wouldn't use the word 'bad" but would substitute the idea of being truthful, as I see it. And sometimes people don't want that kind of "truth" if it doesn't flatter them. But if the essence of astrological counseling is to interpret a chart in a way that is honest but empowers people, then diplomacy will probably give them the message more effectively than if you just shut them off because they think you are merely being rude to them.

Sorry, your point about Manilius and Powerpoint escaped me. My point was, however, that the more one has to update or modify one's interpretation of traditional authors in order to make them applicable today [i.e., "use one's brain" to interpolate their words,] the less one can really claim to do "traditional astrology." For comparison, the neoclassical architecture is not the architecture of ancient Greece, but it is influenced by it.

I didn't find Bonatti's material on marriage on-line, but I did find snippets of some of his other work. His language in them is parsimonious and workmanlike: they seem more useful today than the writings of more excessive authors.

I don't think I used a straw man technique, Gabe. I focused on specific examples and did not use them to represent the whole of traditional astrology. But there are more where they come from. I don't use them to take pot-shots at traditional astrology, but rather to argue that problems with modern astrology do not ipso facto demonstrate traditional astrology as the rational alternative.

HOWARD B SAYER wrote:I imagine Bonatti didn't discuss same sex marriage?

Not marriage, but he did mention homosexuality. It's not a huge leap in logic.

One word about some of the older books: many were written as handbooks and not comprehensive guides. Ptolemy is like this and so is Abu Ali Khayyat. I haven't read Vettius Valens which is about 21 (the smaller ancient size) books, so I'd imagine he's more comprehensive. That's why Bonatti is useful because it's so large. Masha'Allah is useful though a little brief. We don't have an English translation of Abu Mashar's "Greater Introduction" yet which will be a big deal. That book is enormous.

So that's why you have you take some of the seemingly authoritative lists by Ptolemy as guides and not definitive. It's like looking at a Cliff's Notes.

Hi waybread,

As for Ptolemy, he would look at the planets that had authority over the degrees of the Moon and Mercury, by triplicity, sign, exaltation, term, and phase(think this its solar phase).

Agree that some people want nothing but flattery.

waybread wrote: Sorry, your point about Manilius and Powerpoint escaped me. My point was, however, that the more one has to update or modify one's interpretation of traditional authors in order to make them applicable today [i.e., "use one's brain" to interpolate their words,] the less one can really claim to do "traditional astrology." For comparison, the neoclassical architecture is not the architecture of ancient Greece, but it is influenced by it.

It's not updating or modifying an interpretation, it's about understanding what it is they are really saying about planetary interactions as the particular author understands them. I'd like to leave my ideas or myself out of that process as much as possible, though it is not 100% doable.

You'll have to buy Bonatti, as it has only recently been translated into English by Dr. Ben Dykes. He has broken it up into parts so it might be easier for you to get.

waybread wrote: I don't think I used a straw man technique, Gabe. I focused on specific examples and did not use them to represent the whole of traditional astrology. But there are more where they come from.

Which implies that they do represent traditional astrology.

waybread wrote: I don't use them to take pot-shots at traditional astrology, but rather to argue that problems with modern astrology do not ipso facto demonstrate traditional astrology as the rational alternative.

The "rational alternative" in this time is to not bother with astrology at all, and I believe it is clear none of us are listening.

People go to traditional astrology because it is, in the modern vernacular, 'event-based'; they want to know how things in their lives turn out. Going on about 'wounded healers' and the like doesn't do it for them(regardless of its relevance to the native), and these sorts of "fuffy woo-woo" astrologers and the misguided, IMO, desire for psychological or academic respectability have been the main drivers into other more 'traditional' forms of astrology.

GR wrote:Hi waybread,

.....
People go to traditional astrology because it is, in the modern vernacular, 'event-based'; they want to know how things in their lives turn out. Going on about 'wounded healers' and the like doesn't do it for them(regardless of its relevance to the native), and these sorts of "fuffy woo-woo" astrologers and the misguided, IMO, desire for psychological or academic respectability have been the main drivers into other more 'traditional' forms of astrology.

Yikes, GR. This wouldn't be a straw man attack on modern astrologers, now, would it be?

I can't speak for professional astrologers as to what types of questions their clients have, but as an amateur I have responded to roughly a kazillion queries from people on the Astrodienst and Astrologers' Community forums. I think you can divide the questions in the "please read my chart" boards into the categories of:

(1) personality analysis
(2) counseling on a particular issue (such as career, relationships)
(3) event timing
(4) sometimes questions that really belong on the horary board or that cannot be answered through astrological techniques.

Also, I think a "fluffy woo-woo" kind of person would be more attuned to a FW-W type of astrologer. And synastry should tell us this.

I hope, also, that traditional astrologers who seem to feel they validate their own techniques by condemning modern astrology are really taking the time to read the good modern astrologers.

When I first started studying astrology about 20 years ago, I was totally turned off by the popular works that demeaned my intelligence. Fortunately I found the early (and modern!) books by Robert Hand right away, and he probably convinced me more than anyone that astrology was practiced by rational people.

One of my favourite modern astrologers is Alice Portman http://aliceportman.com who is a past president and examiner for the Federation of Australian Astrologers, and who appears on the Astrodienst forum as Alice McDermott. She has done a lot of her own research, and some of her techniques are innovative, while others borrow from Vedic astrology.

Another favourite of mine is Dutch astrologer Karen Hamaker-Zondag, whose book The House Connection on "accidental house cusp rulers" is probably based on Firmicus Maternus.

David Cochrane is another really intelligent and interesting author, even if you disagree with him. (Astrology for the 21st Century)

I don't know who should get the credit for developing astrological software, traditional or modern, but clearly it has revolutionized astrology.

By "wounded healer" I presume you are talking about Chiron? I used to ignore it completely, until one day I broke my ankle while hiking in a provincial park. I didn't see any transits that would explain it until I realized that transiting Chiron conjuncted my natal Mercury (walking) in Aquarius (ankles) in the 5th house (recreation.)I don't discount it now.

I have to doubt the psychological and academic credentials of most astrologers, sadly.

Academic credibility for astrologers is worth a whole other thread. Today, a Ph. D. from an accredited research university is the ticket for admission --never mind success by the academy's rigid standards--and it is not a route many astrologers care to follow.

Howard, you will find Ptolemy discussing homosexuality in Tetrabiblos. If he's written the Cliff's Notes of astrology's human side, perhaps it was because he was busy on the math and astronomy side, as well.

Mithra6, thanks. I found Dykes's website. He didn't post the marriage material, but I did read his preview, which was Bonatti's take on the 9th house. Dykes seems to be doing excellent work with his translations.

Hi Gabe!

I think that another major driver behind the revival of, as you say, more 'traditional' forms of astrology has been the renewed availability to today's astrologers of the relevant texts.

Almost none of the 17th century English astrology texts was properly and fully reprinted in the 18th century, the 19th century, or even the 20th century, until Regulus produced their edition of Christian Astrology in 1985, and subsequently (1990s, mostly, I believe) Deb stepped up to the plate with her Ascella imprint and reprinted and in many cases retyped a host of other classic works, while over in Canada John Ballantrae offered a wide range of other 17th to early 20th century English titles in facsimile-based reprint form.

The only exception to the above that springs to mind is Lilly's concise 'Anima Astrologiae, or a Guide for Astrologers', which was reprinted around 1886 and again in 1918, with later reprints of the 1886 reprint taking it through the 20th century.

Some (but not many) works from the early-to-mid-19th century revival continued to be printed occasionally in the 20th century, but the roll-call here was essentially restricted to Simmonite, Wilson, the Cooper edition of the anonymous translation of Placidus's 'Primum Mobile', and the Ashmand translation of the Tetrabiblos by Ptolemy.

Alongside the previously referred to recent reprints of Renaissance period English-language astrological works, the recent movement to translate ancient Greek and medieval Latin astrological works into English only really started to get into first gear from the mid-1970s.

There were a few exceptions by way of notable translations from earlier in the 20th century, with Al-Biruni's 'Book of Instruction in the Elements of the Art of Astrology' (direct from the Arabic, in 1934) and Ibn Ezra's 'The Beginning of Wisdom' (from the Hebrew, in 1939) notably both receiving the full edition and translation treatment already, but I think the major market for these types of editions had been scholars rather than working astrologers, and only smallish numbers were printed.

Then in the mid-70s, translations of Firmicus Maternus and Dorotheus appeared in quick succession, broadening the picture of Hellenistic astrology available in the English language from its previous limited focus on Ptolemy and Manilius for a generation of astrologers, while at the same time the first parts of Morin's 'Astrologia Gallica' started to appear in English.

But it was not before 1993 that Project Hindsight started to produce its first translations of Vettius Valens, Paulus, Hephaistio, Bonatti and others, and the whole translation movement really stepped up into a much higher gear. Just the last 17 years alone have seen a huge expansion in the portion of the ancient and medieval astrological corpus that is available in English thanks chiefly to Project Hindsight and ARHAT and their translators, as well as James Holden and of course most recently Ben Dykes.

I think it is very possible that if more of these works had been available in the first 75 to 92 years of the 20th century, they would have commanded many astrologers' interests just as much as they do ours today. That they are being made available to today's generation of astrologers irrespective of their ability or otherwise in the classical languages can only be a positive development, allowing astrologers to make up their own minds about which style of astrology they prefer from a much broader and historically richer base of available techniques and approaches to interpretation. Some may prefer the modern even after having trialled the ways of various older eras, but at least they now have the opportunity to make an informed choice.

We live in exciting times for the rediscovery of earlier astrological texts, and there is still a long way to go. The more support our dedicated translators receive, the more enduring the movement will be.

Hi waybread,

waybread wrote: Yikes, GR. This wouldn't be a straw man attack on modern astrologers, now, would it be?

waybread wrote: Only the fluffy woo-woo kind.
Also, I think a "fluffy woo-woo" kind of person would be more attuned to a FW-W type of astrologer. And synastry should tell us this.

And the trail of glitter.

waybread wrote: Another favourite of mine is Dutch astrologer Karen Hamaker-Zondag, whose book The House Connection on "accidental house cusp rulers" is probably based on Firmicus Maternus.

Can't be sure since I don't have the book, but judging from the Amazon reviews it seems the standard taking of the domicile lord of a topic as the significator of the topic.

waybread wrote: By "wounded healer" I presume you are talking about Chiron? I used to ignore it completely, until one day I broke my ankle while hiking in a provincial park. I didn't see any transits that would explain it until I realized that transiting Chiron conjuncted my natal Mercury (walking) in Aquarius (ankles) in the 5th house (recreation.)I don't discount it now.

I'd probably look at the profections of Mars and the lord of the Lot of Fortune to start. How close was this conjunction btw?