Densilverkulen wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2025 4:02 am First: what IS the tradition. Manilius, who seems to ignore the planets, maybe because they weren't 'kosmos' (perfect) enough? Firmicus can be radically different from Rhetorius, if we may believe the translations and sources. Even within translators, sometimes 'the tradition' becomes blurred. Take Spearbearers in the thesis of miss Denningmann. Was there any conscensus at all on spearbearers in ' the tratition'?

Densilverkulen: Welcome to the forum! As suggested in responses to the South Node Effect thread, I've created a new topic specifically to discuss what is ‘tradition.’ This topic deserves its own discussion, especially since "tradition" has been a hot topic lately in several other areas.

To begin, I'll share my perspective on your question. For readers less familiar with some of the specific points mentioned in the previous responses, I will also provide some additional context. I hope it will provide a good starting point for further discussion.

The concept of ‘the tradition’ in astrology is problematic because it implies continuity and uniformity when, in reality, ancient astrological texts often diverge significantly. Manilius, writing in the 1st century CE, presents a highly geometric and mathematical approach to astrology, omitting planetary rulerships as they were later formalized. Most scholars feel that his perspective aligns more with Stoic philosophy, prioritizing cosmic order (kosmos) and divine harmony, which may explain his exclusion of certain planetary considerations. In contrast, later astrologers such as Firmicus Maternus (4th century CE) and Rhetorius (6th–7th century CE) reflect different stages of the Hellenistic tradition’s evolution, likely influenced by textual transmission, local adaptations, and even personal doctrinal preferences. Additionally, the variations among translations and translators complicate the study of tradition, as interpretive choices can obscure or highlight doctrinal differences, leading to an inconsistent understanding of key astrological concepts.

However, while tradition does not require complete consensus among practitioners, it must be continuously transmitted and practiced to remain a living tradition. A defining characteristic of any tradition—whether religious, cultural, or intellectual—is that it is actively passed down through generations. If a concept, technique, or belief is not consciously preserved and used, it ceases to be part of the living tradition. In the case of astrology, the concept of doryphory (spear-bearers) was largely unknown to practicing astrologers before the textual revival of the late 20th century. While it appears in ancient texts like Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos, its disappearance from astrological discourse for centuries suggests that it was not an integral or widely transmitted part of the astrological tradition. A tradition that does not recognize or engage with an idea for such a long time cannot be said to have meaningfully “preserved” it. Instead, its modern reintroduction is better understood as a revival, not a continuation.

The notion of doryphory itself varies in definition across different authors in ancient astrology. I'm relying on memory here so correct me if I'm wrong but In Susanne Denningmann’s work on Antiochus of Athens and the Hellenistic textual tradition, the question arises whether a standardized definition of spearbearers ever existed. Some sources emphasize the protective role of planets flanking or preceding a luminary, while others focus on specific relationships between benefic and malefic planets. The lack of a clear consensus suggests that, like other astrological techniques—such as hairesis (sect)—its application was flexible and sometimes contradictory. This further underscores the evolving nature of astrological traditions, as doctrines were adapted and reinterpreted over time.

However, reviving a forgotten concept from historical texts is not the same as inheriting and practicing it as part of an ongoing tradition. The mere fact that something was once written down does not mean it was actively shaping the tradition throughout history. Consider the case of ancient medical theories like the four humors theory. While medieval medicine heavily relied on it, modern doctors do not. If a group of contemporary practitioners revived it today, it would not mean that mainstream medicine has “always included” the theory—it would simply mean that someone resurrected an old idea. Similarly, if no astrologers before the textual revival in the 90’s were engaging with doryphories, then it is difficult to argue that the concept was part of the continuously transmitted tradition rather than a forgotten fragment of historical astrology.

The modern revival of ancient astrological techniques raises an important question: If we define tradition as anything that was ever part of astrology, then nearly every idea in ancient astrological texts—no matter how obscure or abandoned—would qualify. This would render the term ‘tradition’ so broad as to be meaningless. However, if we define tradition as what has been actively transmitted and practiced over time, then the loss and later rediscovery of doryphories suggests that the concept was not truly a continuous part of the tradition.

Ultimately, ‘the tradition’ in astrology appears to be more of an evolving dialogue than a fixed doctrine, with each author contributing to a broader discourse that was continually adapted and reinterpreted over time. It has been stated that ‘tradition’ is not monolithic, but it overlooks the necessity of continuous transmission. If an astrological concept disappears from active practice for centuries, it ceases to be part of the living tradition—regardless of whether it is later rediscovered. Doryphories, largely forgotten before the late 20th century, were not an active part of astrology's intellectual lineage. Their modern reintroduction is better understood as a revival or reinterpretation rather than a continuation of an unbroken tradition. A tradition that is merely documented historically but not practiced or transmitted is more akin to an archaeological artifact than a living system of knowledge. Therefore, while historical texts certainly inform tradition, they do not automatically define it. Without ongoing practice and transmission, a concept is revived rather than sustained as a continuous tradition or enduring astrological technique.

Looking forward to other's comments and perspectives.