Skyscript Astrology Forum

This follows the comments in the Hellenistic Astrology: 2 thread, where I said that I sometimes feel uncomfortable when reading modern analyses of Hellenistic technique. I admitted that I struggle to put my finger on what concerns me, but that I don?t experience the discomfort when I read the actual texts or primary sources. I decided to try to clarify my thoughts and put them into a separate thread, so that they don?t detract from Astrojin?s ongoing contribution of notes on this theme. This post will make it obvious that my criticism is not directed at Astrojin, but at the general approach that is being taken towards what is increasingly becoming known as ?modern Hellenistic astrology?.

One area of concern for me is the feeling that some quarters (deliberately or not) are generating a sense of exclusivity towards this subject, by which they are assuming a monopoly over it. I?ll return to why I think that is the case and why I believe it is counter-productive later, but one negative result of this (IMO) is that Hellenistic astrology is being presented as a study that should be perceived as complete within itself and separate from what went before and what came after. I find it hard to accept that classical astrology is such a law unto itself as some of the modern commentators would have us believe. Rather, I see it as a stage of development within the continuing tradition of astrology, where many innovations were made, but also where there were many attempts ? even at that time - to recapture existing traditions that were already in danger of being lost. Hellenistic astrology stood on older foundations and became itself an important part of the foundation of the western tradition. Yet there too-often seems to be a willingness to dismiss what came before or what came after as impure and corrupted, and to separate ?Hellenistic Astrology? off from the mainstream tradition.

One example of how I see this sense of separation being perpetuated, is by the insistence on using Greek words to represent astrological terminology. Let me quote a small passage from a recent post to demonstrate:

Determination of the Oikodespotes

The term oikodespotes [domicile master] is used in domicile master/ruler of signs e.g. Mars is oikodespotes of Aries and Venus is oikodespotes of Taurus.

We say that Mars (or Venus) is the domicile master or oikodespotes of Aries (or Taurus) because it claims that sign as his dwelling place.

Following the same argument, we also have oikodespotes (domicile master) of the whole chart itself. To determine this, we must determine the predominator first in a nativity.

The domicile ruler of the predominator's sign is the domicile master (oikodespotes) of the chart (the planet that claims the whole chart as his dwelling place).

I have to wonder whether we are making something different for the sake of making it different. The word ?ruler?, (as the word is translated by Neugebauer and Van Hoesen, and numerous traditional astrological authorities), seems sufficient and adequate to me, and omits the need to spend paragraphs explaining what most of us already know. Pick up any Arabic, Medieval or Renaissance text, and you will find it full of attempts to keep ancient ideas alive by integrating the Greek texts into their works, and by reference and acknowledgement to the ancient writers. They do not use the Greek words, but translate them into the universally accepted astrological terminology of their day. And because of that, passages are instantly recognisable as essentially the same and passed forward from one age to another ? this is something that is becoming obscured by the modern inclination to use Greek terminology.

It is true that the Roman world reverted to Greek for its academic texts, but they did so to facilitate the spread of ideas, rather than to impede them. Many of the ?Greek texts? were not written by Greeks or produced in Greece (for example they may have come from Syria or Turkey), so I don?t believe it is the case that only Greek words can do full justice to these ?intrinsically Greek ideas?. I accept that sometimes this may be the case, but the examples are much less than we are accepting. Be honest, if you hear or see the word ?zoidion? does it really instantly convey the sense to your mind of ?living image?? Or do you just think 'that's the Greek word for sign'? and finish off the job that the translator was supposed to do for you? I think that the overuse of Greek words gives most students a need to slow down and think a lot harder before they realise how something perfectly familiar has been made uncomfortably alien and overly complicated. I would much prefer a discussion of Greek words and what they mean, followed by a translation that uses a common terminology which everyone understands. Isn?t that the real point? That we bring about understanding of the ancient techniques?

The second area of discomfort for me was touched upon by Gabe when she wrote:

There is a criticism, and I'm not even sure it's completely relevant, but these are checklist-type notes, and people seem to be forgetting that there is a process of judgment involved. Astrology isn't like a blood test; it doesn't state that we have an excess of protein or not enough iron as matter of fact. We go through the delineation processes, and then we judge, as rational creatures, hopefully inspired by divinity and not fear or ignorance.

There was a reason why Ptolemy wrote a whole book offering a defence and philosophical rationale about astrology, before beginning to set out the procedure for judgement. I wonder whether such ?introductions? and ?keywords? that we see floating around in modern Hellenistic discussions encourage people to ?learn the words? without enough emphasis on understanding the divinational approach that the words are supposed to convey. This makes it look ? on the surface ? like a very dry, mathematical study; simply a matter of totting up the numbers to discover an uncompromising answer. This is where I related to the sense of suffocation that Kirk expressed in his controversial ?scream?, where he wrote:

It?s a bad dream. It?s like suffocating and pleading, unheard, for fresh air. ?This plus that equals that?. And just around the corner the ever-recurrent ?Woe unto the child who has too many planets in cadent houses?. Formulae for existence. Keep an eye on the malefics.

Rules. Schemes of plus and minus. You could, you can?t. Implied: you will, you won?t. A tight and cutting belt from birth ? a gift from the Greeks. Or perhaps you?re the lucky one: Everything smiles. The gods smile, the planets smile, and you smile ? as you are blessed to receive that which you desire. It?s in the formulae. It?s in the birth stamp. It?s all right here on the page, awaiting decipherment.

Astrology is becoming smaller. Easier, for those who like definitions for existence. But it?s wrong. Something?s wrong. We are feet inhabiting brains; we are soles that feel no earth.

Andrew saw this as ?insightful?, others considered it hugely disrespectful. I just recognised that there was some emotion he was feeling that related to something I wished to say. To repeat, this is not something I recognise in the source texts, but like it or not, this is the way that some of the Hellenistic discussions are coming across. It seems so wrong because although the Greeks were able to reason and argue freely, no ancient culture disassociated astrology from ?the Divine?. Soul was everywhere. Ptolemy talks about the benefits of astrology to calm the fears of the soul and to give it strength and balance, and to face with renewed confidence whatever adversities may come our way. Plato argued that we cannot get to the ?Truth? of something by cutting it up and looking at the pieces, and maybe that is what is happening here. Whilst ?close analysis? is the stage we are at, I understand this may be an inevitable period of discomfort. But still, astrology was always intended to heal the soul, and not to destroy it with a confrontation of its own unworthiness. So far I have failed to see an astrological judgement created using Hellenistic techniques that has demonstrated real sensitivity towards healing, soothing or encouraging the native?s sense of purpose or worth. I did read one, written by an expert, which basically boiled down to the subject being told that it would have been better had she been born with a different chart. So I feel a certain unease when I see some techniques treated as objective rather than subjective realities, and also when the details of those techniques appear to assume a greater importance than the purpose they are put to.


Finally, I am uncomfortable about the fact that there appears to be a ?reluctance to question? in this area, and usually an adverse reaction against those who do (one reason why I hesitated to write this post, but ultimately decided to go ahead with it). We seem to have collectively created a pact not to criticise our own, allowing the danger of a monopolised approach to this subject which is completely alien to what the Greek culture represented. The ancient Greeks are remembered for their free debate. They reasoned, argued, criticised, analysed, rejected, refined, recreated, innovated, and made their cultural developments and advances as a result of this process. Where is the reasoned argument and active debate that ought to be going on in the ?rediscovery? of ancient astrological technique? It is virtually non-existent. Astrologers seem to have settled themselves around in a circle to take up, copy out and issue forth - unquestioned - the opinion of mainly one person.

I don?t want to throw the baby out with the bath water, and Robert Schmidt is doing an extremely valuable job, but it is not healthy to have one person?s opinion so thoroughly dominating a study, no matter how well informed that person is. There is barely a text in the world that could be read by two different people, who would then come to the same conclusions on everything. Let?s not imagine that there is one route only to understanding Hellenistic astrology, or that there was ever any part of it that was free of its own internal debate. Hellenistic astrologers disagreed amongst each other, so we should certainly be prepared to have some healthy disagreement gathering around the subject as we become more familiar with it. It is the way that ideas get tested so that robust theories stand and weak ones fall away. But I don?t see this happening. Instead there is too much inclination to settle important debates by offering the phrase ?Robert Schmidt says ?.?. Actually, we are usually considering what Valens or maybe Antiochus says, but students seem less inclined to give references to what actually was said and where; as we become increasingly prepared to settle for a nebulous ?Schmidt says? without even being certain where or when (or if!) he said it.

After so many words, I feel as if I should bring this post to some sort of conclusion, but I don?t know how to do that. I have a lot of interest in ancient and classical astrology and wish I didn?t have these reservations. But they exist ? along with some others that I still cannot quite put my finger on. So there is no neat ending to this post, it is just an opportunity to raise a few concerns in the hope that they filter through towards a positive reaction. There are already good signs that constructive discussions and disagreements can take place here, so I just hope that proves to be the case.

Deb

We seem to have collectively created a pact not to criticise our own, allowing the danger of a monopolised approach to this subject which is completely alien to what the Greek culture represented ... Astrologers seem to have settled themselves around in a circle to take up, copy out and issue forth - unquestioned - the opinion of mainly one person.

Not all astrologers. Some of us are still inclined to question authority, and to challenge it if necessary.

The attitude that you identify betrays a kind of cult mentality that seems unfortunately prevalent among specialists in any field. To offer a critique of a particular approach to astrology is not necessarily to dismiss the efforts of those who attempt to explain it to others. This is indeed an important distinction. To argue otherwise is to suggest that a critique of any belief system is synonymous with a critique of those who accept its beliefs. To offer (for example) a philosophical critique of some of the tenets of Christianity is not to reject the achievements of a Mother Teresa or an Archbishop Romero. Some traditionalists believe that the authority of a tradition is unassailable; where authority is sacrosanct, doubt is anathema. This is an unfortunate tendency.

Hellenistic astrology stood on older foundations and became itself an important part of the foundation of the western tradition. Yet there too-often seems to be a willingness to dismiss what came before or what came after as impure and corrupted, and to separate ?Hellenistic Astrology? off from the mainstream tradition.

Marsilio Ficino wrote in De vita coelitus comparanda [On Obtaining Life from the Heavens], ?Now the lord of the geniture, Julius Firmicus affirms, is either that planet who has the greater number of dignities at the time or else, on the basis of a sounder opinion, the one whose house the Moon will enter just after leaving the sign which she occupies when the man is born.? This is an ancient aphorism that was incorporated into the practice of more than one Renaissance astrologer. Did the observation of this aphorism corrupt the practice of Renaissance astrology? I don't think so.

A "pure" tradition is a chimera: as soon as a person starts to practice a tradition, that person undergoes subtle changes and so does the tradition itself.

I sometimes feel uncomfortable when reading modern analyses of Hellenistic technique.

Me too, because it seems that we are reading the contemporary astrologer's opinion and interpretations, not the translations - which also has the translator's cultural bias, but less than the former. I think the scarcity of hellenistic material - namely, original texts translated to english, - has a share in this problem. They could be as avaiable as the medieval and the renaissance texts, nut they are not!

What am I talking about? I can order a copy of Bonatti, Abu Mashar, and get Lilly free on the web any time I want, but not the greek track! Has anyone quoted the word "monopoly":???:

One example of how I see this sense of separation being perpetuated, is by the insistence on using Greek words to represent astrological terminology.

I partially disagree. Sometimes its fitting to use words like Oikodespotes, because they represent a different function, but I think its unnecessary to use the term "oikodespotes" to every sign ruler!:-T

There is a criticism, and I'm not even sure it's completely relevant, but these are checklist-type notes, and people seem to be forgetting that there is a process of judgment involved.

Checklists seems to say "astrology is easy - just memorize the algoritms". I bet people who criticizes with that argument will have a lot of confusion when putting this guidelines in practice! After all, they are just guidelines! Astrology is a science - not in the modern definition of "official government's knowledge" or "experimental knowledge", but it must have a lot of practice and theory - so the guidelines' significance.

Astrologers seem to have settled themselves around in a circle to take up, copy out and issue forth - unquestioned - the opinion of mainly one person.

When you want to learn something, what's the procedure? First, listen to people more experienced than you, isnt it? The next stage is to confirm what you've learned with your practice. I am sorry, but being a ignorant in hellenistic astrology I must turn my head to people like Astrojin, Steven, Robert Schimidt, Joseph Crane, etc. Only time will tell if they are right or wrong.

Hello,

Deb:

One area of concern for me is the feeling that some quarters (deliberately or not) are generating a sense of exclusivity towards this subject, by which they are assuming a monopoly over it.

Monopoly? I agree wholeheartedly. One of the reasons that I started the "Modern Hellenistic Astrology" thread is for others to judge how useful or useless is this "Moderh Hellenistic Astorlogy". Some of the concepts explain much of the medieval and modern concepts (at least we know why certain things are said the way they are described in some of the ancient texts) while others actually restrict them.

Another thing I don't like about this whole thing is - not only we have to rely on one official source for the translation of the Hellenistic tract, we have to also accept their take or interpretation of those texts. It is like saying "we are the only one selling the translation so please get them from us before we decide not to publish them anymore (because we are currently making a better translation for the 20th time) and you must also buy our interpretive materials because without them you will not be able to read those translated texts properly. While we are at it, why not susbscribe to us, we'll be sending you our latest translations and annotations that's supposed to start 5 years ago". I know, I'm exagerating but ...

Deb:

Where is the reasoned argument and active debate that ought to be going on in the ?rediscovery? of ancient astrological technique? It is virtually non-existent. Astrologers seem to have settled themselves around in a circle to take up, copy out and issue forth - unquestioned - the opinion of mainly one person.

Couldn't say it better myself!

I remember that one of the "Modern Hellenistic" astrologers claim that Horary Astrology (as it was practiced by the Arabs, Lilly and Medieval Astrologers), were not part of "pure" Hellenistic astrology. Well, he can bring all the Hellenistic astrologers back to life and swear that they never practiced horary astrology, I am not going to give up my study and practice of horary on that account (simply because in my own experience, I find it a very useful predictive tool).

And talking about purity of knowledge, we don't really have all that those pure hellenistic tract (what we have is what somebdoy said what Nechepso and Petosiris said what Hermes said...). This means that even the Greek original texts that we have are secondary or tertiary references to the hellenistic form of astrology practiced. So, Schmidt et. al. can't realy say that they explicating a pure hellenistic astrology in the first place!

Another favorite approach of the "modern hellenistic" astrologers is to point to some of the "flawed" medieval concepts that are at variant with "hellenistic" astrology due to "errors of translation" that has crept in the arabic materials. Well, these errors in translation has also made some of the Arabian astrologers with unsurpassed skills that the modern hellenistic astrologers can only envy.

All said and done, I started the installment of the Hellenistic materials to give opportunity to everybody (esp. those who are tight on budget) to evaluate what the modern hellenistic astrologers are currently doing (to the best I can). Some of the concepts are quite interesting (like the concept of predominator where I personally find very useful because it answers some of the questions unanswered compared to when I use only main luminary) and some concepts that I am happy to discard, at least for the moment (like the concpet of Kurios, ...). This is also why I am reluctant to give an example of delineation using only hellenistic model because that is not what I currently practice. My practice (as it is with other traditonal astrologers) is eclectic.

In my opinion, to be the best astrologer goes beyond having the earliest body of astrological knowledge or latest form of astrological knowledge, or the latest computer software or ...though those things certainly help!

There is a great deal to comment on in this post and in fact I tend to agree with the main thrust of the argument, but not for the same reasons. In other words I see the same problem, but believe it occurs for different reasons. I hope that becomes clear down below.

I?m going to limit my responses to three areas: language, world view, and disrespect. I?ll take the latter first.

It?s a bad dream. It?s like suffocating and pleading, unheard, for fresh air. ?This plus that equals that?. And just around the corner the ever-recurrent ?Woe unto the child who has too many planets in cadent houses?. Formulae for existence. Keep an eye on the malefics.

This sample and the rest of the prose was so purple that I immediately concluded that it had to be intended to be sarcastic, and I read it twice. This may be pure prejudice on my part, but the author?s normal style is so unlike that. If it were sincere, his point was lost in the style. I still think that it was ?off topic? since astrojin was simply explaining Greek astrology as he saw it, and that is a legitimate topic in the Traditional forum. I still consider it to be inappropriate to ridicule or even discount the post on that thread. It only discourages people from engaging the topic, which is the purpose of the Forum. As it was astrojin's points became secondary as a result of the post.

Rob Hand, no Hellenistic astrologer, although he uses it, tries to understand and explain astrology by understanding the language as it was understood at the time it was written, or at least do the best he can with that. This is important because it demonstrates that our ancestors did not think the way we do even if a translator can come up with a reasonably accurate English ?synonym? for a foreign word. The word we use may not have meant the same thing to the original author because his world view was different.

We can even see this in English in Christian Astrology. One rather obvious example: Lilly habitually uses the word ?vulgar? to describe the common people or what is similar to what we would call (in the US anyway) the ?average person.? When contemporary Americans and probably contemporary Englishmen use the word ?vulgar,? they mean ?debased.? Yet we mentally make the transition when reading CA. But CA produced another phenomenon: a demand that it be ?translated,? and that demand comes largely from people born to the English language.

Why ?translate?? Because even as relatively a short time ago as 350 years the language changed and the reader is uncomfortable with his mother tongue as it was spoken three centuries ago. If we?re uncomfortable now, then we need to realize that English was only standardized in the 18th century and we all owe a debt to Dr. Johnson. If the language were not so standardized and it continued to change at the same rate it was changing before Johnson, contemporary Americans would probably not be able to read and understand their own Constitution. But back to Lilly: did he mean ?average person? when he used the word ?vulgar?? Was there such a concept in mid 17th century London? If we "translate" CA and we substitute the phrase ?common people,? would we think Lilly is being condescending?

So what happens when we go back not merely a few centuries, but one thousand or two thousand years? They have an entirely different world view not to mention an entirely different language. Can contemporary Greeks read ancient Greek the way we can read Lilly? I don?t know, but I doubt it. I know I can?t read Chaucer in the original. Then it becomes, as Deb points out, the translator?s job to get the ideas across the way the author meant them, and that, I imagine is not an easy job considering the translator is dealing with both an ancient world view and an ancient language, but it is their job nonetheless.

How to do it in translation? Well, using Greek words is one way, but then it becomes the reader?s responsibility to make the mental adjustment, and if the reader doesn?t have the requisite background, he can?t make the adjustment, and I suspect most of us can?t do it to the extent that it might be necessary. This is a problem, and it is not solved by simply sticking in Greek words because we all, at least I do, take the easy way out. ?Zodian? that means ?sign.? And off I go imposing my 21st century idea of "sign" throughout the work. I?m not sure that substitution ?living image? for ?zodian? solves the problem either. The reader would most likely mentally substitute ?sign? anyway without giving pausing to reflect on the concept, but maybe not.

I don?t know the solution to this problem other than requiring every astrologer to spend several years studying the Greeks. However, some mental adjustment is required in order to understand and not simply make the mental change in words. That mental adjustment is huge.

Deb wrote:

Rather, I see it as a stage of development within the continuing tradition of astrology, where many innovations were made, but also where there were many attempts ? even at that time - to recapture existing traditions that were already in danger of being lost. Hellenistic astrology stood on older foundations and became itself an important part of the foundation of the western tradition.

This is the fundamental difference between ?Us? and ?them.? They revered the past, we revere ourselves. The idea is that everything we think and do now is better than what came before, because we?re doing it. Isn?t that what we mean by ?developed?? ?Progress? is our watchword and ?progress? is defined as history in a straight line pointing up or at least on a diagonal generally pointing up. And the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel tells us what happens when we take this idea too far. We believe we are more "advanced" because of technology (our very own Tower of Babel). Well, our technology is undeniably superior to technology in the past, so we must be superior, too. In the realm of ideas outside technology, this is not necessarily true. Nazi Germany considered itself "progressive" and it resulted in WWII and worse.

What ever happened to cycles? Well cycles leave open the possibility that we?re not ?progressing? in that straight line and how can that be? We're talking about us.

The skeptics think we're all nuts for precisely this reason. Astrology is ?old? it is a ?superstition.? We have ?science? now. ?Science? is the new religion, but that is another story as well. We?re more ?advanced.? And it only naturally follows that what will come will be better still because it will be based on what we do. There is a Greek word for this, too: hubris.

I suspect this is why traditional astrology is becoming fractured, and we are guilty of doing the same things to each other that we accuse the moderns of doing to us. They say we?re ?old? and have not ?progressed.? Times are different now and our astrology is ?obsolete.? The classicists say this of the medieval. The foremost medieval astrologer in the world says medieval astrology was the high-water mark for the subject, and now the Hellenists, tacitly perhaps, make a similar claim, i.e. the medieval astrologers misunderstood the Greeks. Whichever group of ancient or classical astrologers it is, the claim is the same as the moderns and for the same reasons: we?re doing it and it is different than yours, so you must be wrong. This is "progress," too ,even if it goes towards the past instead of the future.

I don?t know that there is much that can be done about it. People are what they are and we all have our prejudices and ego issues. The late great chess player Bobby Fischer was famously quoted that what he liked best about playing chess was the point when his opponent?s ego cracked. Why would it crack? It?s only a game ? right? No, it cracked because his opponents watched their ideas clearly, irrefutably demonstrated to be wrong. That?s not an easy thing to take - especially in public with the knowledge that every chess player in the world would see it in print and know what happened.

This is what is so infuriating when a modern astrologer comes on the Forum and tells us what we believe. They not only refuse us simple courtesy, but completely disrespect us by telling us what we believe, getting it wrong, and then refusing to accept what it is that we do believe. It is maddening. It's worse than dealing with a skeptic because an astrologer should know better. Our egos don't crack, though. Instead we retaliate.

So we defend our ideas in astrology and elsewhere, by disrespecting the ideas of others. This isn?t chess. There is no clear cut winner or loser. But we sometimes act superior whether it is Hellenistic astrology, Renaissance astrology or psychological astrology. We keep the demons at bay one way or another.

There is more to this problem than can be solved by a translator, but at the very least we can try to understand our ancestors and in so doing genuinely improve ourselves. Regardless of his difficulties with his native tongue, Lilly was one fine astrologer. That's where our energies need to be placed - the subject matter.

The ancient Greeks are remembered for their free debate. They reasoned, argued, criticised, analysed, rejected, refined, recreated, innovated, and made their cultural developments and advances as a result of this process.

They have that reputation, but would Socrates agree?

Tom

I'm probably in the minority in that I never practiced modern astrology. I made a few failed attempts when I was younger, but none of it resonated with me. I assumed (like many people I suspect), that astrology was pretty much always the same other than the use of the outer planets.

I "discovered" traditional astrology by accident through reading Agrippa on a whim. So I guess in my case I'm finding all this through a different point of view. I of course started with Lilly and it all snowballed from there.

I tend to take the whole classical VS. medieval VS. 17th century debate logically. I'd love to see the classical texts more widely available. Period. Project Hindsight seems to be a mess, and a lot of bad will is out there due to failed promises. I don't doubt R. Schmidt is sincere, but you can't continue to delay something indefinitely. Eventually people will lose interest. I wish I could read Greek and I'd do it myself, but unfortunately I can only read Latin.

The excessive use of Greek terms is annoying - especially when already established terms already exist. If Zoidion generally means sign, then used the word "sign" and maybe make a note in a forward if there's a different sense to the word. This reminds me of what Blavatsky (the Theosophist) used to do in using Hindu terms when all she was saying was "soul", "spirit", and so on. It's very pretentious. I even tend to not use the word "infortune" since that really isn't a proper word today and "misfortune" or "malefic" can be used instead. "Almuten" or "hyleg" are fine since they are words that describe unique concepts.

As far as which is better, the way I see it, is that bottom line, there just isn't a large enough body of classical texts to presume that it is superior. I know Robert Zoller was referenced earlier in saying that he believes medieval is the high-water mark of astrology, but opinion aside, that man has done a huge number of charts using those techniques.

Chris Warnock said once that one of the advantages of horary is the sheer number of charts done in the 20th and 21st centuries by several people (he alone has done a huge number - let alone Lee Lehman has done a lot), so we now have something like a good system down. Traditional natal is more problematic. Robert Zoller recommends doing 200 practice charts until one can say they've "mastered" the art. I'd imagine after 200 charts, you'd get a system down. I have no idea how many Robert Zoller has done, but regardless, when you compare natal and horary, traditional natal doesn't have as much data out there. I can't think of many traditional natal astrologers, but I can name quite a few horary astrologers (including someone named Deb).

I would like to see more Arabic texts. I think this will answer lots of questions. First, their original attempt was to continue classical techniques. I think this will give us a better idea of what people actually did. It will also answer how and why people like Bonatti and Lilly did what they did.

In the end, especially with natal, we just don't have a large enough body of modern examples of traditional techniques. To use one or two major sources and then run a few charts isn't good enough. Proponents of using outer planets have thousands of charts out there to support their argument. Do we have the same in primary directions or predicting death? Can we really be this haughty in our use of these techniques?

Keep in mind also that most of the traditional texts assumed you had certain prior knowledge, a teacher, or both. The books were largely meant to be a supplement to learning - not a source in themselves. In addition, as Tom said, times were different, so it's not like 13th century readers of Bonatti had to figure out exactly what he meant by "labor", "moveable possession", or "servant", as I see argued here and in other places incessantly. We are not only figuring out what they meant, but we also have to figure out what they didn't write about in the books themselves.

Deb wrote: One area of concern for me is the feeling that some quarters (deliberately or not) are generating a sense of exclusivity towards this subject, by which they are assuming a monopoly over it. .... I?ll return to why I think that is the case and why I believe it is counter-productive later, but one negative result of this (IMO) is that Hellenistic astrology is being presented as a study that should be perceived as complete within itself and separate from what went before and what came after.

To be more precise the "System of Hermes" is complete within itself, but Hellenistic astrology varied widely through the Greco-Roman era through the opinions of different authors. It has been Schmidt's contention that there was a mockery of the Athenian philosophical school by an individual (or a small group) close to Hermes Trismegistus who re-conceptualized the core principles through a very sophisticated epistemological metaphor. This is why it is such a major find, because the proof is not explicit in the texts themselves, but is encoded within the texts in a way similar to the "Da Vinci Code". As for any "monopoly", Schmidt has no monopoly over Hellenistic astrology, but his thinking and arguments in "The System of Hermes" are very much uniquely his own. Anyone is welcome to join in.

Hellenistic astrology stood on older foundations and became itself an important part of the foundation of the western tradition.

Schmidt has argued that much of what exists now in "natal" astrology first began during that period. The decans were re-assigned a different function from what they were in Egypt, and many other changes in order to mock the Athenians.

One example of how I see this sense of separation being perpetuated, is by the insistence on using Greek words to represent astrological terminology.

This was just the old phase of the Project. When Bob didn't understand what exact sense a word meant, he left it transliterated. But there have been clarifications since the original translation series. For example the word "aphesis" is now called "releasing", and "chrematistikos" is now translated as "busy" or "telling", etc...

The word ?ruler?, (as the word is translated by Neugebauer and Van Hoesen, and numerous traditional astrological authorities), seems sufficient and adequate to me, and omits the need to spend paragraphs explaining what most of us already know. Pick up any Arabic, Medieval or Renaissance text, and you will find it full of attempts to keep ancient ideas alive by integrating the Greek texts into their works, and by reference and acknowledgement to the ancient writers. They do not use the Greek words, but translate them into the universally accepted astrological terminology of their day. And because of that, passages are instantly recognisable as essentially the same and passed forward from one age to another ? this is something that is becoming obscured by the modern inclination to use Greek terminology.

In some cases, there simply aren't words in English that express the intent of the Greek. The original translation series was always meant to be preliminary as was stated in the mid 90's, he has decided on English words in most cases to replace the transliterated ones in the upcoming series.

The second area of discomfort for me was touched upon by Gabe when she wrote:

There is a criticism, and I'm not even sure it's completely relevant, but these are checklist-type notes, and people seem to be forgetting that there is a process of judgment involved. Astrology isn't like a blood test; it doesn't state that we have an excess of protein or not enough iron as matter of fact. We go through the delineation processes, and then we judge, as rational creatures, hopefully inspired by divinity and not fear or ignorance.

Kirk expressed in his controversial ?scream?, where he wrote:

It?s a bad dream. It?s like suffocating and pleading, unheard, for fresh air. ?This plus that equals that?. And just around the corner the ever-recurrent ?Woe unto the child who has too many planets in cadent houses?. Formulae for existence. Keep an eye on the malefics.

Rules. Schemes of plus and minus. You could, you can?t. Implied: you will, you won?t. A tight and cutting belt from birth ? a gift from the Greeks. Or perhaps you?re the lucky one: Everything smiles. The gods smile, the planets smile, and you smile ? as you are blessed to receive that which you desire. It?s in the formulae. It?s in the birth stamp. It?s all right here on the page, awaiting decipherment.

Astrology is becoming smaller. Easier, for those who like definitions for existence. But it?s wrong. Something?s wrong. We are feet inhabiting brains; we are soles that feel no earth.

Many of the Hellenistic authors were Stoics and filtered their ideas through that perception, but some were not, and this seems to be the case with the Hermetic school (Hermes Trismegistus), because they mocked each of the different philosophical schools in a different astrological technique. For instance the method of circumambulations was called "peripetasis" which in Greek means "walking in circles" and it was well known at the time that the Aristotelians were called the "peripitetics" because they could not own property in Athens so Aristotle would pace outside the gate while lecturing to his students. The process of accusation and acquittal is Aristotelian, but the encountering of rays in the technique of circumambulation uses Stoic logic.

As for stoicism, the lot of fortune heavily weighs against fatalism and is it's enemy. If everything held to a perfect ideal (heimarmene - the fate that a seed has to become a tree or a blade of grass) of "as above, so below", then every seed would become a perfect tree or blade of grass, but this isn't the case because "tuche" (Greek word for luck, but also the lot of fortune as in "kleros tes tuches") is aligned with the dyad (Schmidt says this) and creates indeterminacy, so one can know what ideal you should have come to and what end, but depending upon fortune, you may or may not get your due which is not as amenable to determination, but is nevertheless assigned a domicile lord in order to try to divert what was not intended towards the ideal intended by Nous (Schmidt gets this from Plato).

In any case, don't bore your clients with the details of your calculations, as an astrologer you have counseling responsibilities to your client.

So far I have failed to see an astrological judgement created using Hellenistic techniques that has demonstrated real sensitivity towards healing, soothing or encouraging the native?s sense of purpose or worth.

This is where the astrologer comes in and hopefully leaves behind the techniques.

Finally, I am uncomfortable about the fact that there appears to be a ?reluctance to question? in this area, and usually an adverse reaction against those who do (one reason why I hesitated to write this post, but ultimately decided to go ahead with it). ..... Astrologers seem to have settled themselves around in a circle to take up, copy out and issue forth - unquestioned - the opinion of mainly one person.

Schmidt gets questioned and doubted constantly, especially on Chris Brennan's HA forum and by many as to why it has taken him so long to produce the subsequent series. If there is a reluctance to question, it may be because his opinions are the most informed and people know what a genius he is, but that would be unfortunate because questions should be raised.

1. From Schmidt's lectures.

astrojin wrote: Another thing I don't like about this whole thing is - not only we have to rely on one official source for the translation of the Hellenistic tract, we have to also accept their take or interpretation of those texts.

Says who? Chris Brennan is into Hellenistic astrology, but doesn't go in lockstep with what Schmidt says on the System of Hermes.

It is like saying "we are the only one selling the translation so please get them from us before we decide not to publish them anymore (because we are currently making a better translation for the 20th time) and you must also buy our interpretive materials because without them you will not be able to read those translated texts properly. While we are at it, why not susbscribe to us, we'll be sending you our latest translations and annotations that's supposed to start 5 years ago". I know, I'm exagerating but ...

I agree that their business practices are lousy, but they only put out 1 translation series (not 20). He refused to put out more written translations after that because he started seeing a pattern in 1998 and needed more time to investigate what he has since called "The System of Hermes". (This BTW is probably why you think he has a monopoly on the subject) Schmidt didn't want to continue putting out variations on his thinking and potentially later contradict himself so he invited those who were willing to come to Cumberland to discuss philosophy, mathematics, physics, etc on what he calls his back "stoa". Unfortunately, there are just very few people who know classical Greek, mathematics and philosophy well enough to keep up with him so unfortunately until there are others out there in the field of astrology who can do it... Now we know those who did do it were enemies of astrology, academics in the same way as Schmidt. The few others around who could have joined in like Rob Hand and Dorian Greenbaum, where have they been and why?

Another favorite approach of the "modern hellenistic" astrologers is to point to some of the "flawed" medieval concepts that are at variant with "hellenistic" astrology due to "errors of translation" that has crept in the arabic materials. Well, these errors in translation has also made some of the Arabian astrologers with unsurpassed skills that the modern hellenistic astrologers can only envy.

Some medieval techniques are just new inventions just as was the case with natal astrology when Hermes Trismegistus invented a mockery of the Athenian school. This divisiveness is not good for the astrological community. The best reading that I have gotten (by far) was from Steven Forrest. There is much more out there than even what is described by Hellenistic astrological techniques. But I wrote Delphic Oracle (version 5 coming soon) because no one else wanted to take the time to do it. I begged Astrolabe to do it back in the mid 90's to no avail (Rob Hand programmed in DOS, Gary Christen said there was no market) and Matrix tried but failed in 1998 with "Windows on the Tradition". Eventually, I just had to do it on my own, which it seems is what Schmidt had to do.

Hi Curtis,

You wrote:

Now we know those who did do it were enemies of astrology, [not?] academics in the same way as Schmidt. The few others around who could have joined in like Rob Hand and Dorian Greenbaum, where have they been and why?
...
Schmidt gets questioned and doubted constantly, especially on Chris Brennan's HA forum and by many as to why it has taken him so long to produce the subsequent series. If there is a reluctance to question, it may be because his opinions are the most informed and people know what a genius he is, but that would be unfortunate because questions should be raised.
...
Eventually, I just had to do it on my own, which it seems is what Schmidt had to do.

I just want to say that I was not personally thinking of the business practices when I wrote about the sense of monopoly and failure to engage in debate. I was thinking of the responses made to astrologers who did raise questions against some of the hastily drawn conclusions at the onset of the project. It was as if the questions showed traitorous hostility rather than genuine interest in the subject matter. I am sure the result is that many good astrologers have decided to give the whole thing a very wide berth. It seems that PH is now willing to admit that it made mistakes in the past, but the implication is still now, as it was then, that the rest of us are not qualified to have informed opinions and should be content to observe. Your reference to Robert Schmidt being a genius and his opinions being ?the most informed? doesn?t help this. Who is to say that he is more informed than other translators and scholars? If this were true, there is no way that the rest of us, being necessarily less informed, would know the truth of it.

I have always considered the way that PH undermines other academics working in this area, or dismisses them as ?enemies of astrology? to be negative and counter-productive. In the past some academic attitudes were highly condescending and although this continues occasionally it no longer seems to be the norm. I have had the good fortune to meet some highly respected scholars of ancient astrology, and to share ideas with them, and I have been greatly impressed by their depth of knowledge and generosity of spirit when asked a question that falls within their area of expertise. It is true that they don?t declare any belief in astrology, nor do they feel the need to support its principles, but they don?t necessarily argue against it either, and certainly don?t act as if they were enemies to the rediscovery of its principles. The ones that have impressed me have an undoubted interest in their subject and are committed to the highest standards of research and scholarship. We can learn a lot from them. Thankfully, recent events, like that at the Warburg organised by Charles Burnett and Dorian Greenbaum, which brought renowned scholars and astrological experts together to share their ideas, are providing great benefits to both avenues of approach. By comparison, PH seems to be operating within its own little bubble, which I cannot believe is a good thing.

Your last comment suggests that Schmidt has had to do it all on his own, but I remember when Project Hindsight was launched in 1993, and I remember the support and promotion that was given to it by every editor of the astrological magazines that were around at the time (myself included). I don?t recall any other astrological project receiving as much good will and unquestioning support from the astrological community. We wanted to help support a project that would see these texts given good translations; and even modern astrologers who had only limited interest in the translations bought into the project for the sake of encouraging worthwhile astrological research. But from your post it now seems that PH has less interest in selling these sought-after translations of primary sources, than it has in selling a whole philosophy package. This is not what the subscribers wanted, or needed, or were led to expect.

It is good to know that the attitude towards the words is improving, but if the whole project gets undermined by distractions (such as the desire to uncode a perceived mystery of ?De Vinci Code? proportions) then these improvements are unlikely to see the light of day. Astrologers were sold the idea that there would be a commitment to translate these works and to keep them in publication - primarily so that astrological students would have an easy access to them. It doesn't take a genius to work out that the goodwill of the astrological community will start to fall away when a project that was supposed to be facilitating the widespread availability of ancient texts doesn't even allow those that have already been translated to remain in print. I'm sure no one wants to see this project fail, but there must be a lot of astrologers wishing that it would stop being so over-reaching in its aims, and just stick to the original plan.

Deb

Deb wrote: I just want to say that I was not personally thinking of the business practices when I wrote about the sense of monopoly and failure to engage in debate. I was thinking of the responses made to astrologers who did raise questions against some of the hastily drawn conclusions at the onset of the project. It was as if the questions showed traitorous hostility rather than genuine interest in the subject matter. I am sure the result is that many good astrologers have decided to give the whole thing a very wide berth. It seems that PH is now willing to admit that it made mistakes in the past, but the implication is still now, as it was then, that the rest of us are not qualified to have informed opinions and should be content to observe. Your reference to Robert Schmidt being a genius and his opinions being ?the most informed? doesn?t help this. Who is to say that he is more informed than other translators and scholars? If this were true, there is no way that the rest of us, being necessarily less informed, would know the truth of it.

I don't recall seeing you at the PHASE conclaves in the early - mid 90's. I was there, and at the Princeton University "Back to the Future" conference in Aug 1994 before they had their first conclave when Schmidt, Hand and Zoller were announcing it. There were lots of questions and lots of uncertainty about what things meant. The concept of sect, spear bearing, being in one's own chariot, etc... The initial problem was that what we found was so strange that it challenged astrologers preconceived notions as to what should have been. Rob Hand said this himself many times at the conclaves. The turning point came when Hand left PH. Now I'm not privy to everything that happened between Hand, Schmidt & Zoller but I have heard a lot of things over the years and what is unmistakable is that political agendas abound around the outcome of the Project. I don't know who is right, but I too know many academics (Dale Nelson, statistician from MIT, Ben Dykes, PhD) and have talked with many of them, but Schmidt stands out as being remarkable. It is not my main point to point out Schmidt's genius and say that everything else is worthless; that is not true. As I've said many times there are many different ways to explain astrology and many different metaphors and the same is the case with medieval astrology, much of which was based upon observation. But the "System of Hermes" was not based upon observation; it is a philosophical construction hidden within the epistemology of their terms. Steven Forrest and I are friends and you know that there are vast differences in the way he reads a chart compared to traditional techniques. When it comes to the meaning of life and spiritual issues, they defy rigid technique, so much depends upon what your goal is as to which way one looks at a chart. The strength of the medieval material is that it is rich in observation and detail and there is lots of it.

Now PH did in fact squander the good will given to it in the beginning by the astrological community when Schmidt kept promising to release materials that never were published and I was opposed to these business practices. I hope that Schmidt will finally publish at this UAC in Denver.

I have always considered the way that PH undermines other academics working in this area, or dismisses them as ?enemies of astrology? to be negative and counter-productive.

I have never heard Schmidt or Ellen Black say that other academics working in the field are enemies of astrology, except for those such as Neugebauer, Pingree and Robbins who were hostile to the subject. Schmidt currently has other academics working with him as well.

Thankfully, recent events, like that at the Warburg organised by Charles Burnett and Dorian Greenbaum, which brought renowned scholars and astrological experts together to share their ideas, are providing great benefits to both avenues of approach. By comparison, PH seems to be operating within its own little bubble, which I cannot believe is a good thing.

Rob Hand told me about this at the Blast conference in Sedona in 2007. I'd like to see what the Warburg Institute has published. Can you point out where I can find them?

Your last comment suggests that Schmidt has had to do it all on his own, but I remember when Project Hindsight was launched in 1993, and I remember the support and promotion that was given to it by every editor of the astrological magazines that were around at the time (myself included). I don?t recall any other astrological project receiving as much good will and unquestioning support from the astrological community.

That is true. Rob Hand was the one who made it possible, but when Hand left PH, Schmidt was on his own.

We wanted to help support a project that would see these texts given good translations; and even modern astrologers who had only limited interest in the translations bought into the project for the sake of encouraging worthwhile astrological research. But from your post it now seems that PH has less interest in selling these sought-after translations of primary sources, than it has in selling a whole philosophy package. This is not what the subscribers wanted, or needed, or were led to expect.

When Hand left PH, Schmidt made a decision to go in a new direction because he felt that he had something more valuable to contribute than just translations of these texts without commentary. He was seeing a pattern develop and wanted to investigate it further, but lack of financial backing made it difficult and initially he was not able to publish for quite a while.

It is good to know that the attitude towards the words is improving, but if the whole project gets undermined by distractions (such as the desire to uncode a perceived mystery of ?De Vinci Code? proportions) then these improvements are unlikely to see the light of day.

Schmidt has explained his thinking to me on the "System of Hermes" and some of it is in Delphic Oracle version 4 and it has seen the light of day. There is more to come and if something happens to Schmidt where he can't publish, then you can be certain that I will preserve it.

Astrologers were sold the idea that there would be a commitment to translate these works and to keep them in publication - primarily so that astrological students would have an easy access to them. It doesn't take a genius to work out that the goodwill of the astrological community will start to fall away when a project that was supposed to be facilitating the widespread availability of ancient texts doesn't even allow those that have already been translated to remain in print. I'm sure no one wants to see this project fail, but there must be a lot of astrologers wishing that it would stop being so over-reaching in its aims, and just stick to the original plan.

There are re-prints available:

http://www.projecthindsight.com/products/reprints.html

I know they were out of print for a number of years, but financial problems and a desire to correct mistakes in the original series held it up, but they are there now.

From Zoidsoft:

Says who? Chris Brennan is into Hellenistic astrology, but doesn't go in lockstep with what Schmidt says on the System of Hermes.

Yes, of course but only one other person who happened to stay with Schmidt. Why only one? Because PH is not active in doing what they are supposed to do i.e. astrological community service.

I agree that their business practices are lousy, but they only put out 1 translation series (not 20).

Yeah, that was an exageration. It's just that their business parctices are really lousy!

Schmidt didn't want to continue putting out variations on his thinking and potentially later contradict himself so he invited those who were willing to come to Cumberland to discuss philosophy,

Who knows what he is thinking when he is not publishing! You don't have to wait for people to willingly come to you in person. This is the Internet age (not Hellenistic).

Some medieval techniques are just new inventions just as was the case with natal astrology when Hermes Trismegistus invented a mockery of the Athenian school.

Then those techniques claimed to be mistranslated and misunderstood by the medievals could just be innovations and probably better innovations.

I begged Astrolabe to do it back in the mid 90's to no avail (Rob Hand programmed in DOS, Gary Christen said there was no market)

Of course there is no market when PH is not doing the marketing.

astrojin wrote: Yes, of course but only one other person who happened to stay with Schmidt. Why only one? Because PH is not active in doing what they are supposed to do i.e. astrological community service.

Chris Brennan, Meredith Garstin, Alan White, Dale Nelson, Ben Dykes, PhD, Bill Johnston, (shall I go on?)... What exactly is "astrological community service"?

What they were supposed to do is continue translating the rest of the series Valens 8, 9, etc, but when Hand left the project they didn't have the manpower to keep up with this anymore and Schmidt stumbled upon something unexpected that changed his plans.

Who knows what he is thinking when he is not publishing! You don't have to wait for people to willingly come to you in person. This is the Internet age (not Hellenistic).

I think you know all too well what happens to information distributed on the internet. Next thing you know, what was yours just got pirated... I prefer to communicate in a way that cites sources properly and makes it clear who the original author was. But there are many on the internet who do not have intellectual integrity and try to steal the works of others and promote them as their own. I know because there have been some attempting to pirate my software (Cyclonite, Vepergen, DCeption, etc). Like it or not, astrology is big business and the politics of money have a lot to do with what gets released and what isn't and it is no different in the field of astrology. I don't like this, but I have to live with it.

Then those techniques claimed to be mistranslated and misunderstood by the medievals could just be innovations and probably better innovations.

Valens did the same thing and tweaked the zodiacal releasing technique away from what was originally intended by the circular periods of the planets, but we get great results. What is better depends upon what the goal of the chart reading is. I would argue that if it is detail and experience, then medieval has a lot more of that, but if you're trying to center yourself on an objective view of your life from an external point of view, then the System of Hermes is better for that (Hellenistic astrology is too broad and includes Ptolemy which has many innovations that were Aristotelian picked up by medieval authors).

I wish that Robert Hand, Dorian Greenbaum and Joseph Crane and the Warburg Institute had done as much publishing in the area of the Greek texts as Schmidt has, but I haven't found very many works by them. If I've somehow missed these, then please someone point out where their translation series is.

I hope that PH will have published by UAC and this discussion of secret cults and other such nonsense will end. I have already have published my work and am continuing to improve it.