Traditional vs Classical vs renaissance vs Hellenistic

Clair Y

Member
Hi,

I have been thinking lately about the differences there may be between these types of astrology:

Traditional vs Classical vs renaissance vs Hellenistic

Would it be correct to say they are all traditional astrology? I know that the first three aren't necessarily Hellenistic (or at least I would assume), but do we stick them all under the traditional umbrella when say, for instance, we want to collate something like the traditional house interpretations? I am also considering body parts and am wondering whether those for Aries (head and body) would be in the first house, while those for Taurus (throat and shoulders) are interpretations of the second and so on.

I have found that Hellenistic astrology house interpretations seem to differ from the renaissance, which appear to be much gloomier and more fatalistic. Hellenistic seem to be more like the modern ones.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Hi,
I have been thinking lately about the differences there may be between these types of astrology:
Traditional vs Classical vs renaissance vs Hellenistic
Would it be correct to say they are all traditional astrology? I know that the first three aren't necessarily Hellenistic (or at least I would assume), but do we stick them all under the traditional umbrella when say, for instance, we want to collate something like the traditional house interpretations? I am also considering body parts and am wondering whether those for Aries (head and body) would be in the first house, while those for Taurus (throat and shoulders) are interpretations of the second and so on.
I have found that




Hellenistic astrology house interpretations



seem to differ from the renaissance, which appear to be much gloomier and more fatalistic. Hellenistic seem to be more like the modern ones.
Thank you.
The following is a quote from our Traditional Board rules :smile:

"....Typically, traditional astrology is defined as
using techniques developed prior to 1700
by astrologers from the Hellenistic, Persian, Hebrew, and Renaissance eras....

Members who wish to explore
a combination of
traditional and modern ideas
should feel free to start a new thread
in an appropriate forum for further discussion..."



The following illustration

provided for any beginners

is of HELLENISTIC ASTROLOGY HOUSE TOPICS :smile:





astrological-houses-02.jpg
 

Clair Y

Member
The following is a quote from our Traditional Board rules :smile:

"....Typically, traditional astrology is defined as
using techniques developed prior to 1700
by astrologers from the Hellenistic, Persian, Hebrew, and Renaissance eras....

Members who wish to explore
a combination of
traditional and modern ideas
should feel free to start a new thread
in an appropriate forum for further discussion..."



The following illustration

provided for any beginners

is of HELLENISTIC ASTROLOGY HOUSE TOPICS :smile:





astrological-houses-02.jpg

Thank you very much for your answer JUPITERASC, this wheel is great. What do you think about the physiological interpretations/ body parts for medical astrology? Should these stay with the zodiac signs or can we also put them under traditional houses?

I really appreciate your help on this forum over the years!
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
What do you think about the physiological interpretations/ body parts


for medical astrology?


Should these stay with the zodiac signs
or can we also put them under traditional houses?
I really appreciate your help on this forum over the years!
for a specifically medical astrology discussion
a separate thread on our medical astrology board is appropriate :smile:
at
https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=14


.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
*



INTRO TO HELLENISTIC ASTROLOGY - Alan White
a lecture by the late astrologer Alan White
followed by an audio interview with Alan
about his life and work from 2010

Alan began studying astrology seriously in the 1980s
and then in the mid-1990s he discovered Project Hindsight
and developed a deep interest in ancient astrology.

Alan White created an introductory lecture on Hellenistic astrology
using a flip chart that he presented at a number of astrological meetings
in the 2000s, and one of these presentations in 2001
led to Demetra George teaching a course on the subject at Kepler College. :smile:

https://theastrologypodcast.com/2020/04/20/alan-white-intro-to-hellenistic-astrology/


.
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
From my perspective all would come under the heading of “traditional”; certainly Hellenistic is the original; then PARTS of this were taken and developed/modified during the Arabic transitional era, this modified system then entered medieval Europe, then over time being restated, modified or “refined” up through the end of the 17th century.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
I love listening to the astrology podcast.
LEGENDARY Alan White
created an introductory lecture on Hellenistic astrology

using a flip chart that he presented at a number of astrological meetings
in the 2000s, and one of these presentations in 2001

led to Demetra George teaching a course on the subject at Kepler College. :)

https://theastrologypodcast.com/2020/04/20/alan-white-intro-to-hellenistic-astrology/
will also be great to know more about alan white.
Thanks again.

From my perspective all would come under the heading of “traditional”; certainly Hellenistic is the original;
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
It was project hindsight which first alerted me to the old time astrologers & their methods over 30 years ago; also what converted me to whole sign, when I actually tried it out; and to manilius decans, monomoiria (instead of terms), the Duodenaries & ultimately the dodeks-the great secret of ancient astrology.
 

Rhys

Well-known member
Back in the seventies and earlier "traditional astrology" meant Lilly, because Christian Astrology was pretty much all we had back then, aside from Morin and Ptolemy. If you say "traditional astrology" to an astrologer in their sixties or older, that's what they will first think of.

However after Project Hindsight we started to have access translations of Dorotheus, Ptomely, Valens, Antiochus, Paulus Alexandrinus, Rhetorius and more. And then Ben Dykes translated the ENTIRE Book of Astronomy by Bonatti, wow!

So I'd say that these days, traditional astrology, strictly speaking, includes Ancient Astrology (Babylonian, Hellenistic), medieval astrology (Bonatti, Sahl, Masha Allah, Ibn Ezra etc) and Renaissance astrology (Lilly, Gadbury, Morin etc).

However, because the term "traditional astrology" covers such a large span of time, what most people do is narrow things down by specifying the specific period that they specialize in, e.g, "I'm a Hellenistic astrologer", or "I practice Renaissance astrology", or "I do medieval astrology". Most of my friends who specialize in Renaissance astrology also include Bonatti, so these days, rather than say "I'm a traditional astrologer", they'll say, "I specialize in renaissance and medieval astrology.", or something along those lines. They do this in order to avoid confusion.

It should be noted that the techniques of Hellenistic astrology are NOT the same as medieval/renaissance. For example, the methods of calculating planetary strength are quite different. While the entire tradition from Chaldean times to the Renaissance is in some ways cohesive, there are doctrines in medieval and renaissance astrology that are at variance with Hellenistic astrology, aspect doctrine is an example, also the ways the houses are configured to one another, and a number of other things.

Astrologers who try to mix medieval/renaissance and Hellenistic techniques are well advised to keep track of these differences. Robert Schmidt (may he rest in peace) advised keeping them separate.
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
this is one point-keeping them seperate-that I disagree with Mr Schmidt-but you have to know what exactly you are trying to do!
of course, though, I am a mongrel (eclectic) so it figures that I would disagree with him on this point! Mixing the various techniques works very well for me;and the various doctrines-well, I have my own doctrines so in practice those others have no effect on my delineations.
but beginners should gradually progress-keep it simple until you really know the subject;only later with experience can you consider what to use and what to discard, based on study + experience.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
this is one point-keeping them seperate-that I disagree with Mr Schmidt-but you have to know what exactly you are trying to do!
of course, though, I am a mongrel (eclectic) so it figures that I would disagree with him on this point! Mixing the various techniques works very well for me;and the various doctrines-well, I have my own doctrines so in practice those others have no effect on my delineations.
but beginners should gradually progress-keep it simple until you really know the subject;only later with experience can you consider what to use and what to discard, based on study + experience.
This makes perfect sense, because astrologers throughout history have been eclectic, taking the best they could find from the past, deleting what didn't work for them, and adding insights from their peers within their own period in history. We can trace "genealogies" of astrologers in this way, as well as dead ends. We've got a chain linking Al-Biruni to Guido Bonatti to William Lilly to present day horary astrologers. There is an overlay of religion as well, because of shifts from ancient polytheisms to Christianity, and Islam. With ancient stoicism, astrologers adopted a lot of fatalism in the craft; but Christianity stressed "free will" (moral choice.)
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Back in the seventies and earlier "traditional astrology" meant Lilly, because Christian Astrology was pretty much all we had back then, aside from Morin and Ptolemy. If you say "traditional astrology" to an astrologer in their sixties or older, that's what they will first think of.

However after Project Hindsight we started to have access translations of Dorotheus, Ptomely, Valens, Antiochus, Paulus Alexandrinus, Rhetorius and more. And then Ben Dykes translated the ENTIRE Book of Astronomy by Bonatti, wow!

Benjamin Dykes is a leading traditional astrologer and translator
He earned his medieval astrology qualification from Robert Zoller

https://bendykes.com/

So I'd say that these days, traditional astrology, strictly speaking, includes Ancient Astrology (Babylonian, Hellenistic), medieval astrology (Bonatti, Sahl, Masha Allah, Ibn Ezra etc) and Renaissance astrology (Lilly, Gadbury, Morin etc).

However, because the term "traditional astrology" covers such a large span of time, what most people do is narrow things down by specifying the specific period that they specialize in, e.g, "I'm a Hellenistic astrologer", or "I practice Renaissance astrology", or "I do medieval astrology". Most of my friends who specialize in Renaissance astrology also include Bonatti, so these days, rather than say "I'm a traditional astrologer", they'll say, "I specialize in renaissance and medieval astrology.", or something along those lines. They do this in order to avoid confusion.

It should be noted that the techniques of Hellenistic astrology are NOT the same as medieval/renaissance. For example, the methods of calculating planetary strength are quite different. While the entire tradition from Chaldean times to the Renaissance is in some ways cohesive, there are doctrines in medieval and renaissance astrology that are at variance with Hellenistic astrology, aspect doctrine is an example, also the ways the houses are configured to one another, and a number of other things.

Astrologers who try to mix medieval/renaissance and Hellenistic techniques are well advised to keep track of these differences. Robert Schmidt (may he rest in peace) advised keeping them separate.
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
Of the mentioned ancient authors, Valens and Paulus Alexandrianus influenced me the most; never cared much for Rhetorius the Egyptian-I feel his work shows the Beginning of the modification of Hellenistic astrology toward the Arabic transitional era leading to medieval astrology, which I consider only a shadow of what astrology was in the Greco-Roman period prior to the end of the golden age of Alexandria…
 

waybread

Well-known member
But you gotta love Mr Pt!

He used to get disrespected by trads as not being a "real" astrologer who read horoscopes for clients. That's like criticizing Janet Yellen for not being a bank branch manager. Ptolemy was a Renaissance Man prior to the Renaissance. His purview was encyclopedic, and his purpose was to systematize existing knowledge. Ptolemy's Geography was a compendium of latitudes and longitudes of all places in the known world ca. 150 CE. The Almagest was a star catalogue. His Handy Tables were an early ephemeris. Tetrabibiblos was probably written, in part, to refute Cicero's devastating criticisms of astrology in On Divination. Tetrabiblos was a compendium of a lot of the known astrological information of Ptolemy's day, recast in the idiom of Aristotelian proto-science. Sure, Ptolemy plagiarized some material, was flat-on-wrong on occasion, and didn't think much of houses, so he seldom discussed them. But it was his work, more than anybody else's, that bridged Hellenistic, Islamic, and medieval European astrology.

I also find Valens Anthologies historically interesting, because he points to an earlier stratum of Egyptian astrology (which Valens doesn't think much of) from the legendary Petosirus and Nechepso.

In focusing so much on "literary" sources today's trads tend to forget that astrology was a much bigger and messier endeavor in ancient times, with a lively presence in street fairs, Hermeticism, Mithraism, and even Egyptian magic.

By mid-20th century the Loeb Classical Library series published English translations of Ptolemy and Manilius, Frederick Cramer published Astrology in Roman Law and Politics, and Otto Neugebauer was analyzing the astronomy of ancient horoscopes.
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
Manilius also made a big impression on me-I’ll bet that I am the only person who still actively uses the old Manilius Decans on a continuing basis in delineation! Manilius was Roman but he and his father represented the Antioch school of astrology rather than the more influential Alexandrian school-perhaps this is why his Decans were soon forgotten.

My experiments over the past 5 years with lots for futures contracts-esp SP 500 futures-using exclusively the old Manilius Decans as criteria for + or - short term price changes, have yielded remarkably positive results. This is a highly practical and objective field of prediction and the old time Declan’s have worked like a charm in these experiments*.

*the lot I have used in my experiments to determine the indicated manilius decan for the SP 500 futures contract is Venus + Jupiter - Sun
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Of the mentioned ancient authors, Valens and Paulus Alexandrianus influenced me the most; never cared much for Rhetorius the Egyptian-I feel his work shows the Beginning of the modification of Hellenistic astrology toward the Arabic transitional era leading to medieval astrology, which I consider only a shadow of what astrology was in the Greco-Roman period prior to the end of the golden age of Alexandria…
article at: https://sevenstarsastrology.com/detriment/
was mentioned on a podcast where its arguments were misrepresented :)
and

support for the arguments were left out
and specious “...additional evidence...”
for the reconstruction of a Hellenistic doctrine of detriment
was put forth.
the issues with the podcast arguments and presentation

are addressed in some depth in a separate article, at: The Anachronism of Hellenistic Detriment

detriment was absent from early Hellenistic astrology.
the end of that tradition and the early Perso-Arabic tradition prompted its development.
It was a later addition to the symbolic system of sign classifications and types of planetary debility.
Additionally, it was a non-superfluous addition.

It significantly changes the interpretation of the position.

.

.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Manilius also made a big impression on me-I’ll bet that I am the only person who still actively uses the old Manilius Decans on a continuing basis in delineation! Manilius was Roman but he and his father represented the Antioch school of astrology rather than the more influential Alexandrian school-perhaps this is why his Decans were soon forgotten.
In early Hellenistic astrology
a place (house or lot) or planet
could have its symbolism adversely impacted by a ruler (of any type) in a bad
or adversarial configuration, including one in opposition to it.
This followed directly from the nature of rulership and configuration without any additional concept
so any reconstructed concept solely for the opposition of a domicile ruler would be superfluous.
Unlike the practice of examining the configuration of a ruler
detriment introduces a new set of symbolic concepts.


Detriment is not superfluous because it does not pertain to
just the configuration of a ruler affecting the symbolism of the thing ruled.
Rather it posits that the domicile ruler itself has its symbolism corrupted
or weakened by being positioned in the sign opposite its domicile.
In other words, it was a new form of planetary debility, where there was not one before.
Additionally, it is typically
coupled with a notion of contrariness between the ruler’s of opposing domiciles
which was another new and additional concept not found in early Hellenistic astrology :)


My experiments over the past 5 years with lots for futures contracts-esp SP 500 futures-using exclusively the old Manilius Decans as criteria for + or - short term price changes, have yielded remarkably positive results. This is a highly practical and objective field of prediction and the old time Declan’s have worked like a charm in these experiments*.
*the lot I have used in my experiments to determine the indicated manilius decan for the SP 500 futures contract is Venus + Jupiter - Sun
Detriment introduced a new planetary debility
and new sense of planetary contrariness
that conflict with the symbolism of early Hellenistic astrology.
Jupiter and Mercury were actually viewed as “...in harmony...” by Valens
– the opposite of problematically contrary.
Mercury and Jupiter were clearly considered fortunate in combination,
including in each other’s houses, by Dorotheus, Valens, and Manetho (see link in sentence).

Detriment reversed the fortunate symbolism of this combination. :)
It posited a fundamental conflict between the natures of Jupiter and Mercury.
They would be debilitated
and
have adverse indications in each other’s signs.

in early Hellenistic astrology, stress was actually placed on whether a planet
had some share of rulership in the place where it was:)
For Ptolemy, the worst condition was a planet that had no form of rulership where it was.
Whereas Mars was in triplicity in Taurus
and
Venus in triplicity in Scorpio in early Hellenistic astrology
– places of fortification
– these became viewed as
extremely “...detrimental...” positions to the planet with the advent of detriment.
Therefore, detriment not only added to
but actually reversed
the symbolism in significant ways in many cases



.
 
Top