Ancient Astrologers didn't always agree

You might want to look at Ben Dykes' Traditional Astrology for Today. It'll give you a good overview of some of the things that are the same and some that are different to modern astrology, as well as a bit of the philosophy.

Bonus points if you have a kindle subscription, because you can read it for free.

There's some good stuff in Lee's book, but it was written a long time ago, and we've got some better scholarship now.

The other one I don't know about.

sibylline said:

That's what interesting to me because I do know several astrologers who use traditional methods solely but they use outer planets and a few minor aspects (mainly the inconjunct). And even though they don't go by the label of traditional astrologer, if I were to give them a label that's what it would be. If they were to register here and start posting would they be booed and/or posts moved? I really, really think calling them modern astrologers because they use outer planets as adjuncts is a misnomer, at best.

Click to expand...

The inconjunct isn't considered an aspect proper, but make no mistake, both it and what is today known as the semi-sextile were well know since aspect theory started. It's called aversion, disjunction, and there are several, detailed and very chart-interpretive methods for delineating them, dating as far back as Paul of Alexandria.

I too know traditional astrologers who will look at the outer planets, but only if they are in angles or otherwise prominent in a chart, and never as sign rulers.

As for the description of what the traditional forum encompasses, it was pretty much cribbed from the description at skyscript. I should know, I wrote it and then waybread edited it. The point isn't to discourage discussion, but rather to give a place where traditional techniques were able to be explored without having to sort through three pages of extraneous debate about why we need to consider Pluto in the technique. Keep in mind, the traditional board was created at a time when there was considerable tension on the forum between modern and traditional astrologers.

That your only objection to Tetrabiblos was the aspect part is interesting. I got hung up on the racism.

Oddity is right, try the Dyke's book. And if you feel you have a handle on the ideas behind the concepts (for the best understanding of traditional astrology, the place to start would be with the Aristotelian Cosmology) then Introductions to Traditional Astrology would be amazing. For both the modern and traditional astrologer. Because people always want to understand "why." Anyone who is not given the "why" becomes a little soldier, marching to orders and never able to put the parts together. Good astrologers can follow mechanics. Great astrologers get the "why."

Oddity said:

You might want to look at Ben Dykes' Traditional Astrology for Today. It'll give you a good overview of some of the things that are the same and some that are different to modern astrology, as well as a bit of the philosophy.

Bonus points if you have a kindle subscription, because you can read it for free.

There's some good stuff in Lee's book, but it was written a long time ago, and we've got some better scholarship now.

The other one I don't know about.

Click to expand...

tsmall said:

Oddity is right, try the Dyke's book. And if you feel you have a handle on the ideas behind the concepts (for the best understanding of traditional astrology, the place to start would be with the Aristotelian Cosmology) then Introductions to Traditional Astrology would be amazing. For both the modern and traditional astrologer. Because people always want to understand "why." Anyone who is not given the "why" becomes a little soldier, marching to orders and never able to put the parts together. Good astrologers can follow mechanics. Great astrologers get the "why."

Click to expand...

I was leaning more towards Lee's books. She really knows her stuff and seems like an all-around good person.

I've heard of Dykes...modern astrology hater? *coughs* So I passed by his books. I will look into them though. I don't have Kindle Unlimited and I favor physical books but if I can accumulate a long enough list of to-read ebooks offered for free I'll subscribe.

tsmall said:

The inconjunct isn't considered an aspect proper, but make no mistake, both it and what is today known as the semi-sextile were well know since aspect theory started. It's called aversion, disjunction, and there are several, detailed and very chart-interpretive methods for delineating them, dating as far back as Paul of Alexandria.

Click to expand...

Yes, I've seen it in several older texts, but in case I hadn't, it was mentioned in Tetrabiblos. Weird that it wouldn't be considered part of the traditional technique, even if not recognized as a major aspect.

tsmall said:

That your only objection to Tetrabiblos was the aspect part is interesting. I got hung up on the racism.

Click to expand...

There was that...

Honestly, I didn't read more than the first few paragraphs of that chapter in depth because I thought, "Nope, Ptolemy" and proceeded to skim. So it's possible I missed the worst of it (if there was worse). It was not the first time I've seen racist statements made in connection with astrology but his were a bit gratuitous.

sibylline said:

Yes, I've seen it in several older texts, but in case I hadn't, it was mentioned in Tetrabiblos. Weird that it wouldn't be considered part of the traditional technique, even if not recognized as a major aspect.

Click to expand...

Because the word inconjunction is simply a short form of saying "no aspect" between planets. Unfortunatly, someone along the way misinterpreted this.

There is no such thing as "minor/major" aspects in traditional astrology. There are 4: trine, sextile, square, opposition, which represent the planets beholding each other, based on the quality of the sign they are in. For example, trines only happen between planets placed in signs of the same triplicity, which are 120° apart. For example, the conjunction, is also not an aspect, because the planets are not beholding each other, but rather blended as one.

sibylline said:

There was that...

Honestly, I didn't read more than the first few paragraphs of that chapter in depth because I thought, "Nope, Ptolemy" and proceeded to skim. So it's possible I missed the worst of it (if there was worse). It was not the first time I've seen racist statements made in connection with astrology but his were a bit gratuitous.

Click to expand...

You know the best book to mark the difference between modern and traditional is Frawley's The Real Astrology, but you should know it is outright aggresive towards modern practice.

Dirius said:

You know the best book to mark the difference between modern and traditional is Frawley's The Real Astrology, but you should know it is outright aggresive towards modern practice.

Click to expand...

A couple of statements, okay. Any more and I'm thinking I paid for an official rant about modern astrology instead of an informative book on traditional techniques.

sibylline said:

I was leaning more towards Lee's books. She really knows her stuff and seems like an all-around good person.

I've heard of Dykes...modern astrology hater? *coughs* So I passed by his books. I will look into them though. I don't have Kindle Unlimited and I favor physical books but if I can accumulate a long enough list of to-read ebooks offered for free I'll subscribe.

Click to expand...

Actually, Dykes isn't a modern astrology hater. His book Traditional Astrology for Today is an expansion of a work of his that used to be available online in pdf (though since publication of the book it has been removed.) It's an introduction of sorts, geared toward and with language that is inclusive of what modern astrologers know/practice. And having met the man once, I can tell you his interest is in educating astrologers no matter their background, not debating whose astrology is better.

sibylline said:

A couple of statements, okay. Any more and I'm thinking I paid for an official rant about modern astrology instead of an informative book on traditional techniques.

Click to expand...

It is actually very informative, but it compares some of the supposed falacies in the modern concepts (from the perspective of traditionals) in a funny, sometimes ridiculing manner.

tsmall said:

Actually, Dykes isn't a modern astrology hater. His book Traditional Astrology for Today is an expansion of a work of his that used to be available online in pdf (though since publication of the book it has been removed.) It's an introduction of sorts, geared toward and with language that is inclusive of what modern astrologers know/practice. And having met the man once, I can tell you his interest is in educating astrologers no matter their background, not debating whose astrology is better.

Click to expand...

Okay, good to know. I did look inside of the book and it seemed fine. I'm putting it on my list. Any others? Geared toward natal interpretation?

sibylline said:

Okay, good to know. I did look inside of the book and it seemed fine. I'm putting it on my list. Any others? Geared toward natal interpretation?

Click to expand...

I did that, too. Wanted to jump into natal first, because of course I did. Then I had this really huge horary question that no one could really answer, and that led me to the path of horary. There is a heirarchy of learning traditional methods, that usually starts with horary, then electional, then natal. I think you could skip electional. The thing about learning horary first is that it expertly, and easily (more easily than natal) cements the fundamental principles of the tradition into the student's learning. That foundation is going to be important in applying the more advanced techniques that will be required in natal. Judicial astrology calls for judgement of a chart. With traditional methods, it isn't just about the natal chart. Prediction begins there, but really happens in the derivative charts.

Start with the basics. Introductions to Traditional Astrology. It's like the traditional textbook.

Dirius said:

It is actually very informative, but it compares some of the supposed falacies in the modern concepts (from the perspective of traditionals) in a funny, sometimes ridiculing manner.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, okay, but since I have to slog through his "wit", his book will be last.

sibylline said:

Hmmm, okay, but since I have to slog through his "wit", his book will be last.

Click to expand...

Frawley has reorganized the tradition according to his own, deeply Catholic/Christian views. He misses the mark in a lot of places, makes stuff up out of whole cloth in others, and since I started reading it after I'd been studying traditional astrology for some time, largely drove me insane with all he misrepresented until he finally ended up in the trash barrel. But hey, that's just my opinion.

tsmall said:

Frawley has reorganized the tradition according to his own, deeply Catholic/Christian views. He misses the mark in a lot of places, makes stuff up out of whole cloth in others, and since I started reading it after I'd been studying traditional astrology for some time, largely drove me insane with all he misrepresented until he finally ended up in the trash barrel. But hey, that's just my opinion.

Click to expand...

Yes thats something that should be mentioned before reading frawley, that he sort of miss-represents astrology as a christian tool, while he dismisses a lot of the ancient hellenistic cosmology. Most of the cosmological "philosophy" to him comes from monotheistic inspirations.

However, that book in particular is still worth it, for the simplicity it has in explaining the differences between modern and traditional, given he writes in a more critical form focusing on the main diferences between both schools, in a very clear light.

Dirius said:

However, that book in particular is still worth it, for the simplicity it has in explaining the differences between modern and traditional, given he writes in a more critical form focusing on the main diferences between both schools, in a very clear light.

Click to expand...

Honestly, reading this particular book by Frawley, I was turned off by his attacks on modern astrology, precisely because he dismissed or rewrote most of the cosmology traditional astrology is based on. If this had been my first introduction to traditional methods, I'd have become a Uranian astrologer out of spite. As it was, because I knew what I knew, I threw it into the rubbish bin, slightly behind the spot in the bookcase where I threw that book by Crane about Hellenistic astrology. Both of them sat there for two years. Because I have little to no tolerence for people who misrepresent the tradition.

tsmall said:

Honestly, reading this particular book by Frawley, I was turned off by his attacks on modern astrology, precisely because he dismissed or rewrote most of the cosmology traditional astrology is based on. If this had been my first introduction to traditional methods, I'd have become a Uranian astrologer out of spite. As it was, because I knew what I knew, I threw it into the rubbish bin, slightly behind the spot in the bookcase where I threw that book by Crane about Hellenistic astrology. Both of them sat there for two years. Because I have little to no tolerence for people who misrepresent the tradition.

Click to expand...

Well he pretty much does what Lilly and others did before him, which was to add their own interpretation of why things work. But I don't really recall any particular outrageous miss-representation of basic concepts, just some silly interpretations on the why astrology works, mainly when he talks about the history in some of the chapters.

Obviously we can cut ancient astrologers some slack, given that if Lilly hadn't added the christian to his book, he would have probably burned at the stake.

However, for any newcomer, it is a good explanation on the differences between both schools.

Dirius said:

Well he pretty much does what Lilly and others did before him, which was to add their own interpretation of why things work. But I don't really recall any particular outrageous miss-representation of basic concepts, just some silly interpretations on the why astrology works, mainly when he talks about the history in some of the chapters.

Click to expand...

For the folks in the bleacher seats, Dirius and I usually agree on most things. Which is prelude to...Frawley is a good source for understanding the basics of some things, but when it comes to understanding the fundamental things, he misses, every single time. I posted recently (I forget where) about why understanding the Aristolean Cosmology and explanation of the Natural Universe were fundamental keys to the difference between being a "good" traditional astrologer and a "great" traditional astrologer. Frawley is good. YOU can be better.

Dirius said:

Obviously we can cut ancient astrologers some slack, given that if Lilly hadn't added the christian to his book, he would have probably burned at the stake.

Click to expand...

Lilly would have burned at the stake if he hadn't been as great an astrologer as he was, considering how many times he tempted his fate in the uncertain times in which he lived. Adding "Christian?" I mean, maybe. But Morin discounted just about everything the Persians had to add to astrology, which is a hellovalot, tried to reinvent the triplicities, all because he was a racist. Make no mistake. The modern student attempting to study traditional methods HAS to be able to read the older texts with a firm grasp of the politics of the time in which they were written.

Dirius said:

However, for any newcomer, it is a good explanation on the differences between both schools.

Click to expand...

I mean, I guess. But I've seen better. Yawn.

tsmall said:

For the folks in the bleacher seats, Dirius and I usually agree on most things. Which is prelude to...Frawley is a good source for understanding the basics of some things, but when it comes to understanding the fundamental things, he misses, every single time. I posted recently (I forget where) about why understanding the Aristolean Cosmology and explanation of the Natural Universe were fundamental keys to the difference between being a "good" traditional astrologer and a "great" traditional astrologer. Frawley is good. YOU can be better.

Click to expand...

No argument there. There is a particular chapter in which he describes the concept of malefics/benefics in which he attributes a lot of christian theology to the concept, which I also found improper. But I have to say, that I did saw that kind of statements be made in a lot of astrological treatises, old and new. So I can't really be critical of a sin most people commit, given that it is true most astrologer's add their own view of the divine causes of astrology.

Even Valens, my favourite author, adds a lot of his (seemingly) stoic beliefs into his work.

I think the book, as an introduction to the differences between modern and traditional is pretty accurate. The chapter concerning the houses is, for example, while incredibly insulting very accurate to show the contrast between both beliefs (for example the comparison of the 5th and 8th houses as "sex" houses), in a very easy and understandable manner.

tsmall said:

Lilly would have burned at the stake if he hadn't been as great an astrologer as he was, considering how many times he tempted his fate in the uncertain times in which he lived. Adding "Christian?" I mean, maybe. But Morin discounted just about everything the Persians had to add to astrology, which is a hellovalot, tried to reinvent the triplicities, all because he was a racist. Make no mistake. The modern student attempting to study traditional methods HAS to be able to read the older texts with a firm grasp of the politics of the time in which they were written.

I mean, I guess. But I've seen better. Yawn.

Click to expand...

I think Morin gets a lot of bad rep, but I would say his reasons for re-working astrology were to present a more scientific, albeit innacurate, view of how astrology theory should work, inspired by the scientific revolution of his time.

The triplicity scheme he devised is the best example: he assigned Mars as ruler of the fire triplicity by night because it is a hot/dry planet, of the nocturnal sect, and rules a fire sign (Aries) which happens to be the exaltation of the Sun. It does have some sound logic behind it, if one was to take triplicities as a quality based system, given that Mars fits well in a fire sign. However, this ignores the previous hierarchy of sect, the division of masculine/femenine signs, and of the ruling Luminary being equally attributed a benefic and malefic planet to attend on the sect rulership.

Morin is able to come to his conclusion, only by discarding previous existing concepts. But to be honest, almost every astrologer in history has done that in one way or the other.

Personally I read a few chapters of astrologia gallica (those few that are found free online), and I didn't dislike it. I won't use his techniques, but it is certainly a good reading in my opinion, for historical purposes of course.

If Frawley were truly an observant Catholic, he would have to give up astrology of any description. The RC catechism expressly forbids astrology.

This interview may be of interest: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/jfrawley.html

^^^Apparently neo-traditional astrologers don't always agree.

tsmall said:

Frawley has reorganized the tradition according to his own, deeply Catholic/Christian views. He misses the mark in a lot of places, makes stuff up out of whole cloth in others, and since I started reading it after I'd been studying traditional astrology for some time, largely drove me insane with all he misrepresented until he finally ended up in the trash barrel. But hey, that's just my opinion.

Click to expand...

tsmall said:

Honestly, reading this particular book by Frawley, I was turned off by his attacks on modern astrology, precisely because he dismissed or rewrote most of the cosmology traditional astrology is based on. If this had been my first introduction to traditional methods, I'd have become a Uranian astrologer out of spite.

Click to expand...

Lol.

Uranian astrologers aren't as unconventional as they might seem... Okay, maybe a tad bit.

I'm about a third of the way through Traditional Astrology for Today, on Kindle. Hope to be finished by this weekend. I'm surprised by how well-written and easy to digest it is; glad it was mentioned here. At the same time it is almost too basic. The most I learned came from the chapter on the history of traditional astrology. From this book to Introductions to Traditional Astrology (what I will be reading next) seems like a leap from first grade to college.