Display posts from previous
Sort by

2 by Tom
There is no strict universally accepted definition of "traditional astrology." For our purposes, traditional astrology is the astrology practiced between the periods of the Hellenistic Greeks to roughly the year 1700 or the beginning of general acceptance of the principles of the "Enlightenment." The astrology before that is usulaly called Babylonian astrology; the period after it modern astrology. Again this is really rough.

Within the traditional time period there are some other loosely defined sub periods. A somewhat arbitrary grouping follows:

Hellenistic Greek Astrology
a) Ptolemy
b) Paulus
c) Valens

Medieval Astrology
a) Latin tradition (Bonatti)
b) Arab tradition (Abu Mashar)

Renaissance Astrology
a) Cardan
b) Guarico
c) Schoener

Classical Period (my own term)
a) Lilly
b) Culpepper
c) Gadbury

1700 - early 1800s Astrology goes on life support

Mid 1800s to early 1900s beginnings of modern astrology
1930s - present modern astrology

Now as I said this is highly arbitrary and easy to take pot shots at, but it is also a resonably accurate broad brush division of eras. Within each era are prominent members of the older era. For example, John Worsdale, who wrote in the late 18th and early 19th centuries is definitely a traditional astrologer in the style of Lilly.

Lilly was not a medieval astrologer. In fact if one defines traditional astrology as the astrology of the middle ages and earlier, Lilly was a modern (for his day). He tried all sorts of new things that were not part of the tradition as it existed in his day, e.g. his use of the part of fortune in solar returns. However one cannot say that the principles of medieval astrology are lacking in his work.

Again broadly speaking the eras cited above tended to build on one another over time. When astrology took a nap and modern astrology emerged, largely, but not entirely, through the work and personality of Alan Leo, it shed its classical trappings and went in an entirely new direction, and today the direction is called, again broadly "psychological astrology." The man given the most credit/blame for this "innovation" is usually Dane Rudhyar, but his work owes a heavy debt (to be kind) to Mark Edmund Jones. To moderns Rudhyar's book The Astrology of Personality is the beginning of the modern psychological astrologer.

Robert Zoller is the best known contemporary advocate for the idea that all astrology hit its high water mark during the Middle Ages. While it cannot be doubted that medieval astrology when done well was practiced at a very high level. Whether or not it is the "best" is a value judgment.

To attempt to summarize all the differences in a post is impossible. It takes study and a lot of reading and comparisons to get a grasp, of them and a semester length course to understand it. In my opinion the main difference between all of what we call traditional astrology and modern is worldview. We, that is you and I and everyone reading these words were raised to look at the world a particular way. People raised prior to roughly 1700 saw things quite a bit differently than we do. The respective understanding of "reality" is a good starting point. In the earlier view "reality" is more spiritual and in the contemporary view the material is real. If the spiritual is real or more real, then astrology is real (yeah I know seriously simple, but you get the idea). If you grasp those differences, you'll get a pretty good idea of the differences in astrology "schools."

Try any or all of these to understand the earlier worldview:

The Elizabethian World Picture by E.M.W. Tillyard
Alchemy by Titus Burckhardt
The Discarded Image by C.S. Lewis

Or for a viewpoint by an advocate of traditional atrology:

The Real Astrology by John Frawley

Tom

4 by cyber_brujo
[quote]Hellenistic Greek Astrology
a) Ptolemy
b) Paulus
c) Valens [/quote]

Don't forget that Ptolemetric Astrology can be treated as a form in itself, different from the rest of the house oriented Greek Astrology. Ptolemy emphasized universal significators and barely used houses. Many claimed his Tetrabiblos derailed the preservation of the older Hellenistic Astrology.

5 by Mike
I agree with Ptolemy's critics. In stark
contrast with Vettius Valens, he was
mainly a scientist not an astrologer. He
made a disservice to astrology trying to
change it to his wishes; however his
greatest mistake was trying to justify
it on scientific grounds, the same mistake
of Kepler and modern astro-statistics.

Makes me think of Deepak Chopra in his
vain quest to make spirituality credible with
his quantum nonsense. He insults both
spirituality and science.

Patrice Guinard makes an interesting case
for the impossibility of proving the truth
of astrology by science. Since astrology
deals with a domain outside of science.
This aphorism sums it up perfectly:
"Astrology does't need facts, but concepts."
Here is a collection of aphorisms on astrology
by this french astrologer:
http://cura.free.fr/16aphor.html

7 by Tom
Don't forget that Ptolemetric Astrology can be treated as a form in itself, different from the rest of the house oriented Greek Astrology. Ptolemy emphasized universal significators and barely used houses.
Don't forget Firmicus Maternus, Roman astrologer who is considered an authority on Greek astrological method.
I went so far in my thought process as to entertain the idea of leaving Ptolemy off the list, not that the list I used is the last word or even an attempt at being conclusive. However, Ptolemy is, like it or not, the most influential astrology writer ever, so I lumped him in with Valens and Paulus.

The list is arbitrary and designed to convey a rough timeline. It isn't scholarly, and wasn't intended to be. There are many important astrologers who are not on that list and schools of thought that were not mentioned, including one of my favorites, Ibn Ezra.

Tom

8 by Mike
If someone translated
Astrologia Gallica by Morin
from the latin to english it
would be wonderful as well.
As we only have some parts
of it in amazon, and I want
the whole work.

9 by Tom
Steven,

The slush fund is a good idea. I really want Ben Dykes most recent contribution, but we had a wedding here recently and the accounts are squealing, Your information is only making things worse. ;-) Thanks though I do appreciate it and will probably cave in and buy soon enough.

Michael:

The following books of Astrologia Gallica are available in English

18 (strengths of the planets), 21 (natal delineation), 22 (Primary directions), 23 (Revolutions or solar & lunar returns), & 24 (Progressions and transits: By progressions he means what we call "profections," which he hates).

I've been told he does not mention astrology in any depth until book 9 of AG -instead he creates a new theory of natural philosophy of which astrology is a main component. There is enough in the above metioned texts to keep a student busy for years. One could purchase all of them for about $100 maybe a little more since it's been a few years since I began buying them. That is a serious bargain.

Tom
!! Read first: forum policies
Recent topics
Post Reply

Return to “Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques”