kalliope
The thing about the Suskin book is that it's not something that can be used alone by a beginner. It doesn't explain all traditional terms, doesn't go into the elements or nature of the signs, etc. There is no introduction to traditional astrology in general. It does have charts in the Appendix for determining dignity, and the 43 detailed rules for interpretations, and a bare-bones example at the end. It's mostly for the student who has learned the basics (or has resources for those) who is in need of a clearly delineated, systematic way of going through a chart. Since the older texts can seem overwhelming, especially due to their language, I think this book does fill a gap as a procedural outline for how to use the works of earlier authors.
Thanks for the links to the excerpts in Google Books, and for the reminder about Sahl. I've almost purchased a Sahl translation a few times, but couldn't decide on which one, so it was interesting to see your comments about them here. I've been drawn to Holden's clear and simpler language, and you both seem to echo that. I guess my question would be if the Masha'allah segment of Dykes' translation makes his version pull ahead any? His introduction seems long and potentially useful. Any thoughts on that?
Yes, this seems right on the mark.
You guys are cracking me up. But so true what you're saying about Pluto, his omnipotence, and minor Pluto aspects being overblown and responsible for everyhing in modern astrology. (And I say that as someone with a soft spot for some psychological astrology and more prediction-oriented modern astrologers.)
Had a quick look at Google Books, and there are some decent previews there, with 30-50 pages you can read online. So if you want to have a look at Abu Ali Al-Khayyat, click here: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=rR8iTR5hfbsC&num=14
One of my personal favourites is Sahl ibn Bishr's Introduction to the Science of the Judgment of the Stars, also translated by James Holden, and you can find it here: https://books.google.co.in/books?id...CCAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=sahl ibn bishr&f=false. It's a horary text, but I love Sahl for his clarity - and signs, houses, planets, and aspects mean pretty much the same things in both horary and natal.
I've got both the Holden and the Dykes translations. Holden to me sacrifices literal accuracy for clarity and that makes him a great translator Dykes ends up with a host of footnotes in his translation of Sahl's On the signification of the time for judgement most of which boil down to he doesn't know what Sahl means. Holden is readable and makes some sense.
Thanks for the links to the excerpts in Google Books, and for the reminder about Sahl. I've almost purchased a Sahl translation a few times, but couldn't decide on which one, so it was interesting to see your comments about them here. I've been drawn to Holden's clear and simpler language, and you both seem to echo that. I guess my question would be if the Masha'allah segment of Dykes' translation makes his version pull ahead any? His introduction seems long and potentially useful. Any thoughts on that?
The big gap in interpretation I think is because way back when if you were studying astrology, you learnt horary first - it's easier, because you're only dealing with a few planets and houses in a given chart, pertaining to one question. You got a chance to really see how astrology operates by focussing on only a few things in any given chart. Then you picked up natal, already having a background in how a chart works generally.
Yes, this seems right on the mark.
Add in the outer planets if you must for extra information, but they shouldn't contradict anything you see using the classical seven. I won't say that they're worthless (though I haven't used them in years in my own work), but I've seen so many modern chart readings completely derailed because it's all blamed or credited on some obscure aspect or transit of Pluto, which seems to be responsible for all things, ever. And that's just bad astrology.
Rant
Yes, the almost religious worship of Pluto by the Modern crew is amazing. Coupled with a belief that Pluto is an irresistable force of fate, and you wonder about the criticisms of the tradition as being over concerned with fate. I've not seen anything in a traditional text to rival that belief in Pluto's omnipotence. The trouble is these ideas continue to be passed on by Astrologers who either don't know about the traditional challenge or who are so sure of the rightness of their approach that they ignore it.
End of Rant
You guys are cracking me up. But so true what you're saying about Pluto, his omnipotence, and minor Pluto aspects being overblown and responsible for everyhing in modern astrology. (And I say that as someone with a soft spot for some psychological astrology and more prediction-oriented modern astrologers.)