Traditional Astrology For Today

[dadsnook2000]

Long, long ago

Long, long ago, and very far away . . . I signed up for a course with Jeff Mayo of London and received a book by Margret Hone that addressed the "whole" of astrology, chapter by chapter. Today, the "whole of astrology" has expanded greatly in terms of both the past and the future. The past includes the history and past techniques used over recent centuries as well as extending back to ancient cultures. The future, in terms of the 1970s when I started my studies has grown to include midpoints, harmonics, return charts and their derivatives, the modern versions of Uranian astrology (using transneptunian hypothetical planets, asteroids and deep space objects, statistical approaches --- all of these being adapted to study specialized areas of application such as weather, financials, earthquakes, synastry, prediction, mundane/political affairs.

Yes, it is bewildering to consider the whole of astrology, BUT, you have to start somewhere. The natal chart, planets, signs and houses can constitute a workable "whole" set of tools that can teach you the basics. Then, progressed and directed charts will help you see an unfoldment of cycles above and development in your life. The third phase of study should probably include the use of midpoints --- this will provide you with a new view of the birth and progressed-directed charts, as well as permit you to briefly look at Uranian astrology (which can be mind-blowing) and asteroids (which can be confusing). A fourth phase might be to explore history; the renascence astrologers, the arab astrologers of the early and middle centuries, the Greek discovery and fractured application of imported astrology, the astrology of ancient peoples.

All of that will likely be a "whole" course of study for many, yet it hardly covers the range of subjects and applications and methodologies that are available. Yet, if one learns the basics, all of the other stuff is just variations and tools that are made to serve a focus application. The basics are the basics. The basics start with the math and relation of the Earth, Solar System and its cycles. You can't really skip the technical stuff. If you do, you will keep hitting brick walls.

Now, there must be modern versions of Margret Hone's book, but I doubt if there is a better one. My only advice is to just start studying and don't worry about what is ahead of you, only what is behind you and what you can do with what you have learned. That will propel you forward. There will a hundred books and a thousand charts in front of you, but just accept that. You have to pour yourself into it. Dave

 

[tarotcognito]

Thank you both for your advice and opinions on the vast and slightly discombobulating matter that is the "whole of astrology." I'm thinking I might grab Mr. Dykes' little book and a "Dummies" book of some sort. I'm a medieval history major - that was the trigger behind my original post.

Since I have to start SOMEwhere, it might as well be someplace a little now and a little then.

 

[kalliope]

Hi Lokasenna,

Minderwiz did great job of summarizing Dyke's book. I think your plan to use it as a complement to a more detailed introductory text is perfect.

Dadsnook2000 mentioned Margaret Hone's book, and I'd recommend it as well. It covers every basic area, from planetary natures, signs, chart calculation, and strategies for interpretation. It's modern astrology, but it still mentions dignities, and gives both classical and modern rulers of the signs. There's an updated printing of the book at Amazon: The Modern Text-Book of Astrology.

Another good intro choice might be Astrology: Understanding the Birth Chart by Kevin Burk. He was a student of Lee Lehman's (a modern classical astrologer), and its sub-subtitle (for lack of the proper term) is "A Comprehensive Guide to Classical Interpretation." It's a modern textbook in its presentation, but the interpretations are traditionally based, and it would be a good companion to the Dyke's overview. Especially since you're a medieval history major, you may appreciate getting more of a taste for the traditional perspective early on. There's less about the mechanics and calculation in this one than in Hone's, though, so I'd still recommend hers.

I think these three would be a good starting set!

 

[Minderwiz]

Thank you both for your advice and opinions on the vast and slightly discombobulating matter that is the "whole of astrology." I'm thinking I might grab Mr. Dykes' little book and a "Dummies" book of some sort. I'm a medieval history major - that was the trigger behind my original post.

Since I have to start SOMEwhere, it might as well be someplace a little now and a little then.

Dykes forte is medieval Astrology and given that Astrology was ingrained in Western European culture by Chaucer's time, if you gain nothing more, you'll get an insight into the medieval mind. Dykes has written a veritable library of books, mostly translations with commentary from the Latin originals (though these are predated by Arabic or Greek versions). However I would not recommend leaping into those, unless they clearly tie in with your degree studies.

Don't go for the dummies book yet - you'll find there's no common ground, the dummies book simply looks at current practice. That can come later as you begin to explore - though there are better books as introductory texts to modern Astrology as Dave indicates.

 

[tarotcognito]

Hi kalliope, and thank you so much for the extra reading suggestion. I'm always looking for an excuse to spend money on books. Or at least, I"m always looking to justify the expense by telling myself that one cannot put a price on lifelong learning.

Hi Lokasenna,

Minderwiz did great job of summarizing Dyke's book. I think your plan to use it as a complement to a more detailed introductory text is perfect.

Dadsnook2000 mentioned Margaret Hone's book, and I'd recommend it as well. It covers every basic area, from planetary natures, signs, chart calculation, and strategies for interpretation. It's modern astrology, but it still mentions dignities, and gives both classical and modern rulers of the signs. There's an updated printing of the book at Amazon: The Modern Text-Book of Astrology.

Another good intro choice might be Astrology: Understanding the Birth Chart by Kevin Burk. He was a student of Lee Lehman's (a modern classical astrologer), and its sub-subtitle (for lack of the proper term) is "A Comprehensive Guide to Classical Interpretation." It's a modern textbook in its presentation, but the interpretations are traditionally based, and it would be a good companion to the Dyke's overview. Especially since you're a medieval history major, you may appreciate getting more of a taste for the traditional perspective early on. There's less about the mechanics and calculation in this one than in Hone's, though, so I'd still recommend hers.

I think these three would be a good starting set!

 

[Barleywine]

Another good intro choice might be Astrology: Understanding the Birth Chart by Kevin Burk. He was a student of Lee Lehman's (a modern classical astrologer), and its sub-subtitle (for lack of the proper term) is "A Comprehensive Guide to Classical Interpretation." It's a modern textbook in its presentation, but the interpretations are traditionally based, and it would be a good companion to the Dyke's overview. Especially since you're a medieval history major, you may appreciate getting more of a taste for the traditional perspective early on. There's less about the mechanics and calculation in this one than in Hone's, though, so I'd still recommend hers.

Since I dropped off the forums three months ago I've been avidly studying traditional methods. At this point I'm pretty well convinced that they contain everything necessary to effectively practice astrology in a contemporary setting (even the psychological character-analysis aspects, via the temperaments). I thought Kevin Burk's book was excellent, even though it stops a bit short of being a comprehensive overview. On the Heavenly Spheres by Avelar and Ribeiro fills that gap nicely, although it has an unacceptably large number of editing gaffes that had me scratching my head at several points. On the plus side, it has a wealth of very clear illustrations that are invaluable in understanding some of the more abstruse concepts. (I especially like the "almuten" coverage; I finally get it!)

Both books make a nod toward the "modern" planets (Uranus, Neptune and Pluto) and the asteroids (or, in Burk's case, at least Chiron). Where they draw the line is in not trying to force-fit them into the framework of rulerships and other essential/accidental dignities and debilities. I think I agree with this distinction. There is probably enough observational evidence at this point in time to give the three "newcomers" their place in the interpretive hierarchy without feeling compelled to accord them full membership privileges. The traditional arrangement of planetary correspondences is neatly balanced in almost all respects, and jamming three (or more) new variables into the equation (however elegantly it might be done) seems more than a little jarring.

Regarding asteroids, I'm with Rob Hand in considering most of them "traveling gravel." Perhaps Chiron is worth exploring, but I'll have to get myself past the mythological claptrap before I'm comfortable with it. As I see it, if Chiron had been named "Mickey Mouse," it would have a whole different set of arbitrary attributions, so I can't get enthusiastic about meanings that are basically an accident of nomenclature. Mid-points, on the other hand, I've found to be a valuable adjunct to predictive techniques. Reinhold Ebertin's Combination of Stellar Influences still seems to be the gospel in that regard, at least in the realm of the physical (as opposed to hypothetical "Uranian") planets.

Next up on my reading list are Steven Arroyo's Chart Interpretation Handbook, Tracy Mark's The Art of Chart Interpretation, Patti Brittain's Planetary Powers (not, I judge, a beginner's text), and Sue Tompkin's Aspects in Astrology. Since my brother and I will be teaching a beginner's course this summer, I will also be wading through a couple of teaching texts that I picked off of Dave Roell's list of newbie resources (www.astroamerica.com). I will be looking at Volume 1 of March and McEver's The Only Way to Learn Astrology mainly for structural pointers on how to organize and present the basic material, and Ronald Davison's Astrology: The Classic Guide to Understanding Your Horoscope for its extensive keyword tables. I considered Margaret Hone, but it seems a bit expensive for what would essentially be revisiting familiar territory. I think I'd rather spend it on some of the classical translations, which are similarly costly.