|
Astrology
by Hand Week 30
What
We Forgot
Last
week,
I discussed the growth of astrology in the twentieth century and how we
got to where we are. I mentioned three phases of this revival: 1) the
spiritual-religious-philosophical, 2) the growth of new methods and uses
for astrology and 3) the revival of the study of older forms of astrology.
These are given in the approximate order in which they happened. But I
would like to suggest that phase three should have been the first phase.
Then the spiritual-religious-philosophical revival and the evolution of
the new systems might have happened with knowledge of at least the practice
of the older forms of astrology. Of all of these twentieth century new
schools of thought, only the sidereal school of Fagan and Allan made any
attempt to do research into ancient astrology, although not in a systematic
way.
The result
of this is that modern astrology has evolved quite ignorant of its traditions.
As the traditions have been rediscovered, some tension has built up between
modernists and traditionalists. The modernists argue, incorrectly, that
astrology “evolved” to where it is now and represents “progress” over
the traditions. The traditionalists argue, incorrectly as well, that all
of the innovation of modern astrology is out of accord with tradition
and, therefore, bogus.
I think that
the reader can see that if phase three had happened before phases one
and two, we would have less of a problem. Of course, some might argue
that an earlier recovery of the traditions would have stifled innovation
in the twentieth century. But being as closely involved with the recovery
of the traditions as I have been, I have to say that I have experienced
no such stifling. Traditional material easily points to new and modern
understandings. But I will admit that there are some traditionalists who
favor a very “retro” view of the way astrology should be.
The main
point is simple. Intelligent innovation based on a thorough technical
and philosophical understanding of the traditions would make astrology
evolve more like a science, gradually getting better at what it is supposed
to do. Innovation based on ignorance of tradition simply creates change
without progress. And holding on to the past for dear life would leave
astrology exactly where it was in 1700, isolated, intellectually cut off
and increasingly irrelevant, despite whatever actual merit it might possess.
I hope I have made my position clear.
Modernists’
Problems with Traditional Astrology
The most
common complaint about traditional Western astrology is that it is very
negative and gloomy. The two passages that I picked from Schoener in week
27 illustrate that point. One forecasts poverty for the native’s
father; the other forecasts imprisonment. And if one looks at the general
nature of the predictions assigned to various combinations, there do seem
to be more bad ones than good. However, it is also true that there are
some very good ones. Here is another one from Schoener:
"With
the Sun in a diurnal geniture (daytime birth) in his own exaltation,
and the Moon in a nocturnal geniture (night birth) in her own exaltation,
in the Ascendant, or Midheaven…this designates a kingship for the native."
This is not
the kind of indication that one would expect to find in a modern text.
In fact, while many astrologers seem to have some idea of what would constitute
the birth chart of important persons, there are not very many modern texts
(in fact none come to mind) that even deal with this kind of thing. Both
the good and the gloomy forecasts are all different from the sort of thing
that we would expect to find in an astrology book.
Why are the
old books like this? Well, why are modern books the way they are? It’s
simple. Astrologers, like all others who provide a service, try to provide
something of value to the client. In both cases, this is reflected in
the texts of the times. Modern clients are often of a new age bent and
so those interests are the ones that we try to serve. It is when a modern
client actually wants information about wealth or poverty, success or
failure and things of this sort, that most modern astrologers are more
at a loss. We don’t have the tools. (By the way, I believe we do much
better with relationship astrology than our forebears. They lived in a
world of arranged marriages where happiness between the people in the
couple was not a major priority.) The clients of typical astrologers in
olden days were nobility, or at least very wealthy people. The first clearly
documented example we have of an astrologer for the general public is
William Lilly in the seventeenth century.
The main
point of all of this is simple. I believe that traditional astrology focused
on the things that it did because of the clientele. It was not a function
of its basic nature. Can traditional astrology fulfill modern needs with
its methods? Absolutely! I will begin to show how next week.
|
