Stimulating as it was, my mind could not stop thinking about all the information, impressions and discussions at this conference, which has lead to some ideas, remarks, questions and thoughts which I want to share with you in an open and honest way. It is by no means meant as cristicsm; I hope it can contribute to the discussion about the research of astrology within and outside universities.
Much depends on the definition of astrology. In fact astrology is a method to study the possible relationship between phenomena in heaven and phenomena on earth cq in the psyche. As a method it has its own grammar, but as is the case with languages, there are many dialects, and there are people who use the language without having enough knowledge of the grammar. Astrology as such is not a religion, but can have implications for the world-view of the astrologer.
Modern astrologers do not consider astrology as a religion, and
many well-educated astrologers in history did not either. But there have been
religious-like projections on astrology, which means some astrologers saw
astrology as indisputable and always true. By the way, this is no different from
some scientist for whom science is so ‘holy’ that they don’t allow any other
point of view or method.
Astrology however has the tendency to give the practitioner feelings that can be
described as:
a feeling of being connected to a larger whole (experiencing how movements of the planets coincide with what happens on earth and happens in onself)
a feeling of meaning, (a feeling that this parallel is not
pure chance, hence must point to something or must have a meaning)
and at the same time astrology can be part of a cosmology or world view in
the society in which it is used.
To understand the role of astrology in history and what astrologers did, it is of the utmost importance to understand what kind of feelings working with astrology can give. Although this might seem to be subjective, if you talk to astrologers all over the world, you will hear that even the most critical ones cannot deny that they have seen paralelles between what was going on in heaven and what happened in themself / their life, which can give rise to feelings of uneasyness for those who insist on wanting to know how it works, but more often produces a feeling of awe and wonder to the practitioner. This doed nót turn the astrologer into a so called ‘believer’ as allowing the feeling of wonder does not strip one from the capacity to think in a clear and rational way.
Nevertheless, it seems that there are historians who research astrology who tend to consider contemporary practitioners as ‘believers’, not seeing that it is possible to have a scientific mind, and at the same time be open to the irrational side of life, and be able to accept findings one cannot (yet) explain, but are of value to the practitioner. Many serious astrologers are open to criticism.
There are also astrologers who don’t want to be involved in science as they reject its methods as valid for doing research in astrology. It might be true that until now no scientific method has been found to research astrology in a way it does justice to it complex nature. But there are astrologers who reject science altogether.
So first of all there must be an openminded acceptance of each others qualities, and a non-judgemental listening to each other. As we have heard in the lecture of Patric Curry, experiencing the art of astrology can be very helpfull to the researcher.
I fully agree with his point. Practising astrology means that you are confronted from within, from direct experience, with the problems and issues of astrology. It helps the researcher to re-think his/her questions, it helps to have a new (often unexpected) look on the historical material and data, and helps to research these data in a more profound way. This is invaluable!
For example: Knowing hów an astrologer worked, and what techniques he used, woud have given a much deeper analysis of what could have been going on around the coronation of Nero. An experienced contemporary astrologer can learn the old techniques, using the old tables and material, and will know from those old astrological sources how to look at such a chart. The information one can get from such a chart could even provide important material for further historical research of the event(s). It also helps to avoid mistakes in research: an experienced astrologer could have given advice not to use the presented house-system, as that was the wrong system, and he could have explained why. He also could have explained where astrologers in those days would look at, which would have helped to give a better explanaition of the chart, and for historians: this would have given an idea of astrology in the past that is more true to what happened.
This means that active astrological knowlegde and use of techniques can give us:
a much more profound analysis of the charts found, true to history, ánd:
the information thus deduced can be used to have a new perspective on the events in study. In this way the horoscope can become a valuable source for historic research.
and no serious astrologer would work with a chart that has no date and time. This would mean that an astrologically trained historian would do a different research on the chart of Israel in Medieval Spain: he/she would search for those data or otherwise not presenting it as a chart, but as a symbolic combination. That is a totally different thing.
In discussing this point with Demetra George, classicist and
astrologer and teacher at Kepler College, USA, we both agreed on this point.
Providing information about how a medieval astrologer works, was also the aim of
the paper of Robert Zoller. Robert choose to comment on Rantzau’s chart to show
how a medieval astrologer would have worked, and by using this ancient
technique, he also wanted to show that an astroger who is trained in this
particular method, is able to point to certain things that also might have
happened, but what is unknown to us to this date. This however does not mean
that these will never be discovered. Robert also said he corrected the chart.
There was a strong discussion around these points, and I have the feeling that
some points did not become fully clear.
I know that in most discussions people outside astrology don’t think it is good
to correct a chart, as it is seen as manipulating the time in order to fit your
ideas. That could be true in some cases, however, let’s consider the following:
If one is not sure about the real birthtime, one in fact knows that what is deducted from the chart for the given time can be wrong. How scientific is it to work with a chart one strongly suspects of having the wrong time? Rectification means that one takes several clear events with the dates of these events, to search for the right birthtime:
Rectification is not a random proces, but a painstaking method in which astrologers use the knowledge that certain events only can happen when there are certain combinations in heaven. If one has 5 different events in different years, and the fitting combinations for these events also fit in the patterns and cycles of the particular birthdate and time, then there is a high possibility that the found birthtime is the correct one. From this new time, proven by at least 5 facts, the astrologer will proceed.
If there is no rectification, it looks like one wants to do a chemical experiment, but does not have the right material at hand, but is forbidden to experiment to find the right material.
The question in the discussion was: is rectification scientific. Robert Zoller wanted to demonstrate a medieval technique. In this technique correction is an integral part. In another discussion from the audience came the point that what is needed in histoprical research of astrology is trying to use the astrology as one did in that time, including techniques, tables used, etc. This means that in the case of showing the medieval technique correcting the chart was a valid thing to do. The question whether this is scientif of not is not relevant here.
Astrologers often are seen as subjective and not scientific. There is no doubt that the personality of the astrologer plays a big role in his/her work and the interpretation-skills of the astrologer are not only dependent on his/her technical qualities, but in many respects also on life-experience, psychological growth, etc. However, there are definite sets of rules for all the ‘astrological dialects’ and sticking to the rules is not subjective.
Although science may seem to be objective, requesting for example that things can be proven and verified, there is a subective part in science too. Why does a researcher pick a special topic? Why is he or she researching a certain historical figure or astrologer? The choice of the topic is often related to some inner psychological dynamic. The way Steven vanden Broecke spoke about Cardano, really wanting to give Cardano a place, felt as stemming from a strong inner movement of Vanden Broecke, no matter how many objective reasons one can find for the study and presentation. This is not wrong, on the contrary. Often the best researches are done when the researcher is really interested in and involved in his/her topic. But the direction of the research and the conclusions run the risk of getting a bit biased because of identification. This is absolutely not to attack Steven vanden Broecke, as I respected his lecture a lot. But because he showed a personal involvement and warm feelings towards Cardano, it is a good example of how inner psychological dynamics can lead to a certain type of research or a certain person researched. And this is a subjective component of the research.
Another point that was discussed was that using ancient techniques to tell things one cannot prove is beyond the scope of the conference. But this depends on how one sees it. If the chart of an historical person is analysed with the methods available at that time, these methods can indeed give some possible events in certain years which events are unknown to us today. If the methods are used in the correct way, astrology could be used as a tool to start searching for certain events, or help to research a certain period or year in the life of that historical figure more deeply, because there might be something that is not yet discovered. Of course the astrologer (or method) can be wrong, but at least here is a tool to help us to focus research. I think this is wat Robert Zoller wanted to submit to us.
There are many ways to study astrology in history, several of which have been presented at this conference. We can think of:
1) studying the role of astrology as part of the world view in different periods in history cq in different cultures, and part of culture, customs, etc.
2) and otherwise: studying the role of culture and world view on the development of astrological techniques and ideas. For example: there are indications that there is a relationship between the development of house systems (dividing the sky) and the way man saw himself in relation to the cosmos and the earth.
3) studying the role of astrology in politics and state affairs. We’ve seen some beautifull examples of that, and we could also focus on what is happening today, as also modern people still ask themself: ‘What will happen next?’
4) studying how astrology was used in a concrete way: how did they calculate charts? What where the interpretation rules they used? What type of conclusions were drawn? For what purposes astrology was used? How did the techniques improved? This research started a couple of decades ago within the astrological community by projects were much effort was put into serious and scolary translations of origical old sources into English, making the texts available for serious astrologers, who researched the techniques and tried to apply them. Because this is done by astrologers themselves, they know the terminology, they know where they are talking about, and by trying to aply the techniques they face all the difficulties one can have in translations, for example: what did the author really meant? By applying the techniques, one sometimes finds answers that could not be found otherwise. Projects as Hindsight and Arhat in the USA are fine examples of this work.
Because of this research it also became more clear who had used work of other astrologers, the disagreements on certain topics, the discussions in astrology, and what knowledge was lacking in some astrologers. We must be aware that there were real fine astrologers in history, but also ego-driven moneymakers who did not use the techniques well, as is sadly also the case nowadays.
5) Can astrology, and especially horoscopes from ancient times, be used as an historical source? In other words, do they give meaningfull information? Yes, they can (see comments above). But we have also seen in Peter Shillers lecture that there are charts that have astronomical combinations that have never existed that way, or charts with wrong calculations. Schiller mentioned the fact that the wrong chart could have been calculated by a layman, and as most people were illiterate, who would discover that? There are however also other consideration to be taken into account.In putting astrological practice within the framework of the worldview in the past, one can understand that astrological symbolism could be used as such. So the figure of a chart was used, but it was never meant to be a real map op the heavens. Instead of that, it is a construction which contains a symbolism that is in accordance with certain magical rituals, spells, situations one wishes, etc. This could be true for the ‘Bauhoroskop’ from 1495, the leadcapsule with a chart on it, and in the rim symbols that could point to certain fixed stars used in magical amulets (see also the work of Agirppa von Nettesheim).
This use of astrological symbolism is not an exemption, as there have been (and still are) ‘astrological toys’ that use astrological symbolism without the need to have a fitting astronomical constellation. To give an example: a French astrological book from 1581 with the title: Le Plaisant Jeu du Dodechedron de Fortune…. describes how to make astrological dices. You can put the symbolism of the signs on one dice, that of the houses on another dice, and the planets, nodes and part of fortune on the third dice. Throwing the dices after having formulated a question was and is used to get an answer, where the dices are used as an oracle. Throwing the dices can give for example Saturn in Aries in the 7th house on a moment where Saturn in the heavens is in the sign of Cancer. But the symbolism of the thrown dices are combined as one knows the meaning of the planets, signs and houses, and an answer is given.
This is an example of the use of astrological symbolism as an oracle, both in 1581 and still in use today. There are even astrologers who use cards with the symbols of the signs, planets and houses as an orcale: they make a spread in the shape of a chart by drawing cards. The result is something that has the shape of a chart and uses the symbolism of astrology, but is not a real horoscope.
This means that the Bauhoroskop that is shown could have been made this way on purpose, most likely serving a magical goal. We see here that really being involved in astrology itself gives new possible explanations and can be of help in historical research.
6) We can try to deduct the horoscopes of famous people from the books and sources we have, and can try to find out if the descriptions be of use for an historian. We have seen an example of such a deduction.
7) How did astrological developments in different parts of the world influence one another?
8) How did astrology directly or indirect influence art, literature, biografies, etc? Kocku von Stuckrad has given examples. We could think of much more, for example what influence did astrological friends of Shakespeare had on Shakespeares work?9) What were the influences why astrology almost disappeared, and why did astrology nevertheless survive, but in different countries in different ways (for example connected with magic and occultism in France).
10) Some points that emerged from this conference can be worth studying too, but maybe we’re entering a more philosophical or metaphysical realm here. I would like to point to the follwing problem:According to our modern standards and modern ephemerisses, many of the real old horoscopes have errors, sometimes even to such an extent, that modern astrologers would speak of a totally different chart. The interpretation of such a chart, even if we would take only the rules valid at the time of the historical chart, would be different from the interpretation that is given in the historical source. But: if there is an election made with the wrong chart, but the events follwing this election are in accordance with the wrong chart and nót with the right chart, what does this mean?
It is too easy to say that this proves that astrology is fake. I can give an alarming example from my own experience. Working with astrology for over 30 years, I have learned astrology in a time without computers, even without a calculator. (Hardly to imagine anymore!). I did a horary, which is a technique used for questions and events, and in the calculation by hand the Moon was in the very last minutes of a sign. Years later, recalculating my teaching-examples in the computer, the computercalculation showed the Moon at 0 degrees of the following sign. I calculated the chart again by hand to see if I had made a mistake, but the handcalculation showed as in the original the Moon in the last minutes of the sign before.
What had happened: I had done the delineation exactly according to the rules of horary astrology, and had given my interpretation about what to expect. This interpretation came true, and everything that I had said to my client was confirmed later.
The puzzling thing is, however, that in the more accurate computercaldulation the Moon had a different place, which would have changed the outcome remarkably! Based on this new calculation, I would never have said my client what I had said based on the old chart. But although the new chart had the correct, more precize Moon position, this new chart did not reflect the events that happened!In short: a delineation of a wrong chart did lead to the right interpretation and forecast, and the more precize calculated chart would have given the wrong information. This is not a failure in method, as I have applied the very same rules many, many times, and to great satisfaction. The question now is: could something like this also have happened in the past, which less correct charts? Which gives rise to another question that is difficult to answer. In the period I calculated the charts by hand, I have experienced no difficulty with working with astrology. Charts and events simply matched. (Of course I made mistakes, but could find the calculation errors and correct it, and this did not undermine the method used.) After the introduction of the computer, I used the computer for calculation, and had no problems either. But in re-calculating the old charts, I found a few examples of calculations that gave differences that where important for the delineation (mainly due to rounding). But these calculations, now seen as errors, did not influence the outcome. Somehow it seems that astrology works in accordance with the possibilities one has with calculation. This is something to think about, although it seems very odd for western scientist. But how could astrologers in the past get valid answers and outcomes where they did not yet have the right ephemerisses?
Only if a researcher is also involved in astrology, one can come up with this type of important though difficult questions.
These are some of the points that kept on going in my mind, and I hope that in the near future historians and astrologers can come to a fruitfull exchange of views and experiences. I also wish to express my gratitude and thanks for the courage to organize such a conference; I appreciated it very much and am looking forward to a follow-up.
(c) Karen Hamaker-Zondag 2004-2006
Reprinted by permission by Kepler College for its October 2006 Newsletter -
www.kepler.edu