“Errors, like straws, upon the surface flow.

He who would search for pearls must dive below”

Dryden

“...the difference between archetype

and stereotype is easy to miss.”

James Hillman

Modern astrology has been heavily influenced by the psychological, esoteric and New-Age philosophies that have promoted and popularised astrology in the 20^th century. This has led to a pretty intensive ‘re-writing’ of astrology, and a restriction of the area’s to which astrology is applied. Modern astrology seems to have but one objective: (self)awareness or (self)consciousness, in a psychological or spiritual sense. This results in an (over)simplification of astrological knowledge, skill and know-how.

The criticism raised here questions the effects of this limited use and practice on astrology as a science. The most detrimental and alarming result is that modern astrology has lost a clear perspective on her history and the development of her horoscopic tools. When one reads modern astrological literature, it appears that astrology has but few roots left in her tradition. Subsequently, modern astrology improvises extensively on the tradition, and this is beginning to influence her didactics as well as her methods of delineation. The method as used by J.B. Morin de Villefranche (Morinus) for instance, is a good example of a more clear and consistent (astrological, not a psychological) way to evaluate a chart. In this article I will point out some of the harmful effects of eliminating tradition from astrology and the reasons why it is deemed necessary by some modern astrologers.

“Modern Western astrology is the product of the late 19th century rescension of the art. The astrology re-introduced to the west at that time was a considerably watered down version of the art adapted to what was then believed to be the exigencies of the contemporary education and economics. The astrological practice in the 17th century (prior to the great hiatus) was a more demanding science.”

Robert Zoller¹

Modern astrology is under a near complete dominance of psychology or, to be more precise: psychoanalysis – predominantly Jungian². This resulted in a considerable loss of astrological know how. It’s not my point of view that this loss is in any way a conscious or premeditated intention of psychologically oriented astrologers. No, it is the result of,

A)   the way in which astrology historically evolved.

B)   Developments regarding the philosophical ‘backbone’ of astrology, i.e. the replacement of cosmology by psychological theories and/or idealistic and New-Age philosophies.

C)   Some bad habits in modern astrology, being first of all: the lack of proper research of astrological sources, and second, as a result authors who (unknowingly) repeat each other without referring to other or older sources. This ultimately results in repeating each other’s mistakes, misinterpretations or false opinions. These opinions often reflect a considerable lack of knowledge of what classical astrologers actually wrote on the subject of astrology and its worldview.

D)  The fourth, and possibly the most important reason is the practical use and application of modern astrology. Astrology, as a tool of therapeutic goals, has become ‘a talking cure’ that needs little verification in horoscopic or biographical facts.

Because of brevity I will not systematically elaborate on all four of these points, but will try to focus on the main issues.

Pride and Prejudice

When confronted with traditional astrology many modern astrologers object to it with some of the following arguments. Why study traditional astrology? Modern astrology has an extensive and intricate ‘language’, an elaborate and adequate tool, to speak about astrological symbols, and it’s fun too! So why confuse us with classical, outdated, opinions? Our clients are satisfied, so why bother? And isn’t traditional astrology based on very out-of-date, even primitive, and fatalistic concepts concerning humanity and destiny? Furthermore, isn’t traditional astrology clogged with contradicting tenets, called aphorisms, not only large in number but very complicated and presaging horrible events and sometimes even morbid and scary delineations? What use do we have for such concepts in modern astrology?

I would answer that the point is, that psychological astrology seems to have no need for the exactness that is required in predictive or fact-finding (traditional) astrology and that it is exactly this ‘extensive and intricate ‘language’, this ‘elaborate and adequate tool, to speak about astrological symbols’ that is at the root of some of the problems I will touch upon. The oversimplification that results has led to a considerable loss of ‘considerations before judgement’. For example: few astrologers have need of the essential or accidental dignities of the planets, of sect, of almutens, etc.. The ever expanding psychological verbalisation of astrological symbols is not necessarily a problem as such, as long as this practice is seen as an extension of astrological tools, an add-on. But it does become a problem when anybody who wants to learn astrology is being told that psychological astrology is ‘the only way to learn or do astrology’.