To the degree that astrology has taken on "psychological" ground, and has lost some of its magical roots, Zoller is correct in asserting that singular astrological writers would have had a preponderant effect on the popularity and conception of astrology. Zoller himself agrees that every trifling event cannot be foretold by the astrological model, and hopes that there is room for some humility on the part of astrologers on this point.

There are other authors whose statements about astrology have misguided the astrologers who have followed, Barbara Watters comes to mind. In Watters' work on Horary, she makes a statement about the "Considerations before judgement," but she renames them. To Watters, astrologers must contend with "Strictures against judgement." In one example we have the teaching of Horary but one which influenced an entire generation of Horary astrologers. The original (Lee, help me out here!) concept was a set of rules to prevent the astrologer from impugning himself or entering into a dangerous situation--the Inquisition or the jealousies of a Queene set against the "spy" astrologer--such as Saturn in the 7th house. But, it was a consideration, not an injunction against reading the chart at all, which word "stricture" might imply. The astrologer is warned to word his statements so as to avoid impuning himself, if possible. It is not an inability to deliver the work! But, the works of a single author whose statements do not correspond to tradition, takes another whole generation of experts to undo.

The work of Marc Jones was an inspiration to me during the late sixties when the paucity of current writing on astrology would have starved me, had I not found a teacher. But by whom was my teacher educated? Herself. And how did her books and studies suggest themselves? The writers who were currently published for her, including Marc E. Jones, Alan Leo, Max Heindel, and maybe ten more, Evangeline Adams and others.

I think we are taking advantage of a world wide trend to increase the numbers of astrologers primarily, but also to increase our contact directly to the ancient past. In this way, teachers like "Connie" Myrtle Conyers (my first teacher) who might offer classes and instruction now, would have a vast library from which to choose, instead of the paltry few books available in current publication in the 1960's.

Blavatsky's biographers are not kind to her, and rightly so. She pasted together enough about various subjects and survived as a writer, but not necessarily as a true philosopher, which Zoller marks in his comments as being the demarcation line between the astrologers of the past and those who must "tinker with signs" today. The contributions of the more philosophical, rather than the purely psychological would render back to astrology the power of its former status.

It is obvious at the astrological conventions that there is a lot more going on than pure astrology. The far reaches of the Pleadian mission with its fancy-hatted channelers seem to be using their own version of astrology--it works! they say. But, is it astrology?

Zoller makes an observation about the dilution of the astrological tradition, and its absorption of so much other stuff, revisionisms, "cross-pollenations," and the like, as to defy the tradition of astrology. He says, "It is this fact, perhaps more than any other, which permits the 20th century development of New Age revisions of astrology, characterised as they are by a lack of method, integrated philosophical or metaphysical vision and a patchwork of "techniques" drawn from wholly unconnected traditions: Medieval, Western, "Uranian", Indian, Chinese, Tibetan, Mayan, Aztec, American Plains Indian etc - or even from non-existent traditions, e.g. the Celtic Tree Zodiac."

As the church still had the power to condemn even late in the 19th century, it was to the flow of collective consciousness that

----- Original Message -----
From: <cjjohans@cc.(nospam)helsinki.fi>
To: <all_ancient@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 1:50 PM
Subject: [all_ancient] Re: Astrology: Psychological and Predictive

> Robert Zoller is of the opinion that the shift in U.S. was caused by the personal charisma of Marc Edmund Jones, who was influenced by H.P. Blavatsky (who said "No{r]... do we believe astrology capable of predicting every trifling event in our life, any accidental illness, joy[,] or sorrow.... The stars ... show a lucky or unlucky life, but in general features, and no more.")

> > http://www.new-library.com/zoller/features/rz-article-

> jonesnewage.shtml

Alan Leo, Sepharial and Max Heindel (indirectly) also had Blavatsky connections. I don't buy the witchcraft idea, when astrology still flourished in the 17th and 18th centuries those laws were still enforced (and the Pope had as I recall condemned astrology by then). I believe there was a decline in the 19th century due to temporarily increased materialism. After that "Dark Age" came Blavatsky, the mediums and the psychological astrologers.
>
>
> --- In all_ancient@y..., "Michael Eldridge" <meldridge15@h...> wrote:
> > Good Point! There were a lot of vagrancy laws in the US at the same time. I'm not faulting the motives of the revivalists, just stating fact. I think that the psychological emphasis of western astrology is useful. However, I welcome the recent (past 10 years or so) interest in ancient and medieval sources. As a result, we have an significant number of ancient manuscripts available in English translations, some from more than one translator.
> >
> > Anyone who is interested in these subjects can study the source material and make up their own mind.

Michael
> >
> >
> > Reason being (in Britain leastways) that we still had the witchcraft act in force back then , under which mediums and fortune-tellers were persecuted. So if you did not want to be prosecuted you did not claim to be able to predict future events with any except the very broadest of brushstrokes
> > subject to many vagaries .