The Astrology Podcast
Transcript of Episode 188, titled:
Demetra George on Ancient Astrology in Theory and Practice
With Chris Brennan and guest Demetra George
Episode originally released on January 2, 2019
Ā ā
Note: This is a transcript of a spoken word podcast. If possible, we encourage you to listen to the audio or video version, since they include inflections that may not translate well when written out. Our transcripts are created by human transcribers, and the text may contain errors and differences from the spoken audio. If you find any errors then please send them to us by email: theastrologypodcast@gmail.com
ā
Transcribed by Andrea Johnson
Transcription released August 2, 2019
Copyright Ā© 2019 TheAstrologyPodcast.com
ā
CHRIS BRENNAN: Hi, my name is Chris Brennan, and youāre listening to The Astrology Podcast. This episode was recorded on Friday, November 9, 2018, starting at 1:33 PM, in Denver, Colorado, and this is the 188th episode of the show. For more information about how to subscribe to the podcast and help support the production of future episodes by becoming a Patron, please visit the astrologypodcast.com/subscribe.Ā
In this episode, Iām going to be talking with Demetra George about her new book titled, Ancient Astrology in Theory and Practice: A Manual of Traditional Techniques. Hi, Demetra, thanks for joining me today.
DEMETRA GEORGE: Hi, Chris.Ā
CB: Hey, so Iām really excited about this. Weāre literally on the cusp of the release of your book finally, which I believe is going to come out sometime in the next 24 hours, right?
DG: Yes, thatās my understanding.
CB: Okay. And Iāve already got a proof copy. Weāve been reading through and proofing it over the course of the past month, and itās a really amazing book, so Iām actually really excited to talk to you about this today.
So first, congratulations on the release of the book. I know this is something youāve been working on for quite awhile, right?
DG: Right. It has been a long time, I think. Really itās been 20 years in the making, and then itās probably the actual⦠Well, I think for each chapter since then there must be 13 or 14 versions of each chapter, so itās been a process.
CB: Right. And it turned out to be a pretty big book where you guys ended up actually breaking it up into two volumes, so that this is actually–itās almost 600 pages, but this is just part one of two volumes, right?
DG: Right. Thatās correct. And as I was writing it, on one hand, my intention when I started was to have it be short and simple and concise in a workbook that just dealt with the fundamental principles. But as I started writing, more and more details kept coming out, and then Iād go back and try to delete and rewrite passages and pages and sections only to find out that the material kept showing up as I went on.Ā
So at a certain point, I surrendered to the fact that it wasnāt going to be a stripped-down, distillation of the material, but that I was going to include as much of the richness of the tradition as was wanting to come through. And at that point, until it began to be typeset, I really didnāt know how long it was going to be because a certain part of it is full of workbook exercises.
CB: Right. So thatās actually really important, and that ties back into your earlier career where your second book was actually a workbook. It was a very well-regarded and itās still a very popular intro book to modern astrology, which also had that workbook format as well, right?
DG: Exactly. And I remember doing the beginnings of that at the very start of my astrology teaching career and trying to create structures to train peopleās thinking about how to combine the elements of planets, sign, house, and aspect.Ā
And that has proved to be a tremendously popular book that has held through the ages. Teachers have said that they either use it as their text, or if they recommend it, then people who are working with it progress much faster because the certain form for how they construct the astrological statements becomes embedded in their thinking.
CB: Right. And the title of that book is Astrology for Yourā¦
DG: Astrology for Yourself: A Workbook for Personal Transformation. Itās how to learn astrology by working on your own chart. And to a certain extent, this is a continuation of that process where each one of the 60 chapters ends in a workbook exercise. There are two worked-out examples for the reader to follow, and then there are precise instructions given for repeating the process a third time with your own chart.
And this is something that Iāve been developing for the Hellenistic astrology since I began teaching at Kepler College. 2001, we offered the first course in Hellenistic. But in the years of taking private students since then Iāve had them go through these exercises, and I found that to the extent that a student does them in order and is conscientious in the process, the concepts that seem initially overwhelming or complex become second-nature quite quickly.
CB: Right. Because youāre literally one of the first people in modern times to start teaching ancient, Greco-Roman astrology to modern astrologers. And so, you actually went through the process of figuring out what works and what doesnāt in order to make this material easier for people to grasp.
DG: Exactly. And the process that Iām asking the reader to go through, Iāve taken several hundred people through that process, so I have confidence that it works based upon my experience.
CB: Right. And so, I had the pleasure of writing, the honor of writing the forward to the book, and I told a little anecdote about actually taking your course on Hellenistic astrology at Kepler, and how there was actually like a miscommunication and I only got the sourcebook, which was a collection of just translations of excerpts from the Hellenistic astrologers that had been prepared by Robert Schmidt of Project Hindsight. I didnāt initially, for the first few weeks of my study, get–there were supposed to be a set of notes, a comprehensive set of notes, which is actually what this book eventually turned into.
DG: Exactly.
CB: And so, I struggled actually for the first two weeks of learning Hellenistic astrology because I was just reading the texts without context, and itās actually extremely difficult to just pick up a book on ancient astrology and start reading it and understand everything the author is saying because ancient astrology is so different from modern astrology.
But then, eventually, a few weeks into the course, we realized what had happened, and you sent me your notes. And suddenly, everything became much easier and much more understandable because you were such a good person at knowing how to break down these complex concepts and make them understandable to modern people, and thatās really what this book is about I think as well, right?
DG: Yes, thatās exactly the process. And now, this most recent fall, Iāve done the third, five-day Hellenistic astrology retreat. The first one, I took the group through basically the contents of this book in five days. We met eight hours a day.
And I remember the first day, peopleās mouths just sort of dropped open, āLike you want us to do what?ā And I said, āStay with it. Trust me.ā And by the fifth day, they were all flying through the concepts and the material and just amazed at how much they understood the nuances of how many different factors are involved in understanding how it is that a planet operates.Ā
And thatās the essence of volume one. Itās called Assessing Planetary Condition. And for each planet, we subject it to 30 or 40 different criteria that are based on sect, and the sign itās in, and the power it has in various signs, itās relationship to the Sun, to the aspects. And each factor yields more information about how effectively the planet can bring forth the things it represents and its trying to do in ways that are most beneficial for the individual.
So then, in many astrology interpretation books, itās like one sign fits all. Mars in, letās say, Gemini, or the 3rd house, has one stock interpretation of two paragraphs. And through the richness of the ancient tradition, we find how many more factors were involved in understanding the multi-varied ways in which a planet brings about the matters that itās trying to.
CB: Right. And so, from a modern perspective, itās not usually giving value judgments, or that there can be better or worse placements, itās just giving almost psychological interpretations. But in this approach, youāre actually trying to determine the condition of the planet in the chart to see how well itās able to do its job, and then that has both psychological as well as sometimes literal manifestations in the personās life.
DG: Exactly. One of the simple examples I use is that you may have two individuals who both want to, letās say, start their own business. Theyāre both intelligent, theyāre both competent, theyāre both worthy, and one is able to do so easily, and another one, no matter how hard they try, they struggle with bringing forth less results for greater–from greater effort. And itās in the understanding of planetary condition that it illuminates to the reader why things are easier for some people than for others, and what are the particular strengths and weaknesses and individual needs to factor into their approach to bringing about their objectives, where are they most vulnerable, and how is it that that can be seen in the chart.
CB: Right. And instead of somehow that being disempoweringā¦
DG: Right.
CB: …which is the fear I think that modern astrologers sometimes have about that approach, instead, sometimes it can be more validating about what a person already does know and understand about their life in some ways.
DG: Exactly. The take-home is that it isnāt that Iām a bad person, or Iām an incompetent person, but this is something I never realized. It was a blindspot in how I functioned. And now, I have the insight to be able to recognize that and then within that being able to do what one canā¦
CB: Right.
DG: …to both mitigate it, or to be able to accept it and move forward.
CB: Sure. And you get into a lot of different types of conditions in terms of planetary condition. One of the things I really appreciated in this book, we knew for a long time that youāve been working on it and that it would come out, and it complements my book very well. One of the things Iām almost jealous about is that you do give a little historical overview in the beginning, but itās relatively concise compared to the 200 pagesā¦
DG: Right.
CB: …I spent in the first part of my book, and then you just jump right into the techniques. So this is very much a technique-oriented book. And youāre able to go much further into some specific techniques than I did because you donāt spend all that time worrying about the history. You just give this very nice overview of the history of the past 2,000 years–actually itās more like 4,000 years of the practiceā¦
DG: Yes.
CB: …of astrology, and you get right to how do we use this today.
DG: Exactly. And I had spent many years putting together the history and philosophy of ancient astrology when I taught at Kepler College. And then as we were both getting serious about writing our books, there was a point in which I was very happy to let you do the history, the philosophy, some of the conceptual issues.
CB: Right.
DG: Because I had already done that, so I didnāt need to do it over again, but I wanted to see all the places that you were going to take this material to. And then that sort of relieved me of the responsibility of tending to that part because I knew that it would already be done, and it would be done in a wonderful way.
CB: Right.
DG: Yes, we worked together in sorting out how we were going to have our books complement each other.
CB: Right. And so, one of the nice things about that then is youāre able to go into some techniques that I either only mention in passing or couldnāt deal with at all. So one of the things that youāre able to address, for example, that I was excited about is spear-bearing. You actually address that concept in this book?
DG: Yes. Many astrologers by now have heard us use the word āmaltreatment,ā of specialized ways in which planets or the functions that they represent can be severely impaired or damaged, making it difficult to bring forth the most positive things that those planets represent. But in the source texts, either right before the treatment of maltreatment or right after, both Antiochus and Porphry talk about spear-bearers. And these are actually bodyguards, and these are ways in which planetary patterns can offer protection, which is the corollary to the patterns that cause danger or damage.
And the notion of spear-bearers, especially as we saw in the text, is that it was often used to indicate a person who was very eminent. And if we think of queens [kings] and queens, or important political figures, they all have entourages of bodyguards that accompany them. And this was the notion of spear-bearers in the ancient texts, and laying out the ways that you can see the way in which certain parts of a chart are not only protected, but they signify a person who has the eminence that warrants being protected.
CB: Right. I love that. So itās like a celebrity that has a bodyguard, or even like the President has the Secret Service…
DG: Exactly.
CB: …that fans out physically in front and behind.
DG: Yeah.
CB: And then in the actual astrological concept, one of the definitions, one of the versions of spear-bearing is having planets either in a conjunction on both sides, either directly in front or directly behind, protecting one of the luminaries.
DG: Exactly.
CB: Okay. So yeah, you spend quite a bit of time going into that because thereās three different variants or versions of spear-bearing, and then you give worksheets for how to calculate it in a personās chart.
DG: Right. And this is really one of the most complex of the preliminary topics in the ancient material. There is some variation among the authors. There are some texts that are incomplete. And what Iāve done is worked with each of the authors, taking it as far as I could given the material that is presented, and then create worksheets. And in some cases, itās easy for people to figure out if there are āspear-bearerā bodyguards in their chart or in other peopleās charts. And then, other cases, you get to a certain point and youāre not sure how to read it, and if you go back to the text, the text themselves are inconclusive.Ā
So I think this was a concept that a number of ancient astrologers struggled with, and as time went on, each one tried to interpret–reinterpret the material according to their own understanding. So I hope that in my chapter on that I both conveyed the tradition and then laid out a format that people could follow with the view that there are certain pieces of this doctrine that are inconclusive.
CB: Right. Yeah, and part of the background behind that is back in 2010, you actually set out and you completed translating–or you did translations of all of the relevant texts of all of the different definitions of spear-bearing and maltreatment, and all of the different definitions of types of aspects doctrines that the Hellenistic astrologers had. And then you actually asked me and Ben Dykes if we wanted to get togetherā¦
DG: Yes.
CB: …for a week on the coast of Oregon in order to put all these different definitions together, and then reconstruct what we thought the original definitions of things like spear-bearing and maltreatment and other things like that were. And over the course of the week, we had this really amazing collaboration, and at the end of it, we did have what we felt like was a pretty solid reconstruction of most of it.
DG: Right. That was a glorious week, like one of the high points as I reflect back upon my life. Weāre there in an oceanfront condo on the Pacific Coast, and we had brought our lexicons, and dictionaries, and manuscripts, and texts, and translations and went through some times from early in the morning until the wee hours of the night totally immersed in this conversation, punctuated by walks on the beach and looking at the waves, the tides coming in and out. For the whole concept of the scholar in the tower, that was really one of the more glorious weeks of my life.
CB: Yeah, definitely. Iām really glad that we did that. And then pieces of that reconstruction we came up with that week have come out in different places. I know Ben included a little bit–I think it was in his Introductions toā¦
DG: Exactly. Introduction to Astrology.Ā
CB: Yeah. Was that it? I canāt remember if it was–it wasnāt Traditional Astrology for Today, but it was his other one. I think it was titled, Introductions to Astrology: Abu Maāshar and al-Qabisi.
DG: Yeah.Ā
CB: So he was trying to introduce a lot of the medieval definitions of basic concepts in the aspect doctrine and things like that. But in order to do so, he also introduced and talked about some of the Hellenistic precursors, which are the ones that we had tried to reconstruct.
DG: Yes.
CB: So that came out, I think, in 2010 or 2011. And then, in my book, I introduced large parts of my understanding of that in a few chapters, especially surrounding the āmodificationā and maltreatment techniques. And now, in this book, youāve introduced basically all of the rest of it and your understanding of all that as well.
DG: Yeah.
CB: And what was interesting though–and one of the things that will be interesting for students of ancient and traditional astrology to look at–is sometimes there is still points of uncertainty or disagreements about certain aspects of some of the definitions though and different ways that you could interpret certain sentences that would have vastly different meanings from a practical standpoint, especially with the definition of maltreatment, right?
DG: Yes, there was. And so, at least in one instance, both you and I settled on different interpretations based on our reading of the text. And sometimes, I say it all depends on where you think the comma should have been placed.
CB: Right. Itās literally something like that. Like the grammar of the sentence completely and how you read it completely changes how you would apply it to charts. Do you mind if we read that definition of maltreatment really quickly?
DG: Certainly.
CB: Okay. So hereās your translation. It says, āConcerning injury, itās called maltreatment whenever some star is struck with a ray, or is struck with a ray by malefics, or it is enclosed, or if it is in a connection sunaphe with a destructive star or an adherence–in brackets, kollesis–or if it is opposed or overcome, or ruled by an evildoer which is badly situated, and when it itself declines in the ineffective places.ā And thatās from Porphryās Introduction from the 3rd or 4th century.Ā
Maybe we should go through the list in terms of some of those really quickly. So this is a definition of maltreatment. So this is supposed to be the most extreme versions of what modern astrologers sometimes call āaffliction,ā except in modern astrology thatās more of like a generic term that…
DG: Right.
CB: …doesnāt have any…
DG: Affliction includes other factors as well.
CB: Right. Whereas this is more like a specific set of conditions of extreme, like worst case scenario for a planet.
DG: Right. And theyāre relatively not so frequent. Itās not uncommon for charts not to have any maltreatment conditions. And so, when you see them, itās a sort of red flag to pay attention that thereās a problem here.
CB: Right. And then you also in other chapters talk about a corresponding set of positive conditions that can indicate very good things about a…
DG: Yes.
CB: …planetās condition. Okay. So some of the different ones here that are relatively straightforward are things like being overcome by a malefic is a condition of maltreatment according to this text.Ā
DG: Well, I think this is the point on which we differ.
CB: Okay, right.
DG: Right. This is the point where itās not so straightforward.
CB: So the difference of interpretation is that very last sentence where it says, āand when it itself declines in the ineffective places,ā you take that to apply grammatically to the entirety of the rest of the definition?
DG: No.
CB: No. Iām sorry. The part where it says, āby an evildoer which is badly-situated?ā
DG: Yes, thatās the piece. So then thereās a series of conditions and then thereās an āand,ā and then they list three that a planet is overcome, or opposed, or in the domicile of a malefic thatās badly-situated.
And so, badly-situated, or in disadvantaged places refers to the house location of the malefic planet. And if that planet is in houses whose topics are problematical topics–such as the 6th house of illness, or the 8th house of death, or the 12th house of suffering and other kinds of grave difficulties–those are the topics of the planet in that house has to use in order to bring forth what it represents.
When a planet is in one of those difficult houses and overcoming has a superior square to a planet, or opposes a planet by Whole Sign, or is a domicile lord then thatās what brings that more graver level of difficulty to the experiences of the individual. Itās not simply being opposed by Mars or Saturn, or having the superior square, but that Mars and Saturn is in a house sector of the chart whose topics through which it expresses, that they themselves are the most difficult topics of life–so itās a double-condition almost.Ā
So anyway, thatās my rationale for why I have included that the malefic be in a difficult planet as well as making that superior square opposition.
CB: Right. So thatās the interpretation that you take in reading the text. That itās not just that it is overcome, or opposed, or ruled by a malefic, but the malefic itself also has to be in one of the difficult houses…
DG: Exactly.
CB: …especially the 6th or the 12th.
DG: Or, even the 8th. Because I think that the very last piece⦠And then thereās a comma, and then the last piece says–and this has been something that all of us, including Schmidt has gone back and forth with–it seems almost as if, if a planet is simply in the 6th or 12th house that also is enough to create a situation of distress for the planet.
CB: Right. Because the final clause is, āand when it itself declines in the ineffective places.ā And so, Iāve interpreted that as a whole seventh condition just onto itself…
DG: Exactly.
CB: …of a malefic planet ruling another planet, and then the malefic being badly-situated in the 6th or 12th house, which is a condition known as ācounteraction,ā so thatās like a second interpretation. And then Schmidt has a whole eighth, separate interpretation, which is that itās just a planet placed in one of the ābadā houses, especially the 6th or 12th. So that means between the three of us, we have three entirely different interpretations of this one passage, depending on how you read the grammar.
DG: Right. To our audience, that may seem very confusing, weird, or how come thatās the case? But in terms of reading Greek, itās not unusual. The ancients often said that the Greeks were liars, and that was because the syntax of their language could be interpreted in so many different ways. So someone could seemingly be giving you a compliment, but really for those who could read underneath it, you could see it was an insult.
And when I was–in the years after I graduated from the U of O, I participated in a reading group that some graduate students and professors were in, and we would read different texts. And they could spend an hour discussing one sentence in the text we were reading, with each person offering their own interpretation of that sentence. And that often became the substance of our reading group, seeing the variety of ways that each reader could interpret, as I said, one particular sentence. So the fact that weāve all landed in that position over the maltreatment definitions is not unusual in the larger context of people reading and understanding ancient Greek.
CB: Right. Because it also involves comparing. There were three different texts that survived…
DG: Right.
CB: …that preserved that definition, and all of them are slightly different. So itās not even just reading one text and coming to different conclusions, itās attempting to reconcile three different versions of the same definition and figure out what the original one was. And that was a project that originally was undertaken by Robert Schmidt in his 2009 book, Definitions and Foundations, where he tried to reconstruct the original text underlying all of these three different variations.
DG: Right.
CB: But then we got together in 2010 to see if we could validate that and if we agreed with the reconstruction or if we came to our own. And we ended up coming to different conclusions largely for reasons like this.
DG: Exactly.
CB: And this represents basically the publication of all of your conclusions and all of the work that you did. What I love about this and whatās going to be the most valuable is you did your own independent translations from the Greek for every astrological passage that you translated in this book, right?
DG: Yes.Ā
CB: Okay. I mean thatās a pretty big deal. That took you a lot of time to do.
DG: Right. And that was when we were so confused over understanding the aspect doctrine. At a certain point, I realized that I was never going to really get it unless I sat down and did my own translations. And that sort of opened up the areas where I saw how different translators interpreted a single word, and thatās what really helped me get into deeper layers in understanding the material.Ā
CB: Right. Just because thereās so many different ways then that you can practice astrology and establish that the doctrines depending on how you interpret the texts. And you wouldnāt think sometimes that they could be that wildly different, but this is a really good example of how that can have major practical implications.Ā
DG: Oh, exactly. For anyone whoās ever, letās say, read the Greek tragedy plays, there are many different translations of the same play, and if you pick them up, you can see how much they vary. And if you happen to be looking at the Greek as well, sometimes you look at someoneās translation, you go, āOh, my goodness. How could they get these English words out of these Greek words? It makes no sense at all what theyāve done with it.ā But someone just picking up any old translation wouldnāt realize what a great variation there can be based upon the knowledge and the bias of the translator.
CB: Sure. So thereās a little bit of that in here in terms of presenting the translations and then explaining what they mean. But youāre also just focused on trying to show people what they would do with this material, taking this interpretation of the different texts and this is how you apply it. And then throughout the book, you focus on a recurring application of the techniques to two specific example charts.
DG: Right. Iāve been working with the chart of Jacqueline Kennedy Onasis for a number of years. Each principle I present, I work the interpretation through with her chart, and then I do it with a second chart, which is that of Pablo Picasso. And I was looking for a man that everyone knew that had a night chart instead of a day chart, and at a certain point thatās what I landed upon. So then thereās two fully worked out examples that the students can read, and then the instructions start again from the beginning. Now take the process and do it with your own chart.
And I remember one moment in the retreat that we did, the afternoon sessions, people worked together in small groups. And there was one student that went, āAhhh! I donāt know what to do!ā And then a person in her group said, āWait a second. Letās just go to Instruction #1. Letās just read that, see what it says, put in the box what she tells us to. Now go to Instruction #2, follow that.ā And then by the end of that sequence, the students were able to replicate the process. So I tried not to make any previous assumptions of what you should know, or what you may have forgotten, but there is a tremendous amount of repetition in the book. I think thatās probably what takes up some of all of the pages.
But in my work of being a teacher, I understand that many people need to–if itās a new concept–they need to hear it repeated over a number of different times before it finally sinks in. And with that repetition comes mastery of the understanding.
CB: Right. Yeah. And thatās a lot of what the book focuses on is just forcing you, at the end of the instructional chapters, to then write this out in a chart. Because sometimes itās only by doing so that you truly start to understand and the knowledge starts to sink in.
DG: Exactly. And you also see what you didnāt understand, in fact, and then youāre forced to go back an re-look at that material until you clarify it.
CB: Right.
DG: And itās all progressive. It would be quite challenging not knowing any traditional astrology to just jump in and start the aspect chapter because each chapter builds upon the previous one.
CB: Right. And one of the things you did that I was surprised at thatās really nice, is you do, in some places, summaries, where you do short paragraphs, or just a sentence to summarize the basic principles. And it almost takes on the form of a traditional list of aphorisms basically of just the key points of this section of the book.
DG: Yes. And thatās also part of it. Itās like, hey, these are the main points that you should have gotten. And in some of those medieval books, all we have is the aphorisms, but we donāt have the explanation of how you got to that conclusion…
CB: Right.
DG: …and thatās what I tried to do in the main text. This why weāve come to this final conclusion about this factor or this doctrine.
CB: Right. So another major component of the book that you spend a lot of time talking about is the āsolar phase cycleā and the importance of some of these concepts, which has the effect of reconnecting astrologers with the astronomy, at least in part in realizing that thereās a lot to the phase relationship that each of the planets has with the Sun that has a lot of really important interpretative meaning. And sometimes, itās really small or seemingly minor things, but those minor things can add up to have a big overall effect in terms of the overall interpretation of a planetās condition in a chart.
DG: Right. Part of how I start out is this larger cosmology that the ancient philosophers had that was incorporated by the astrologers, and it starts from the principle of unity into the divine quality of the stars, and then the planets are slightly less divine than the fixed stars, and they have these nested orbits. And their first relationship is to the Sun and to the Moon as the celestial king and queen of the heavens, and then to one another, but in that is the planetās relationship to the Sun in terms of their cycles.
And the ancient astrologers saw that a planetās speed, its visibility, and that its moments when it appeared and disappeared according to its phases–or its station turning retrograde or direct–were very key moments. They were a visual phenomenon but they had great interpretative meaning.Ā
And so, itās through a thorough understanding of that cycle that a planet has from one conjunction with the Sun to the next time it conjuncts the Sun that all of these factors–whether itās going fast or slow, direct, or indirect, itās appearing after having being hidden, itās disappearing for a period of time–there are many subtleties of interpretation that come in with each of those moments.
And so, Iāve tried not to only say, āOh, the planet is within 15° of the Sun, itās weakened.ā But to understand that within the entire cycle of its relationship to the Sun–and with that astronomical model to work off of–then the final, interpretive conclusions begin to make sense because you see the rationale that has informed those conclusions. And that was the beauty of the Hellenistic astrology at the beginning. As modern astrologers, we learned many things but we didnāt know why, and the Hellenistic began to reveal the underlying structure that informs the delineation of the chart.
CB: Right. It seems like the longer and longer the tradition went on, the more it just became lists of rules and understandings…
DG: Yeah.
CB: …about when you see a placement in a diagram, in a chart, this is what it means, or x = y. But if you take it as far back into the traditional as you can, you start to get back to this layer where theyāre focused more on looking at actual observational astronomy, and then interpreting the movements and the positions of the planets symbolically as having symbolic import in the personās life. And when you do that you get connected to this much deeper level of astrology it seems like.
So with the āsolar phase cycle,ā that includes a lot of things like the speed of the planet, the direction that the planet is moving along the Zodiac, either direct or retrograde. It includes visibility conditions like being able to see the planet in the sky, or whether the planet is hidden by being too close to the Sun, so that the Sunās light overwhelms it. And thereās a few other conditions…
DG: Right…
CB: …in that general area.
DG: …there are.
CB: Right. So yeah, thatās one piece of things in terms of the visibility and interpreting astronomical movements in a symbolic way. And then thereās also that separate part of Hellenistic astrology which seems like itās more directly symbolic, or more based on sort of abstract systems or things like that. Iām trying to find a way to describe something like the āplanetary joys,ā or the Thema Mundi, and the aspect doctrine and other things like that, where itās more likeā¦Ā
Robert Schmidt would always call a theoretical construct of some sort where somebodyās put something together that almost has an artificial ring to it. But itās not artificial in a bad sense, instead itās more artificial in a way thatās deliberate and thought out, where the concepts are interlocking in some way.
DG: Yes. Thereās a very elegant substructure–itās often geometrical substructure…
CB: Geometric, yeah.
DG: …that underlies the relationships that we accord planets with certain signs and signs with one another, and even the aspects conforming to the nature of the planets. And itās a simple model, but it ties together all of these pieces into an elegant explanation.
CB: Right.
DG: And thatās part of the beauty and the excitement of the traditional astrology.
CB: Yeah, seeing that there was something there that was deliberate and something that was⦠Because sometimes when modern astrologers, when we learn different pieces of traditional astrology, it just seems very arbitrary, and there doesnāt seem to be any rule or reason underlying it. Itās just like hereās a set of rules and this is how you interpret them and thatās it. But then, suddenly, you go back to the Hellenistic tradition and you see many of these rules are part of an overlocking, overarching structure thatās underlying the entire system in some way.
DG: Exactly. And initially, I thought I wanted to make it simple and simply having, āHere are the rules, and hereās how you do it.ā But then I quickly realized that I was simply unable to do that, that I had to explain as best as I could the underlying structure that informed all of the principles and doctrines. So thatās why both of our books got to be so big.
CB: Right.Ā
DG: We were unable to restrain ourselves from providing those explanations as best we could.
CB: We have to apologize to future translators…
DG: Yeah.
CB: …and other people transmitting the books, or just carrying them or that matter. So what that the thing though that got you interested finally? Because there was a period whereā¦
One of the things thatās interesting thatās mentioned in the book, or I try to mention in my preface, is that you were actually the very first subscriber to the Project Hindsight translation series through this weird set of circumstances.
DG: Right.
CB: And you got some of the translations, and you also attended some of their seminars or their conclaves in the mid-ā90s. But it wasnāt until after that, around 2000-2001, that you really got deeply interested in Hellenistic astrology and went out there to study it, and started studying the text more closely. What was it that changed at that point compared to the mid-ā90s that really got you interested in it as a modern astrologer?
DG: Well, in the mid-ā90s, when I got interested in it as a modern astrologer, it was like the new, big thing in town, so to speak, that Rob Hand–whoās a great spokesperson for whatever he believes in–was supporting throughout the community. But I do a little bio in the book of how I got to Hellenistic astrology that was also connected with a regression that I had that sort of focused my attention.
But just as when you first looked at the Hellenistic course and the texts, and you couldnāt understand what they were saying, that was my reaction in the mid-ā90s. I was getting the translations but they could have still been in Greek for all we knew what they meant. And I remember going to some initial lectures that both Bob Schmidt and Rob Hand were giving, and itās like, āI didnāt understand a word that youāve said. I have no idea what youāre talking about.āĀ
And thatās where I was, letās say, by 1996-97, three or so years after the first translations began to emerge, and then thatās when I went back to graduate school. And that decision wasnāt really about learning the Hellenistic material, it was just about continuing my ongoing love of learning and being able to further my education. And I went into classics because of my mythological interests. And then once I got into the program, itās like, āWell, you have to learn Greek and Latin because thatās what we do here.ā And itās like, āOkay, whatever.ā My Gemini…
CB: Which is hilarious.
DG: Right. My Gemini Moon just loves learning almost anything new just for the adventure and the sake of learning.
CB: But thatās literally one of the hardest things you could possibly do in grad school is try to go back and study ancient Greek and Latin, but it was done initially–just the motivation that your background was in mythology…
DG: Right.
CB: …and that was a major component in your astrological career. And so, you thought that would be the best access point in grad school was learning ancient Greek and Latin, but that turned out to be both incredibly difficult, but accidentally very useful later on when you did get more interested in ancient astrology.
DG: Right. So then during those years, 1997 to 2000, I sort of put my life as an astrologer on hold because I couldnāt do graduate school and continue to travel to conferences, and prepare new lectures, and to see clients. And my life existed between my study chair, the bus stop, and campus for three years.
Then, again, as I was ready to graduate, Kepler College received its authorization, and I was asked to teach the first-year history program because I would have the right degree, at the right time that the state board required for authorizing their instructors, their teachers. So then I was totally immersed in putting together the history of ancient astrology. So I was aware that Project Hindsight was still continuing to have events at their home in Maryland, but my life was so overwhelmed with this other thing I was doing that there was no way that I could really follow that or participate in it.Ā
And then it was at the end of Keplerās first year where I taught the history of ancient and medieval astrology that our students attended a NORWAC where Project Hindsight had a table and a booth. And Alan White was talking about the techniques of interpretation with Hellenistic astrology and our students said to me, āWhat this about? Like what are all these techniques?ā And I realized, āYeah, what are all these techniques? Youāve been learning the history for a year. Thereās a whole body of practical information that goes with that, that in terms of keeping with the integrity of that program that you should also be exposed to.ā
And then, a month later, Bob at Hindsight was giving an intensive, a week-long intensive, and I realized that I had to go there and sort of catch up to speed on what they had done during the past four years while I had been totally immersed in graduate school and Keplerās first-year program. And that was the moment when not only did I connect with the potency of the techniques, but because I have had enough of the Greek, I was able to hear those teachings in a way that I couldnāt have possibly understood four or five years earlier.Ā
So thatās what happened at that moment, I saw how important the teachings were. I went back to Kepler, I was able to arrange to have that module included in the Kepler curriculum. And then I returned to Maryland and to Virginia for a number of months where I put together that first course under the instruction of Alan White and Robert Schmidt.
CB: Right. And you wrote a lot of notes. It was probably, I donāt know, 200 pages maybe of a course manual of commentary, an instructional manual that would go with some of the translations. And then, those course notes, you continued to expand as you teach private students over the course…
DG: Exactly…
CB: …of the past decade-and-a-half, and now, thatās what this book is.Ā
DG: Thatās what this book is.
CB: And I can actually recognize some of the sections of it where I remember it from all those years ago, for more than 10 years ago now, reading it in the Kepler course.
DG: I first started doing the workbook application there because I was still connected with the Astrology for Yourself model.Ā
CB: Okay. Right. And you were probably doing that for some of yourself in learning that material and trying to systemize…
DG: Right.
CB: …and understand each of the concepts. All right. Yeah, so thatās really important. Iām trying to think–one of the issues that we could go into is⦠One of the things thatās interesting about the book, actually notable is I thought before I read this that it was just going to be about Hellenistic astrology–which is basically Greco-Roman astrology from the 1st century BCE roughly to the 7th century–but you actually incorporated some later medieval authors into your treatment as well because youāve been studying them over the course of the past decade in addition to some of the Greek texts.
DG: Right. And I tried as much as possible to have footnotes from the ancient texts themselves about where these doctrines came from, or who said it, and to have it go back to where we can trace it to. And in that search for primary source documentation, it inevitably led me into looking at some of the material of the Arabic and medieval authors. And thanks to all of Ben Dykeās translations, I had all that material right at my bookshelf, so it was quite impossible not to see how the tradition continued into the medieval and Renaissance period.
And in volume two, which will be mostly about the houses–although Iām treating some other pieces on the rulers of the nativity as well–that interest in how the tradition developed over the course of 2,000 years is especially evident where I look at the significations of the houses and find what Hellenistic authors said about each house, and then Arabic/medieval authors, and then a number of Renaissance authors, and then the early modern authors to be able to see what pieces of the doctrine survived and remain constant, what elements of the houses were added in at certain times and why, what pieces dropped out and perhaps speculate as to why, and then be able to do that analysis of our understanding of the houses from the entirety of the tradition.
So something that started off in the beginning, āWell, did Bonatti have anything to say about sect?ā we heard those words, medieval words, a planet being in Hayz. Letās say that sect-related conditions, that was a concept that we didnāt see in the Hellenistic. And then, as I started, again, the Gemini part of myself canāt contain–refrain actually is the word–from gathering more and more information. āLike what did so-and-so say? And where did they get it from?ā just kept moving me forward through the tradition, so you see more and more of that as the book goes on.
CB: Right. Yeah, I appreciate that. And I think other traditional astrologers will appreciate that because it sets it up as something thatās useful for everybody, and not necessarily just one tradition even if itās very much rooted in the Hellenistic tradition primarily. And it kind of raises an interesting thing Iāve been thinking about a lot lately, which is because traditional astrology was dug up⦠On the one hand, partially because it was dug up in different eras where first there was a revival of Renaissance astrology in the 1980s because the text of William Lilly was rediscovered, and because it was the earliest text written in English…
DG: Right.
CB: …you could still read it without any language skills. So there was like a rebirth or rediscovery of Renaissance astrology first and there was much excitement surrounding that. And then at some point, there was also probably after that a revival of medieval astrology through the work of people like Robert Zoller. And he was working on Latin texts basically, like Guido Bonatti and other authors like that. And then, eventually, there was a revival, especially more recently of the Hellenistic texts and excitement surrounding the Greek texts that were written around the 1st century, or give or take a few centuries.
But thereās different people–depending on which tradition oftentimes they started with–that will tend to prefer that tradition. And thereās different, almost like fundamentalism that sometimes develops out of each tradition…
DG: Yes.
CB: …depending on what the personās preference is, where there can be versions of Hellenistic fundamentalism of saying the original system was the best and everything else was a de-evolution. There is a medieval fundamentalism weāve seen sometimes, which is like the Hellenistic astrology was okay, but it really got at its best during the medieval tradition and then it declined during the Renaissance. And then thereās like a Renaissance…
DG: Right.
CB: …fundamentalism where they say the earlier traditions were okay, but it really reached its peak in the Renaissance and then declined after that. How do you–you donāt seem to oftentimes go down that route. What do you recommend, or do you recommend avoiding that? Is that okay, that impulse? Have you ever had that impulse yourself? Or, how do you perceive it yourself when you see it in sometimes other practitioners?
DG: From a very cynical point of view, I understand that wherever an astrologer has invested their ego and being right about the kind of astrology they do–and correspondingly, their income is dependent upon their authority and maintaining that authority–I understand why many astrologers are so rooted in that their astrology is the best and the most correct.
But if we take a larger sweep of understanding, we see that astrology has made its way around the world almost since the beginning of its development. And that each culture that has received teachings has, in order to fully integrate them into being applicable to their own experiences, has made certain insights or adaptations that brought it in alignment with their primary beliefs.
However, to the extent that we consider that astrology is–I hesitate to use the word a language of ātruth,ā but the language that it is can reveal the truth of the situation of the condition, and fate or karma of a personās life and their purpose. Then that truth can be communicated in many different languages, and we have to be careful not to fall into the trap that the only ātrueā word is something that happens in our own language that only we ourselves can understand. And so, that gives us that sort of openness to respecting the variety of different traditions that emerged from this one, fundamental understanding.
And what Iāve tried to do in this book is the notion of planetary condition is something that remains uniform from the earliest of times through the Renaissance. This idea that based on a planetās sign, and house, and relationship to the Sun and aspects, its ability to form its function was easier or harder for the individual, thatās a constant in all of these different traditions. And by speaking to how a certain doctrine developed and was re-understood, my hope is that the book can cut through those barriers of the differences between one tradition and another.
Astrologers have always disagreed. Even in the Hellenistic texts, you see Valens says, āThis person said that, and that person said whatever, but this is what I think.ā This variant of opinion has been continuous, so thereās no use in pretending that it hasnāt been. And being able to present the multiplicity, and yet, from the multiplicity to be able to isolate the things that are continuous and constant is what I tried to do, so that hopefully, students of medieval or Renaissance astrology can read this book and benefit from the understanding of the principles without it causing them to totally reject a tradition that they are connected with for whatever other reasons. Now did that make sense?Ā
CB: Yeah, definitely. And I think you accomplished that because you traced that thread later in the tradition, in addition to talking about the foundation. I think thatās going to have the effect of showing the overlaps more clearly, and showing where some of those later things that just became rules or aphorisms originally came from and what the original conceptual and philosophical rationale was originally.
Yeah, it just comes up sometimes in funny ways because so much of the tradition became about the textual tradition…
DG: Right.
CB: …and what texts were transmitted, what texts werenāt, what authority is being given to certain texts in different eras versus in other eras, what texts are being given more authority. We came up with this at one point when you were writing your book in the editing phase of the question of was Claudius Ptolemy a practicing astrologer…
DG: Right.
CB: …and some of the debates surrounding that, and then subsequent questions about how much authority to give his texts based on what your answer to that question is. And so, thereās just some tricky issues that come up sometimes in terms of that.
DG: Yeah. Things that make us question that is all of the other Hellenistic astrologers were continually mentioning and citing one another. But Ptolemy is rarely cited by anyone until way later on, and he, himself, isnāt including other astrologers whose texts we have in his books, so thatās one reason why his book is different from any of the others. So that makes us wonder if, in some ways, he was outside of the mainstream of the astrological tradition of his day.
CB: Right.
DG: And one comparison we might have to that in our time right now is there are a number of academics, especially in Europe and on the continent, who are working with the history of astrology, but they have no idea who the foremost, astrological practitioners of today are. And many practicing astrologers have no idea who these academics who are authorities in the academic world are. So thereās a big gap that exists between those two groups today, and I imagine that that could have also been the case in earlier eras.
And then we also know that one of Ptolemyās objectives was to reconcile this new astrology with the philosophy of his day because he did have other academic works on optics, and astronomy, and geography and different subjects out there.Ā
CB: Right. He was like a polymath who wrote…
DG: Right.
CB: …major works in a bunch of different fields.
DG: So Iām sure that in the course of learning a lot about the important subjects of his day that he did give due attention to astrology and presented it to the best of his abilities. And he was a great mind, he did a lot of good work in what he set down. But that he was a practicing astrologer in the same way that the others were, thereās some question there because no one seems to know about him, and he doesnāt seem to know about anyone else.
CB: Right. And unlike his contemporaries, he doesnāt use any example charts.
DG: Right.
CB: Whereas somebody like Valens, you have a bunch of…
DG: Right.
CB: He uses his own chart. He uses client charts. He gets in a shipwreck, and he goes around and collects everyone on the boatās chart afterwards to see what happened in the concept of the shipwreck. We donāt see that necessarily in Ptolemy.
DG: Right, so thereās that. But thatās not to say that his work isnāt representative of the period and that itās not valuable.
CB: Right. That was the question I had as Iāve been⦠There was an extreme pushback against Ptolemy in the ā90s, especially in the work of people like Geoffrey Cornelius and James Holden for many of the reasons that you said. And then thereās also, of course, people that place his work on a pedestal. And up until recently, itās always been thought of as the major work on ancient astrology that everybody should emulate and was the best example of that. And sometimes, in the Renaissance, for example, that reached into an extreme version where they would just adopt a bunch of Ptolemyās techniques, even though, in some instances, they were radically different with what the tradition had been for 1,700 years up to that point.Ā
But all that being said, and despite those two extremes, thereās still probably reason to say we donāt necessarily know. And he did write a book on astrology, and while he sometimes would omit or just not talk about concepts or techniques that he didnāt like, there were techniques that he did agree with that he does seem to treat competently and in a way thatās not so dissimilar from other astrologers that itās just completely breaking with the tradition. Like, for example, with lots, or the Arabic parts, he doesnāt seem to like those very much. He keeps the Lot of Fortune because heās able to find a rationale for it that he agrees with, but he kind of dispenses with all of the rest of them.
DG: Right. Thereās very little information on the houses. A few lines here and there, but he doesnāt really treat the significations of the houses.
CB: Right. Itās very sporadic. And he mainly focuses on angularity but not so much on topics necessarily.
DG: So thereās another part of that question of how do I deal with other astrologers who are fundamentalists in their own tradition. And my sense is not to really disperse my energy by getting involved in those disputes, but by doing the very best work I can with the material that Iām comfortable with and feel competent in, and to let the material speak for itself, and to support that which I want to put my energy into making available and not get distracted by trying to dispute what someone else is doing. So I tend to ignore it, for the most part.
CB: Sure. And thatās probably been easier because youāve done work with Dennis Harness. You originally co-taught the Hellenistic course with him where you compared Hellenistic and Vedic astrology, in order to both emphasize and show, just by teaching them side by side, how many similarities there were as well as the differences. And so, exercises like that have probably been really fruitful in terms of keeping an open mind and seeing the value of that comparison between the traditions.
DG: Exactly. We discovered in that Kepler course was Hellenistic and Vedic were much more similar than Hellenistic is to modern. And then the second thing was that we would give a question and have our students both arrive at a judgment using Hellenistic techniques and then using Vedic techniques. And what was often the case is that they arrived at similar conclusions but used entirely different systems to be able to get there. And so, that also opens up your mind. You canāt keep it as fixed to the one-and-only-way point of view.
CB: Right. Yeah, thatās amazing. And then more relevant in terms of modern astrologers is that youāve also continued some of that work in terms of not wanting to just do ancient astrology in and of itself, but sometimes now going back and looking for ways to integrate ancient astrology and modern astrology, or perhaps, synthesize the two.
DG: Umm, yes, that also. And Iāve continued to use the asteroids through this whole time period, and I definitely use the modern planets, the outer planets. So it isnāt as if Iām only doing ancient astrology, but Iām using the insights that the foundation of our tradition has given us as the foundation of my understanding, and then treating asteroids and the outer planets, while fully considering them, treating them in different ways, and again, doing that layering process with it.
My belief is that everything in our solar system and even in our cosmos has meaning. Every celestial body has some sort of interpretive meaning, and that opens us up to the asteroids, the trans-Neptunian planets, the fixed stars, and given the grace that we should live that long, being able to integrate black holes and other galaxies into our understanding. Not that we ourselves should live that long, but that the tradition of astrologers can continue that far out into the future.
So it all has interpretive meaning. Thereās nothing that should be rejected, but the Hellenistic⦠Unless you have a strong foundation of your house, you pile up all this other stuff, itās all going to topple over. And so, the foundation is so beautiful, and elegant, and clear, and strong, itās hard not to give it the respect that it should have, and that was my intent in bringing forth this work.
CB: Awesome. And you feel like having had a long astrological career prior to getting into ancient astrology and continuing to have a long career afterwards, that going back and doing this work and getting into this material has enriched your work as a modern astrologer and created a more solid foundation?
DG: Absolutely. And the students that Iāve had, Iāve asked them afterwards, āWell, how are your readings?ā And they say, āOh, the readings are so much better than they were before. I feel so much more confident in what I say and understanding why Iām saying it, and having some sort of justification for it.āĀ
And so, Iām still a working astrologer. I see a number of clients every week, every month for years. And I have totally benefited from the clarity and depth of the ancient material. Itās added to my practice as a counseling astrologer. When I do a reading, if someone isnāt themselves an advanced astrologer interested in the traditional material, Iām not layering it with all of the terminology of maltreatment, and sect, and all of the other jargon that we use. But that information is for the astrologer, him- or herself, to be able to feel confident and then saying what they need to to their client with a sense of purposeful clarity.
CB: Yeah, and really giving people a structure for how to go about delineating a chart and what steps you take. Because that seems like the wall that I see most students of astrology hit at some point like a year or two or maybe a few years into their studies. They know a bunch of different things, they know what everything should mean, but they donāt know how to put it together…
DG: Exactly.
CB: …in order to form a meaningful synthesis. And that seems like the main thing that this book is really about is how you form a meaningful synthesis by going through the necessary steps in the right order and knowing what to prioritize, or what to put a little bit further down the chain of interpretive principles.
DG: Right. I remember when I was a young astrologer, after we learned planet signs, houses, aspects, transits, progressions. Okay, now, youāre ready to read charts. And we would go, āBut where do we begin? What do we say first?ā And the word was, āWell, each of you have to find your own voice,ā and then it became a process. I remember the panic in those early days that you look at the chart, you donāt know where to begin. You just land on some aspects that you remember, something that you know about and start talking about it…
CB: Right.
DG: …until you exhaust whatever it is you have to say on that, and then desperately search for something else to start addressing. And I hope that in the process of both volume one and volume two that thereās a clear and definite pattern and structure for how to approach the interpretation of not only each planet and its full range of meaning according to its condition, but the various topics of life designated by the houses–how will marriage turn out, how will health turn out, how will children turn out.Ā
And in that part two, again, itās the interpretation, one, from the planetās point of view, but then we turn around and do it from the house topicās point of view. So youāre considering the questions that people bring to the counseling room from a multifaceted perspective and knowing how to proceed specifically within each approach.
CB: Brilliant. All right.Ā
DG: Okay.
CB: Great. Well, Iām really excited about this. I think the book comes out probably today or tomorrow, weāre waiting. So your publisher is Aaron Cheak…
DG: Yes.
CB: …of Rubedo Press, which is just amazing. Iām so glad that you guys got together. Aaron actually edited my book. And so, the fact that he was able to edit and then become the publisher of your book, I was just ecstatic about because I thought he was a great person for the job, and thatās really panned out.
DG: Yeah, heās been brilliant. He totally has the conceptual understanding to realize what I was trying to do, and then through his superb editing skills, being able to bring it into a very accessible language presentation and visual presentation as well.
CB: Yeah. The book is just laid out beautifully. Like the cover is beautiful. The layout is amazing. All the diagrams came out very nicely. Thereās a nice image of the Zodiac of Dendera on the cover.Ā
Yeah, so Iām told that the book is–it will eventually be available on Amazon, but for the first month or so, itās primarily going to be available through the publisherās website, which is rubedo.press. Yeah, thatās it, rubedo.press. So Iāll put a link to the website where you can find the book, where you can order the book on the description page for this episode on theastrologypodcast.com. Iām sure youāll be speaking at conferences and doing other promotions for the book over the course of the next year.
DG: Yes, I will be. And then people can also go to my own website, demetra-george.com. You can join the mailing list, and then youāll be getting regular notifications of the book and how to order it, and presentations Iāll be doing over the course of the year in conjunction with it.
CB: Brilliant. All right. And Iām trying to think of anything else, but I think thatās it. Part two, Iām told will be probably be released somewhere in the early part of quarter two of next year. So hopefully, we can, maybe we can come back again to talk about part two in a follow-up discussion where youāll be dealing with, as you said, the houses, the master of the nativity, and other topics like that.Ā
DG: Okay.
CB: All right. Great. Well, thanks a lot for joining me today.
DG: Oh, it was wonderful, Chris. Thank you for having me. And Iām just so grateful for our friendship and our astrological collaboration that has gone on almost for two decades now, so thatās just wonderful.
CB: Me, too. Well, congratulations. And yeah, I look forward to hearing what everyone thinks of the book. So thanks everyone for listening to this episode of The Astrology Podcast, and we will see you again next time.
DG: Bye.