I’m making my slow way through Joseph Crane’s new article, “A Practical Introduction to Hellenistic Astrology,” in the current issue of The Mountain Astrologer. Hellenistic astrology goes way back, and informs the branch I practice, but I’m not well versed in its different rules. Let’s see what has stuck to me from paging through the article on the subway…

  • Two planets in any degree of the same sign are effectively conjunct, or at least “together”. They act in concert. Even if they’re 25 degrees apart. As long as they’re in the same sign.
  • The concept of signs beholding one another is key, more so than precisely measured aspects. So a planet at 3 Leo would be trine a planet at 27 Sagittarius, although they’re far past 120 degrees of arc from each other.
  • In a Hellenistic chart, the entire sign that is rising constitutes the first house; the ascendant is an important point within that house. I have 29 Virgo rising and am used to thinking of degrees 3-29 (or so) of Virgo as making up my 12th house; but in this system, all that Virgo (including my Venus at 1 Virgo) makes up the first house, or “place.” Each sign then follows suit and forms the following 2nd to 12th “places.” (I’ll have to go back and see how they manage the midheaven when it is in a sign that is not square to the ascendant. I think they just plot it where it lands but still call the 10th “place” the house of career, etc.)
  • Different planets are stronger in day charts than in night charts. Some planets are in sect (and therefore strengthened) when above the horizon in a day chart; others, when above the horizon by night. Mercury changes, of course: in a day chart, it’s strong when preceding the Sun; in a night chart, it’s strong when it sets after the Sun. That makes sense. If the Sun is already warming the sky, Mercury can’t do much.

I’m not finished with the article. I read a little and set it down, pick it up again and read some more. Crane has a book about this: Astrological Roots: The Hellenistic Legacy, from The Wessex Astrologer. I might have to look into that.

2 Responses to “Joseph Crane on Hellenistic astrology”

  1. Cheryl Says:

    Oh brother… now I’m totally confused. Hellenistic astrology sounds like something I should study after developing good foundations in horary. Or, are they the same thing?

  2. Joe Says:

    Whole Sign Houses are the best re-discovery in astrology since the re-emergence of the Sun. Yes, it was truly lost before, no one could find it. My natal chart never made sense until I started using WSH. However, I still use Regiomontanus for horary, mostly because the cusps are useful. I never used out of sign aspects, it just never felt right to me. Different elements do not mix. Period! It’s the most obvious thing. :)


Leave a Reply