The System of Hermes

From a study of the original sources, particularly the surviving fragments

of Nechepso and Petosiris, I came to the conclusion that the bulk of

Hellenistic astrological concepts, its "technical" terminology, and most of

its techniques, were already in place in the second century B.C.E.  Since

Hellenistic astrology is manifestly a radical departure from Babylonian

astrology and the pre-Hellenistic decanic astrology of Egypt, I also

concluded that astrology must have been entirely rethought during the early

Hellenistic era.  But because it was fully developed within a relatively

short period of time, I surmised that it must have been the work of a

single man or at most a small school of astrolgers.  The rapidity of its

development also implies that Hellenistic astrology was a theoretical

construct, rather than an empirical discipline -- to say nothing of the

fact that many of its concepts could not possibly have been discovered

empirically anyway.  These observations are important in that they give

credibility to the idea that Hellenistic astrology was originally a system,

and not simply a random heap of "techniques."

In direct contradiction to my assertion that there was a single original

Hellenistic astrological school, it has become almost a commonplace to

assume that there were many different schools of Hellenistic astrology, and

that the process of innovation continued well into the Christian Era.  I

have yet to pinpoint who first started this rumor, but it continues to be

repeated (even on this list) without further examination or justification.

I believe that this view simply originated in the fact that different

authors preserve different parts of the original system, and that no one

surviving author has all the pieces, so it gives the appearance that

different astrologers were using different techniques.

However, a study of the texts indicates rather that most of the differences

in the practice of different astrologers can be traced to different

interpretations of the original sources texts of Hermes and

Nechepso/Petosiris, that latter being notoriously cryptic even with regard

to basic concepts.  Certainly, different astrologers had their own

preferences as far as approaches to chart reading are concerned, but they

make their selections of techniques and procedures from the common stock of

material already available to them from the founders.  The major exception

to this is Ptolemy, a revisionist often critical of the earlier doctrine

who certainly put astrology on a new path.

Since the lineage in Firmicus Maternus attributes the founding of this kind

of astrology to Hermes, I have called it "the system of Hermes."  However,

it does not matter to me whether the actual founder was named Hermes,

Diotima, or Francis Bacon for that matter.

The Influence of the Classical Schools on Hellenistic Astrology

The scholarly ideal I was taught was to read books in the original

languages, on their own terms and from their own presuppositions.  I will

be the first to admit that this is extremely difficult to do, and perhaps

all the more so with the astrological writings of the period.  Upon first

reading there are in fact a few terms that suggest Platonic, Aristotelean,

or Stoic "influence," even tempting hints of Epicurean doctrine and

Empedoclean optical theory, and years ago I did spend a lot of time trying

to interpret the astrological doctrine in light of these philosophical

schools; some of my experiments in this direction are recorded in my PHASE

lectures.

However, even though I still believe these experiments have independent

value in thinking about the problem of astrology, after a number of years

it seemed to me that I was on the wrong track with this approach to

understanding Hellenistic astrology, and even violating the ideal that I

had been taught by approaching these texts in such an extrinsic, relatively

superficial, and almost historicist manner.  I was left with three

possibilities: 1) that these tempting hints of philosophical thinking were

irrelevant and inessential to the foundations of this kind of astrology; 2)

that the philosophical presuppositions of Hellenistic astrology were

syncretistic and gathered for convenience from all the philosophical

schools; 3) that they were somehow traces of a profound and original

rethinking of the foundations of classical philosophy, since in point of

fact the philosophical positions of most of these schools effectively

preclude a science of the particular and "contingent" events of human life,

and consequently astrology itself.

The third possibility was by far the most attractive to me, and once I had

opened up my mind to it, all kinds of things became clear in the texts

themselves: oddities in the terminology; the systematic organization of the

astrological techniques, methods, and procedures; and even quirky and

seemingly unmotivated steps in the details of the practice.

However outrageous it may sound to students of classical philosophy, I now

maintain that the Hellenistic astrologers systematically rethought the

ontological foundations of classical thought, reformulated its logic,

adapted the celestial epistemology implicit in Plato's Timaeus, and arrived

at a new understanding of the structure of language.

Therefore, it is not to the point to discuss whether Platonism, Stoicism,

or whatever was the most important "influence" on Hellenistic thought.

Furthermore, it should be an obvious corollary to my hypothesis about these

texts, that when I have a chance to address my findings about the broader

implications of these texts to academics or other independent scholars (to

date I have only been addressing an astrological audience), they cannot be

refuted by simply saying that the Stoics did not use the term oikeiohsis in

this manner, or the later Platonists did not use the terms hupostasis and

ousia in this manner, and so forth.  My whole point is that the founders of

this type of astrology rethought this terminology in a fresh new way.

I now believe I am reading the astrological texts on their own terms and

from their own presuppositions.  My hypothesis has not only allowed me to

reconstruct Hellenistic astrology as a coherent practical system, but it

has opened up the classical world for me in an original way that would have

been remained closed if I had not spent my time with these astrological

texts.