Myth Is Not Enough

Memorial Day weekend, 2019. by Charlie Obert

These reflections were triggered by an interpretation I saw of the upcoming conjunction of Saturn, Jupiter and Pluto in 2020.

Being a traditional astrologer I think of this as the Grand Conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, moving into a series of conjunctions in Air signs. Pluto can tag along if he wants.

The piece talked about the myth of the elder god Saturn being overthrown by his sons Jupiter and Pluto. This myth was then used as the basis for a prediction of the 2020 US presidential election. I happened to know the person and their political preferences – and somehow their prediction exactly matched their preferences.

This got me thinking about the use of mythology as a main predictive technique. I want to take some time here to make some observations about mythology in modern astrology, and how it affects one planet in particular – Saturn.

Mythology and Modern Astrology

I have been looking through many astrology texts, gathering material for a book I am writing on the planet Saturn, and how the meaning of Saturn has changed through time, with the most major changes all taking place in the last 100 years.

It is very common in modern astrology books to begin the description of a planet’s meaning with a reference to the underlying myth, and draw the meaning from the story. This is a very recent innovation. You do not see references to the mythology in astrology texts until the middle of the 20th century, the era when the psychological and humanistic interpretation of meaning became popular.

Prior to the 20th century the planet description is basically a list of attributes, and that list stays very consistent in its basic meanings from the earliest texts in the Hellenistic era all the way through into the 1800’s. There was some loss of detail through the centuries, but the core is passed down intact.

I find the mythological interpretation approach to be very interesting and suggestive, and I think it can add something to our astrology. The important thing here is that the mythological interpretations in modern astrology are not consistent. I find that different authors emphasize different parts of the myth depending on the point they want to make. Also, the same author in the same book is sometimes inconsistent in their own approach going from planet to planet.

I want to give an example here. This is out of a very excellent modern book, The Contemporary Astrologer’s Handbook by Sue Tompkins. The book in general is very good and comprehensive, and I recommend it as a good textbook of modern astrology.

In the section on Saturn/Kronus, after a description of the astronomical facts of the planet, there is a section on the mythology. The gist of it is that Saturn knew of a prophecy that he would be overthrown by one of his children, so he attempted to prevent this by swallowing them when they were born. His wife Rhea, wanting to save the child Zeus/Jupiter, gave Saturn a stone wrapped in swaddling clothes instead of the child. Zeus/Jupiter in turn castrated and overthrew his father, and started a new dynasty.

Here is the core of her interpretation.

“The story is really about the fact that we will be supplanted by our children. As we get older, if we are not careful, we do tend to suppress the next generation…(they) are supposed to take over from us, and they do.”

Sounds good, right?

The problem is that, by that same logic, the same meaning should be applied to the planet Uranus/Ouranos, since Uranus was the father of Saturn and was supplanted by him. The section on Uranus instead focuses on how Uranus is the bringer of change and destroys old structures to make way for the new. In modern astrology Uranus is the rebel who overthrows Saturn instead of the other way around.

That is turning the myth on its head. If the Saturn story is about our being supplanted by our children, then that meaning should apply even more to Uranus since that god is earlier.

Instead the mythical story of Uranus is framed in such a way to draw out the expected modern meanings of the planet.

I argue that the myth is being shaped to fit the expected meaning rather than the other way around. The myth ends up being a projection screen.

Evaluation Needs Rules

 The approach to astrology in the older texts is very different.

Along with the lists of attributes of the planets, the elements, the signs and houses, you also have series of rules for evaluation, how to judge whether a planet will perform well or poorly, whether a situation will likely work out in a fortunate or unfortunate way.

You weigh up the good and bad points, the dignities and debilities, and judge accordingly.

This is not arbitrary; it gives a standard to judge against.

The old books are also wise enough to advise against judging your own chart, or judging a situation where your own feelings and interests are involved. You have to be able to judge as objectively as possible, and this needs a set of rules to judge with.

It is very difficult to resist the natural human tendency to want to give people what they want, to tell them what they want to hear. Or, what you want to hear.

To do astrology well you really need to be self-aware enough to take into account your own feelings, your opinions and biases. That is difficult at best.

Mythology is interesting, it is suggestive and inspiring, but it is much too slippery and formless to serve as a basis for astrology judgment. To do that you really need a set of rules and guidelines, dignities and debilities, to help you judge. I think that is a strength of the astrology tradition, and that we need to school ourselves in those rules to practice our craft well.