Book Recommendations for Natal Astrology

[Lance]

Okay, so I've been trying to take it all in, and I feel like my knowledge is a "mile wide and an inch deep."

I need to focus my studies on the basics, the natal chart. I want to know it cold, which means I need to put together a study practice for myself. Then I'll move on to transits, then solunar returns.

I have some book money left over from Christmas, and I was wondering if you guys would recommend some excellent, must-have books for natal aspects and angles. So far, I've just been working from The New Instant Astrologer and this website.

I believe Steve has mentioned Ebertin's The Combination of Stellar Influences, and that one is next on my list to purchase.

Thanks in advance for your suggestions.

[Jim Eshelman]

Ebertin's CSI (I still tend to call it KDG, the abbrevation of the German original) is a standard worth having. It's a collation of possible meanings and a good take-off for actual observation. I recommend it.

[SteveS]

Lance, imo, COSI is a must for every serious astrologer.

[blossomintobeing]

Just ordered COSI myself now. I notice he places some prominence on planetary midpoint in this book. Is that a general practice in this group too?

[SteveS]

Blossom wrote and asked:

Just ordered COSI myself now. I notice he places some prominence on planetary midpoint in this book. Is that a general practice in this group too?

No, it is not a general practice among siderealists. But many times using return charts and other Sidereal Astrology charts you will see angular planets involving planetary pictures (aspects) with 3 planets. Since a midpoint involves 3 factors, COSI midpoint references is a great help for discerning certain astrological tones for a Sidereal Astrology Chart involving 3 planets.

IMO, Direct Midpoints (A/B=C) in a Natal Chart can be just as important as a tight orb 2 Planet Natal Aspect. For certain specific rules using midpoints the following link can help:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2388

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Remember the delineations that include Pluto aren't reliable. Pluto had just been discovered and there hadn't been much observation nor research done at the time. Look at what Jim, Garth Allen/Donald Bradley and Fagin have said (most of it's here on site) and choose what they say over COSI.

Otherwise, like Jim says, it's a really good jumping off point.

If there's an angular midpoint that's 1° (maybe 2°) orb, that's important. I weight them just below an aspect of similar orb.
If it's wider or not angular, it's something to look at only in the unlikely situation where there's nothing else to look at.

[Jim Eshelman]

Just ordered COSI myself now. I notice he places some prominence on planetary midpoint in this book. Is that a general practice in this group too?

It's not standard "classical" Sidereal practice, i.e., Fagan and Bradley wrote nothing to suggest they paid any attention to it; however, another important Sidereal pioneer, Brigadier Firebrace, was quite cognizant of them and looked at them frequently in his articles in his journal Spica.

Also, after FAgan and Bradley's deaths, the next generation of Siderealists - including myself and my late friend Matthew Quellas - got deeply into the whole range of Cosmobiology. The Ebertin school is highly compatible with Sidereal astrology in many respects already - concentration on pure symbolism of planets with a bias toward understanding them as psychological principles foremost; near exclusion of house references; non-use of the Tropical zodiac (Ebertin minimized use of any zodiac and didn't know about the Sidereal); and especially primary focus on luminaries and angles as "personal points" and use of close-orbed hard aspects primarily. This, and a basic leaning toward formal research and objective confirmation of astrological truths, puts us in the same "club."

Midpoints was the significant distinction, so far as astrological structures go (plus the Ebertin's measured transits without compensating for precession, which left their orbs wonky as someone got older). But it's a close fit.

Midpoints are valid. They are astrological realities. The challenge is to use them conservatively. Unleashing dozens of new points into a chart with hundreds of possible new combinations dilutes our astrology to the point that it becomes possible to show anything at all from a chart and, therefore, the chart itself says nothing in particular.

Our goal should always be to get the best bang for our buck - to get the most (and most important) information from the fewest possible factors. Therefore, my entire astrological career I have focused on finding those few things that can most solidly be confirmed as working, and, among those, the factors that are so strong, vivid, and accurate that lesser factors (even if valid) cannot overwhelm them.

There's a bit of art to using midpoints with this conservative principle in mind, and I'm not ready to lock into any firm rule on the matter. Everyone interested should go through the process of tabulating every midpoint contact they have that is a 0 or 45 or 90 or 135 or 180 aspect to any midpoint within 1° and compulsively read about it all - it's part of the sorting out process. Eventually, one wants to focus more on the 0-90-180° contacts (using 45 and 135 to supplement when there isn't already too much information), emphasizing contacts that include a luminary or angle, emphasizing small orbs (within a few minutes), etc. - things similar to what good astrological sense dictates in other situations.

PS - As JSAD wrote, remember that Ebertin's Pluto is pretty much a mess. Occasionally an observation will fit, but all this was written in the 1940s long before there was a solid handle on Pluto (he treats it primarily into issues of power and invisible influences, which misses the point entirely).

[blossomintobeing]

Also, after FAgan and Bradley's deaths, the next generation of Siderealists - including myself and my late friend Matthew Quellas - got deeply into the whole range of Cosmobiology. The Ebertin school is highly compatible with Sidereal astrology in many respects already - concentration on pure symbolism of planets with a bias toward understanding them as psychological principles foremost; near exclusion of house references; non-use of the Tropical zodiac (Ebertin minimized use of any zodiac and didn't know about the Sidereal); and especially primary focus on luminaries and angles as "personal points" and use of close-orbed hard aspects primarily. This, and a basic leaning toward formal research and objective confirmation of astrological truths, puts us in the same "club."

Interesting! I see that Ebertin was a physician, so this expansion into medical astrology makes sense. Oh, boy. I can't wait to dig into that next! My brain wants all the knowledge all at once. I'm sure you've studied this for a lifetime and are still learning about yourself and others.

Midpoints are valid. They are astrological realities. The challenge is to use them conservatively. Unleashing dozens of new points into a chart with hundreds of possible new combinations dilutes our astrology to the point that it becomes possible to show anything at all from a chart and, therefore, the chart itself says nothing in particular.

OK, thank you.

Our goal should always be to get the best bang for our buck - to get the most (and most important) information from the fewest possible factors. Therefore, my entire astrological career I have focused on finding those few things that can most solidly be confirmed as working, and, among those, the factors that are so strong, vivid, and accurate that lesser factors (even if valid) cannot overwhelm them.

There's a bit of art to using midpoints with this conservative principle in mind, and I'm not ready to lock into any firm rule on the matter. Everyone interested should go through the process of tabulating every midpoint contact they have that is a 0 or 45 or 90 or 135 or 180 aspect to any midpoint within 1° and compulsively read about it all - it's part of the sorting out process. Eventually, one wants to focus more on the 0-90-180° contacts (using 45 and 135 to supplement when there isn't already too much information), emphasizing contacts that include a luminary or angle, emphasizing small orbs (within a few minutes), etc. - things similar to what good astrological sense dictates in other situations.

OK. This sounds fun! Once I'm through garnering a basic understanding of the planets and houses and chart readings in this new format, I'll tackle this next. Seems like a worthy undertaking, and last night I noticed I may have a prominent midpoint conjunct one of my planets. Astro.com has a handy Ebertin feature for calculating midpoints. (Although, I'll need some time to get familiar with it.)

PS - As JSAD wrote, remember that Ebertin's Pluto is pretty much a mess. Occasionally an observation will fit, but all this was written in the 1940s long before there was a solid handle on Pluto (he treats it primarily into issues of power and invisible influences, which misses the point entirely).

OK, I'll keep this in mind when reading. Thanks!

[Soft Alpaca]

I was reading through this forum noticed the mention of angular mid points (is thought I'd have at least a few). I only found one it's within .08 (natally) and 1.01 (if I use the mudo angle. Mars/Neptune on my Antivertex (with Uranus) would this have any significant energy?

[Jim Eshelman]

I was reading through this forum noticed the mention of angular mid points (is thought I'd have at least a few). I only found one it's within .08 (natally) and 1.01 (if I use the mudo angle. Mars/Neptune on my Antivertex (with Uranus) would this have any significant energy?

If you are still using the 7:32 AM time and take these ecliptically, your most important midpoints to angles are:

Asc = Mo/MC -0°13', Ve/Ur +0°46'

Or, if you stretch to the 45° aspect series, add:

Asc = Ma/Ur +0°02', Pl/MC +0°17'


If you take it mundanely, the one midpoint on angles are (it doesn't matter whether horizon or meridian, it's exactly the same) is: Mo/Ve -0°23


Which (if either) do you think fits?

[Soft Alpaca]

Well having extra energy from both Pluto-Moon with the MC+AC(minding that the moon molds entirely to my pluto) would make sense why I relate so we'll to angular pluto people.

Having Uranus/Mars+Uranus/Venus on the AC (reading all of the aspects together) fit me better than my own shoes. This further accents the angular (and mudo solar aspected) Uranus. {The energy level coming from this planet would then be insane, probably my most potent in my chart. Interacting with the ascendant 2 times through personal planets, and the vertex, and possibly aspecting the sun .. oof} [for comparison Jupiter interacts with one angle and one luminary, Pluto as well].

I read the Moon/Venus with a very open mind (as I am). It's very fitting in hand in heart (However so at times is Uranus) but once I hit the part about feminine energy and passive dependency, If I read it to my friends and some of my family as a description of me they would laugh..in my face.

[HeitorMartini]

While this is a classic Midpoints (Cosmobiology) book, it is also an excellent reference text for keywords that help speed up the thinking process of astrologer students. Keywords for combinations of planets and points. It can be used for natal aspects (e.g. read Sun / Moon interpretation), transits (e.g. read Uranus = Sun / Moon if Uranus in transit activates the natal Sun and Moon aspect), and of course for midpoint combinations.