Download Is Astrology a Divination?

Alexander Kolesnikov 1401614
Page 1 of 11
Is Astrology a Divinatory System?
By Alexander Kolesnikov
Introduction
Like any question asked using rather broad terms, the answer to whether
astrology is a divinatory system depends on the definitions of both astrology and
divination. If Cicero’s explanation of divination is used — ‘the foreseeing and
foretelling of events considered as happening by chance’ — many definitions of
astrology will not fit this description.1 Alan Leo, for example, stated that
astrology is ‘the science which defines the action of celestial bodies upon human
character, and its expression in the physical world’.2 The predictive side of
astrology is not emphasised in this interpretation, however, and consequently it
does not match Cicero’s definition of divination. On the other hand, the definition
of meteorology as ‘the study of the earth’s atmosphere, especially for weather
forecasting’ fits Cicero’s idea of divination quite well, which demonstrates that
not every historically meaningful definition is applicable in the contemporary
context.3
In her paper addressing this topic, Liz Greene presented a collection of opinions
from scholars who concluded that astrology is a form of divination, but they
never clarified why exactly they came to such a conclusion.4 Cornelius Agrippa
stated the contrary, that rather than astrology having its root in divination, ‘all
kinds of divinations whatsoever have their root and foundation in astrology, so
as that without it they are of little or no use’.5
This essay focuses on the set of ideas put forward by Geoffrey Cornelius, one of
the main proponents of the thesis that ‘the main body of astrology’s practice, and
especially the interpretation of horoscopes, is properly to be understood as a
form of divination’.6
Marcus Tullius Cicero, De Senectute, De Amicitia, De Divinatione, (London, New
York: W. Heinemann, 1923), p. 233.
2 Alan Leo, The Complete Dictionary of Astrology, (Rochester, Vermont: Destiny
Books, 1983), p. 8.
3 Collins English Dictionary, (Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006), p. 369.
4 Liz Greene, 'Is Astrology a Divinatory System?', Culture And Cosmos, 12 no 1,
Spring/Summer, 3-29 (p. 4).
5 Henry Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim, Three Books of Occult Philosophy,
(Woodbury, MN: Llewellyn Publications, 1992), p. 412.
6 Geoffrey Cornelius, The Moment of Astrology : Origins in Divination, 2 edn
(Bournemouth: The Wessex Astrologer, 2003), p. xxii.
1
Alexander Kolesnikov 1401614
Page 2 of 11
What is Astrology?
For Cornelius, astrology was ‘divination despite all appearances of objectivity
and natural law. It is divination despite the fact that aspects of symbolism can be
approached through scientific method, and despite the possibility that a few
factors in horoscopy can arguably be validated by an appeal to science’.7
However, in his book ‘The Moment of Astrology’, Cornelius distinguished
between two orders of astrology: Natural and Divinatory. Natural astrology was
not clearly defined, except as ‘a universal domain of planetary and celestial
influence’, but apparently this order includes any manifestations of astrology
that are ‘commensurable with scientific method’.8 One obvious candidate of this
order is the work of Michel Gauquelin, but any other candidates remain unclear.9
Divinatory astrology was defined as judgments from horoscopes.10
Cornelius later renamed the two orders: natural astrology and judicial astrology,
‘the very same distinction found since medieval times’.11 However, this renaming
created confusion. According to Charles E.O. Carter, the ancients divided
astrology into three kinds: Genethlialogy (natal astrology), Judicial Astrology,
‘which in modern times is usually called Horary’, and Mundane Astrology.12 Both
natal and mundane astrology employ judgments from horoscopes, so they
should logically belong to the earlier defined Divinatory order. There are also
other definitions of judicial and natural astrology, so following this path can
create further confusion. Instead, it is safe to assume that the whole of astrology
is, for Cornelius, divinatory; he was only unsure how to treat the statistical
findings of Gauquelin, and so created the Natural order specifically to contain
them. As a result, the definition of divination became one of utmost importance.
What is Divination?
According to Cornelius, ‘divination is here to be understood as the interpretation
of the will of the divine beings, as the Latin root of this word “divinus” suggests.
These divine beings include the daemones (“demons”), intelligences between
mortals and gods’.13 It is unclear, however, how this definition can be applicable
to astrology. John Addey, while having readily accepted the idea that astrology is
a divination, argued that when judging a horary figure, one is not seeking
knowledge of divine things, or the aid of angelic or other divine agents.
Additionally, one is not using any kind of knowledge of divine things, just one’s
Cornelius, p. xxii.
Cornelius, p. 75.; Cornelius, p. xxii.
9 Michel Gauquelin, Neo-Astrology : A Copernican Revolution, (London, England;
New York: Arkana, 1991).
10 Cornelius, p. xxiv.
11 Cornelius, p. 74.
12 Charles E. O. Carter, An Introduction to Political Astrology, (London,: L. N.
Fowler, 1951), p. 9.
13 Cornelius, p. 129.
7
8
Alexander Kolesnikov 1401614
Page 3 of 11
understanding of astrological symbolism, thus strongly disagreeing with the
applicability of the above definition to astrology.14
Cornelius offered no other definition for divination and admitted that ‘divination
is a homeless wanderer with no easily definable location within the categories of
knowledge’.15 However, he did offer a demonstration of what he meant by
astrological divination:
Every astrologer knows that charts come forward when they are ready,
symbolism appears under curiously significant circumstances. A wrong
chart, or a particular rectification, comes forward to be the image that is
required, the unique image that allows a reading of the situation. We
assign certain moments as significant, so our art is not one of reading off
an objective influence in material reality. It is an act of assignation. We
both create and respond to significance, and our interpretation reaps the
fruits of our assignation. We find that reality is revealed when we take
this step — and this reality includes facets of life and character, which we
could not otherwise have known about. This, I am sure you will see, is
divination, and this is the foundation of our practice: divinatory
astrology.16
Two questions arise here: first, is this a true description of the mainstream
practice of astrology, and second, is this a genuine demonstration of divination?
Is Astrology a Divination?
With regard to comparing astrology and divination, Cornelius admitted that
‘most astrologers shy away from the comparison, or are genuinely puzzled when
it is made’.17 This is unsurprising; an astrologer’s work looks very different from
traditional kinds of divination, such as Tarot, I Ching or Runes. When it comes to
interpreting a combination of symbols following a set of traditional rules,
astrological interpretation is similar to divination, but the nature of the symbols
is different.
No Randomness
Liz Greene observed that for true divination, the presence of randomness is
essential.18 Tarot cards are selected for a spread randomly, a lot is selected
randomly, dice are thrown, yarrow stalks are split into bundles randomly, and so
on. Randomness creates a gap in the chain of human causality where divinity can
interfere, and this is essential for divination.
John M. Addey, 'Astrology as Divination', Astrology, 56:2 (1982), 39-44 (p. 39).
Cornelius, p. 184.
16 Cornelius, p. 248.
17 Cornelius, p. 184.
18 Greene, p. 19.
14
15
Alexander Kolesnikov 1401614
Page 4 of 11
In astrology, the symbolic picture to be interpreted is a horoscope, a snapshot of
the universe. It is not random — the time of birth is fixed, and all essential
movements of the universe can be calculated with high precision for thousands
of years into the past and the future. An astrologer creates the horoscope as a
result of calculations, based on a set of precise rules, leaving no space for
randomness. Even in horary, the branch of astrology closest to divination, while
it might look like a question can be asked at any random time, this randomness is
illusory. For the horary to be radical, the resulting chart must convincingly
reflect the problem in question, and the consequent movements of celestial
bodies should reflect the situation’s development.19 This means the horary chart
cannot be random; it must be carefully selected — but by whom?
Human Initiative?
Cornelius argued that traditionally, divination was not seen as a means of
predicting the future but rather as a dialogue with the gods.20 A diviner would
sacrifice an animal, throw the dice or make a spread of Tarot cards to invite an
omen, and that omen, when interpreted, would disclose the attitude of the gods
toward a particular initiative. Cornelius distinguished between unbidden omens
(the showing of the god in an unexpected dramatic event) and bidden omens
(those where the god's response is actively sought).21 A typical divination can be
understood as an example of bidding for an omen. Cornelius then concluded that
a horary chart is equivalent to a bidden response in ritual divination. It is like an
omen presented in response to a human initiative brought before the gods.
However, as the previous section established, in order to work, a horary chart
must be selected. It cannot be selected by the person asking the question, of
course. Nor by the astrologer receiving the question — that would violate the
rules of horary astrology. So perhaps it is selected by a daemon? Maybe, but then
the initiative to ask the question came from the daemon, not from the person.
Consequently, if horary is understood as an omen, it is unbidden, and this makes
it different from any traditional form of divination.
Elimination of Time
The fact that astrology depends on time so strongly is problematic for
Cornelius’s argument, and so he attempted to remove time from astrology. To do
this, he declared that it was Ptolemy who established ‘the doctrine of origin’, or
‘the positing of the instant of origin of an entity as a moment of astrology, for
which a horoscope may validly be delineated with respect to that entity’.22 He
then asserted that every astrologer who gave significance to the moment of birth
is following ‘the Ptolemaic model’. However, his argument is unconvincing, as
Cornelius did not explain which moment, other than the moment of birth, could
be used in natal astrology. In fact, he contradicted himself by admitting
elsewhere in his book that ‘it is a rule of natal astrology that, without reserve,
significance is assigned to the horoscope of birth’, and that ‘there are no ifs and
Cornelius, p. 112.
Cornelius, p. 130.
21 Cornelius, p. 129.
22 Cornelius, p. 87.
19
20
Alexander Kolesnikov 1401614
Page 5 of 11
buts to this assignation’.23 Interestingly, Ptolemy believed that not the moment of
birth but the moment of conception, ‘the beginning of the temperament itself’,
should be used as a starting point in astrology.24 Since the moment of conception
is not used in mainstream astrology, Cornelius may have overestimated the
influence of Ptolemy’s ideas.
In another of Cornelius’s methods to play down the significance of time in
astrology, he stated that ‘almost any moment at all could suggest itself’ in
horary.25 However, this is not sustainable. If William Lilly had asked his question
in the well-known ‘Fish Stolen’ horary either earlier or later, the chart would not
have a peregrine Jupiter in the 7th house, and the whole judgment would be
impossible.26 Cornelius’s statements give the impression that upon receiving a
question, a horary astrologer can open ephemeris on a random page, select any
line and cast a chart for some arbitrary time. This is not how it works. There are
specific rules regarding the precise moment of time to be used in horary.27
Cornelius made another attempt to eliminate time, on this occasion from
mundane astrology. He stated that ‘we assign our mundane astrology to
dramatised moments of history to see what the divination gives us — but the
signs, omens and horoscopes we work with are not astronomical records of
historical events in the physical world. They are symbols in a world of human
significance’.28 However, he contradicted himself on the very next page by
providing detailed instructions on how to compute the 1066 horoscope. He gave
the time precisely to the second, the coordinates precisely to the arc second and
emphasised that true local noon must be used, that using noon GMT would be ‘a
lazy compromise’.29 What is this, if not an astronomical record? Why couldn’t an
astrologer use ‘almost any moment at all’, or pick a random horoscope and use it
as a symbol in a world of human significance instead of going through a tedious
process of computing the only right horoscope?
Edge Cases
Cornelius discussed how sometimes an obviously wrong chart might appear to
be working well within a context of astrological consultation, and that different
versions of rectification of the same birth time can produce results that make
sense when studying events in the previous life of the native.30 These, however,
are rare edge cases of astrology. They only confirm the opinion of Elias Ashmole
that ’Astrologie (take it with all its Comprehensions) is as Secret or Misterious as
Alchimy, and as difficult to be thoroughly and perfectly understood’, or, more
Cornelius, p. 204.
Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, (Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard
university press, 1940), p. 223.
25 Cornelius, p. 137.
26 William Lilly, Christian Astrology, (Regulus, 1985), p. 397.
27 Derek Appleby, Horary Astrology, (San Bernardino, Calif.: R. Reginald/Borgo
Press, 1986), p. 10.
28 Cornelius, p. 274.
29 Cornelius, p. 275.
30 Cornelius, p. 230.; Cornelius, p. 247.
23
24
Alexander Kolesnikov 1401614
Page 6 of 11
specifically, that the nature of time is more complex than what might be
apparent in everyday life.31
Regular astrology does not rely on random and wrong charts. In fact, elsewhere
in his book, Cornelius offered a description of astrological practice that sharply
contrasts with his demonstration of astrology as a divination:
Astrological interpretation, especially in its more traditional form, does
not usually emerge as a vague or purely subjective intuition, which cannot
be pinned down to specific symbols. Neither does it present itself as
incomprehensibly sophisticated in its basic elements. Astrologers
characteristically give quite decisive interpretations based on a few major
features of the horoscope. For example, Uranus in the 7th square to Venus
might indicate disruptions in relationships, and Saturn transitioning the
MC could show a crisis at work or a promotion. Despite the limitless
possibilities of the poetry of symbolism, there is nothing especially subtle
about this sort of practical astrology.32
In other words, astrological interpretation in its traditional form does not
require daemons, divine intervention, bidding for omens or creating and
responding to significance. What it does require is an interpretation of symbols,
presented in a horoscope computed for a specific, well-defined moment in time,
using the rules of interpretation existing in astrology.
To amplify, consider Lilly in ‘Fish Stolen’ who judged that ‘because Lord of the
7th was departing the Sign , viz. his owne, and entring another Signe, I
examined if never a Fisherman of and his nature had lately sold any Land,
or was leaving his proper house, and going to another habitation’.33 This is the
key statement in the whole judgment, and there is nothing out of the ordinary in
it. Lilly read and interpreted the symbolism, and any other competent horary
astrologer should be able to do the same. This is exactly what astrological
textbooks teach – how to interpret symbols, not how to interpret the will of the
divine beings.
It is established that astrology can resemble divination, since it also involves
interpretation of symbols, but it is not the same as divination. Only one branch,
horary astrology, can be understood in the light of divination, and even then a
horary chart should logically be understood as an unbidden, rather than a bidden
omen.
But if astrology isn’t a divinatory system, then what is it?
Elias Ashmole, Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum, (London: Printed by F.
Grismond for N. Brooke, 1652), p. 453.
32 Cornelius, p. 53.
33 Lilly, p. 398.
31
Alexander Kolesnikov 1401614
Page 7 of 11
Is Astrology a Science?
Astrology looks to its practitioners very much like a science. It has complex
calculations, intricate rules of interpretation, and requires a substantial amount
of study to master even the basics. Not surprisingly, many astrologers defined
astrology as science. Leo called it ‘the science which defines the action of celestial
bodies upon human character’.34 Lilly called it ‘divine Science’.35 William
Ramesey called it ‘Liberal Science of Natural Philosophy’.36 Ashmole wrote that
‘Astrologie is a profound Science’.37 According to Robert Zoller, in the hierarchy
of human knowledge established by medieval Muslim scholars, astrology,
alchemy and magic were placed immediately beneath the Koran and, hence,
above all other arts and sciences.38
In contrast, the primary reason behind the contemporary discussion of whether
astrology is a divinatory system appears to be the rejection of astrology by
orthodox science. Cornelius began his book with analyses of attempts to prove
the validity of astrology using statistics, and concluded that there is something in
astrology that does not fit the procrustean bed of statistical verification. He
stated that there is some mysterious psi-factor preventing astrology from being
recognised as a science, and that this proves astrology is a divination.39 It is a
divination because it is not a science. Yet, is this the only way to explain the
failure of the statistical tests of astrology?
There appears to be a strongly established viewpoint that for something to be
recognised as scientific, it must be statistically verifiable. This, however, is a
dubious assumption. Statistical analysis has its limitations. It is not a universal
tool to be used indiscriminately in any area of knowledge. It is well known that
statistics is unusable when the subject of study is complex or unique.40 Cornelius
stated that horoscope is the ‘most complex of omens’, and that in experiments
designed to statistically test the validity of astrology, methods that are ‘one
hundred percent sound when applied to ball-bearings and gas molecules’ are
naively applied to the subtle domain of human affairs.41 He then argued that an
interpretation of a horoscope is always ‘a new one-off situation, completely
unique and individual’, and that ‘we never study averaged populations, just as we
never meet averaged people’.42 Cornelius concluded that an attempt to arrive at
inferences about the judgments of astrologers through statistics ‘has been
Leo, p. 8.
Lilly, p. 17.
36 William Ramesey, Astrologie Restored, (London: Printed for Robert White,
1653), p. 2.
37 Ashmole, p. 453.
38 Robert Zoller, The Occult Sciences of Astrology, Alchemy and Magic, (London:
New Library Limited, 2004), p. 6.
39 Cornelius, p. 75.
40 William F. Ogburn, 'Limitations of Statistics', American Journal of Sociology, 40
(1934), 12-20 (p. 12).
41 Cornelius, p. 135.; Cornelius, p. 342.
42 Cornelius, p. 200.
34
35
Alexander Kolesnikov 1401614
Page 8 of 11
seriously flawed, leading to erroneously negative conclusions’.43 Finally, ‘if
astrology in truth operates according to principles that do not belong to presentday science, then astrologers should not present the subject as if it is really a
variant of science’.44 Rather than concluding that the approach used to validate
astrology as a science was wrong (therefore causing the results to be unable to
be seen as authoritative), Cornelius asserted that astrology is not a science.
Therefore, it is a divination.
John Addey, another well-known astrologer, made a similar logical journey
stating that one of the two kinds of empirical approaches to astrology is a study
of large numbers of charts with the help of statistics.45 He then tried to produce
‘a dependable statistical demonstration of the working of astrology’ by collecting
birth data of 970 people and attempting to determine which signs the Sun, the
Moon and planets occupy most frequently in cases of long life.46 That massive,
time-consuming study produced no significant results whatsoever, and Addey
concluded that ‘the maps of 324 assorted jellyfish would evidently have done
just as well’.47 He then readily acknowledged that ‘astrology, on one side of its
nature at least, is a species of divination’.48
Cornelius stated that for astrology to be recognised as a science, it must devise a
‘satisfactory physical explanation to bring it into the hypothesis formation model
of conventional science’.49 The problem is that conventional science itself cannot
always offer a satisfactory physical explanation for even the most fundamental of
concepts. For example, one of the greatest mysteries of biology is how a single
cell, a fertilized egg, turns into a fully formed human being. Richard Dawkins
admitted that ‘exactly how this eventually leads to the development of a baby is a
story which will take decades, perhaps centuries, for embryologists to work
out’.50 Lynne McTaggart stated that physicists were unable to work out the basis
for gravity, and that ‘even Einstein, who was able to describe gravity extremely
well through his theory of relativity, couldn’t actually explain where it came
from’.51 Yet another mystery for physicists is why water remains liquid and does
not evaporate at room temperature.52
Cornelius, p. 68.
Cornelius, p. 34.
45 Addey, p. 43.
46 John M. Addey, Harmonic Anthology, (Temple AZ: American Federation of
Astrologers, 1976), p. 4.
47 Addey, p. 10.
48 Addey, p. 39.
49 Cornelius, p. 46.
50 Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 30th anniversary edn (Oxford ; New York:
Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 23.
51 Lynne McTaggart, The Field : The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe, 1
edn (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2002), p. 34.
52 Michel Schiff, The Memory of Water: Homoeopathy and the Battle of Ideas in the
New Science, (Thorsons, 1995), p. 14.
43
44
Alexander Kolesnikov 1401614
Page 9 of 11
Cornelius was aware that some important scientific discoveries were made
possible by dreams that the scientists had, such as Descartes’s vision of the unity
of all sciences or Kekule’s dream of a serpent eating its tail which helped him to
break the secret of the benzene ring.53 Alice Browne mentioned that Descartes
believed the three dreams he had in one night came from on high, and that ‘the
Genius which was exciting in him the enthusiasm with which he had felt his
brain heated since some days before had foretold these dreams to him before he
went to bed, and human intelligence had no part in it’.54 This evokes Agrippa’s
idea that ‘man's mind, when it is most intent upon any work, through its passion,
and effects, is joined with the mind of the stars, and intelligences, and being so
joined is the cause that some wonderful virtue be infused into our works, and
things’.55 Kekule’s dreams were quite unusual too, more like unexpected visions.
One, he experienced aboard the omnibus in London, another later, while sitting
beside the fire.56 It is also believed that Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein, Alexander
Graham Bell, Thomas Edison and Otto Loewi had dreams that played important
roles in their discoveries.57
So, perhaps contemporary science and astrology have some common ground.
Conclusion
Greene found that discussing whether astrology is a divinatory system only
makes sense in a specific cultural context.58 In the context of medieval Arabic
scholarship, astrology was a sacred science at the very top of the hierarchy of
human knowledge. Today, however, when contemporary science, which ‘reduces
consciousness and life itself to epiphenomenal status, a secondary concomitant
of processes that may be completely established at the material level’ proves that
astrology does not belong to its ranks, and when, as Cornelius wrote, ‘the
materialism and positivism of our opponents is the complement to a misleading
materialism and positivism within astrology itself’, perhaps the best one can do
when defining astrology is to say that it is a divinatory system.59 Such a
conclusion is well supported by many features of astrology that go beyond the
positivist materialistic view of reality and that are close to similarly
incomprehensible features of proper divinatory systems.
Cornelius, p. 187.
Alice Browne, 'Descartes's Dreams', Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld
Institutes, 40 (1977), 256-73 (p. 259).
55 Agrippa of Nettesheim, p. 208.
56 Albert Rothenberg, 'Creative Cognitive Processes in Kekulé's Discovery of the
Structure of the Benzene Molecule', The American Journal of Psychology, 108
(1995), 419-38 (p. 424).
57 George Christos, Memory and Dreams : The Creative Human Mind, (New
Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2003), p. 128.
58 Greene, p. 3.
59 Cornelius, p. 185.; Cornelius, p. 34.
53
54
Alexander Kolesnikov 1401614
Page 10 of 11
Once that step is made, however, once the definition of divination is expanded
enough to include astrology, another problem appears. Other things that were
probably never considered divinatory systems begin to gravitate to this category.
Two obvious examples are alchemy and magic, the other sacred sciences of
medieval Muslims. Even contemporary orthodox science, when its roots are
exposed, begins to show some hazy, perhaps divinatory foundations. Life itself —
especially with the possibility of afterlife, a concept seriously explored by some
scientists — crosses the boundary between the object and the subject, the
comprehensible and the incomprehensible, and is full of mysterious occurrences,
signs and synchronicities.60 Is it divination too?
Bibliography
Addey, John M., 'Astrology as Divination', Astrology, 56:2 (1982), 39-44.
———, Harmonic Anthology (Temple AZ: American Federation of Astrologers,
1976), p. 194.
Agrippa of Nettesheim, Henry Cornelius, Three Books of Occult Philosophy
(Woodbury, MN: Llewellyn Publications, 1992), p. 938.
Alexander, Eben, Proof of Heaven : A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife.
Deluxe edn (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2013), p. 194.
Appleby, Derek, Horary Astrology (San Bernardino, Calif.: R. Reginald/Borgo
Press, 1986), p. 207.
Ashmole, Elias, Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum (London: Printed by F.
Grismond for N. Brooke, 1652), p. 486.
Browne, Alice, 'Descartes's Dreams', Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld
Institutes, 40 (1977), 256-73.
Carter, Charles E. O., An Introduction to Political Astrology (London,: L. N. Fowler,
1951), p. 103.
Christos, George, Memory and Dreams : The Creative Human Mind (New
Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2003), p. 235.
Cicero, Marcus Tullius, De Senectute, De Amicitia, De Divinatione. trans. William
Armistead Falconer, The Loeb Classical Library (London, New York: W.
Heinemann, 1923), p. 567.
Collins English Dictionary, (Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006), p. 664.
Cornelius, Geoffrey, The Moment of Astrology : Origins in Divination. 2 edn
(Bournemouth: The Wessex Astrologer, 2003), p. 386.
Eben Alexander, Proof of Heaven : A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife,
Deluxe edn (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2013).
60
Alexander Kolesnikov 1401614
Page 11 of 11
Dawkins, Richard, The Selfish Gene. 30th anniversary edn (Oxford ; New York:
Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. xxiii, 360 p.
Gauquelin, Michel, Neo-Astrology : A Copernican Revolution (London, England;
New York: Arkana, 1991), p. 192.
Greene, Liz, 'Is Astrology a Divinatory System?', Culture And Cosmos, 12 no 1,
Spring/Summer, 3-29.
Leo, Alan, The Complete Dictionary of Astrology, Alan Leo Astrologer's Library
(Rochester, Vermont: Destiny Books, 1983), p. 205.
Lilly, William, Christian Astrology (Regulus, 1985), p. 831.
McTaggart, Lynne, The Field : The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe. 1 edn
(New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2002), p. 268.
Ogburn, William F., 'Limitations of Statistics', American Journal of Sociology, 40
(1934), 12-20.
Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Massachusetts;
London, England: Harvard university press, 1940), p. 466.
Ramesey, William, Astrologie Restored (London: Printed for Robert White, 1653),
p. 333.
Rothenberg, Albert, 'Creative Cognitive Processes in Kekulé's Discovery of the
Structure of the Benzene Molecule', The American Journal of Psychology, 108
(1995), 419-38.
Schiff, Michel, The Memory of Water: Homoeopathy and the Battle of Ideas in the
New Science (Thorsons, 1995), p. 166.
Zoller, Robert, The Occult Sciences of Astrology, Alchemy and Magic (London: New
Library Limited, 2004), p. 35.