By Maria J. Mateus

August 24, 2002

Can you imagine trying to learn a foreign language by memorizing a dictionary? If you did, you’d probably be able to string together a series of words and maybe with the help of a specific context and some helping hand gestures be able to make your point to a foreign native. Modern astrology, it seems to me, suffers from the same problem – a lack of a grammar. James Holden called astrology a "word science" because it revolves around the basic knowledge of a series of epithets or "key words" which astrologers commit to memory and associate with specific symbols. Some astrologers have even catalogued lists of these words and their corresponding astrological symbols so that we might more accurately make identifications and descriptions of these symbols. We are told that good astrology, like a good painting, is a matter of the "blending" of the astrological colors. Yet all of us who have been studying astrology for years and have built up a relatively decent vocabulary list, have felt that sense of uneasiness when first looking at a new chart – like trapeze artists without a net. Typically we explain away this feeling as inexperience, lack of confidence or at best a lack of focus. But the reality is that professional astrologers face their clients during the most crucial moments in their lives much like U.N. translators during the Cuban Missile Crisis had they been equipped with nothing but a lexicon. No one can certainly accuse us of a lack of chutzpah!

In the last 50 years, a growing number of conscientious astrologers have become increasingly aware that they are doing flips without a safety net and that the growing need for one must be addressed. In fulfilling this need, some have turned to the geophysical sciences, quantum physics and chaos theory for some underpinning. A great number of them have turned to psychology, while others have gone back to the origins of the tradition in an attempt to retrieve from it the pieces of the puzzle they intuitively know have been lost over time.

The work I present here has been inspired to a large extent by the work of two very different astrologers – one whose astrology is grounded in modern psychological theories and the other a historian/linguist who has been working tirelessly to unearth the tradition as it was conceptualized in its origins. While Glenn Perry’s work is primarily concerned with interpreting the birth chart as a representation of intrapsychic dynamics, he is one of the few astrologers to draw attention to the polymorphous expression of planets and signs as different parts of speech. He notes that a planet can function grammatically as a noun, verb, adverb or adjective, while a sign tends to take the form of a noun, adverb or adjective – relating these expressions of the planet/sign combinations to specific psychological processes and their potential external manifestations. In an intersecting vein, Robert Schmidt’s translation of Hellenistic Greek sources has led him to re-conceptualize the early astrological tradition as an attempt by astrologers to read the "inner cognitive events in the cosmic soul." These cognitive events, according to Schmidt, have the structure of language and can be expressed in terms of grammar and logic. As of the time of this writing, Schmidt has made a preliminary theoretical reference to several important syntactical functions of the astrological symbols. These are: the "nominalization of the planets;" the sign as an "adverbalization of the planetary infinitive:" the gender of the signs providing the voice of the verb, the quadruplicities its tense, and the triplicities its mood; and the dispositor of a planetary verb functioning as its direct object. Working empirically from charts with which I am more familiar, I wanted to validate some of these syntactical hypotheses. I also wanted to examine the question of the grammatical role of the houses, which was one that was paramount in my mind and which I did not find referenced in my introductory exposure to Schmidt’s work. During this process of grammatical chart analysis, other questions arose – some whose answers filled in needed gaps in the syntax and others with implications for the direction of future research. Below is an outline of how the grammatical structure for the planets, signs and houses may be practically applied in chart readings, followed by a discussion of some of the questions arising out of this work.

Every planet represents an abstract principle which exists in the universe. These principles, when translated into a birth chart, may be anthropomorphized into deities that are single-minded in their motivations or drives. We may imagine for example, these planetary deities with their very particular caricature-like behaviors: Venus with her sexual proclivities, Mars with his bellicose ways, the Sun with his "star-like" qualities, etc. In fact, when it comes to the gods, we cannot imagine them behaving in any way other than what is consistent with their basic natures. We might say that the planets are "moved" to satisfy the need for these universal principles. If we then imagine ourselves as carriers of these principles, we might say that all of these universal principles are within us and we are intrinsically motivated to satisfy them as well. We are, in effect, motivated to act like the gods at different times. Perry has identified this process with the psychological theory of intrinsic motivation – meaning that the ultimate causes of our behaviors rest on our being moved toward the satisfaction of particular needs.

As he notes, the root of the word motivation is the Latin word movere, which means to move and is fundamental to the nature of all planets in that they distinguish themselves in the sky because they move. Similarly, in a grammatical sense, movement needs to be an essential part of our interpretation of the planets; in other words, they need to be read in some verb form. When we see a planet in a chart we know that this planet must convey some kind of action and that the action will be consistent with the basic nature of that planet. So who is experiencing this action, you might ask? Notice that I use the phrase "experiencing this action," rather than "executing this action." There is a reason for this which I will address further below. For now, the simple answer is that ultimately the action is experienced by you, the native of the chart. But in the sentences that we are forming, the native may be implied in various ways without using the pronoun "I" in every sentence. Schmidt speaks of "nominalizing the planets," that is, of turning the planets into nouns from the verbs that they may act out. For example, Venus likes "to unite"; if we nominalized that verb, it would become " a union" rather than "to unite." If we speak of a union, we are implying that there is someone who is doing the uniting. Therefore, a nominalized verb or a planet has implicit in it a subject and a predicate (i.e. a noun and a verb form, the actor as the one who acts). Below is a table with the basic natures or principles of the planets (the traditional ones characterized by Schmidt, my tentative characterization of the new planets) as well as their translation into sample grammatical phrases or clauses.

You will note that in the examples above, some appear in the form of a clause – which is a part of a sentence that includes a subject and predicate (ex: I receive); and some appear in the form of a phrase – which does not contain both a subject and a predicate (Ex: To question; A union). Yet in all of the phrases – whether they be the infinitive form of the verb or the nominalized form of the verb – there is an implied person or thing that executes the action. We come back to the question: Who experiences the action? While the native always experiences the action symbolized by the planet in question, s/he may be the recipient of that action or the executor of that action. How do we know which when reading a chart? We know that in astrology the Zodiac signs alternate between masculine and feminine natures. Schmidt tells that each of the signs may be correlated with an active or passive voice in grammar. Therefore, if we are to apply this concept to our readings, we may then translate Saturn in a feminine sign as someone who "is rejected" rather than as someone who "rejects". Conversely, if the Sun is in Sagittarius, the statement will read "to prefer" rather than "to be preferred," "to impress" rather than "to be impressed" etc.

After establishing the subject (implied or stated) and the predicate of our statements through the planets, the logical question next becomes "what or who is the object of this action?" Schmidt contends that the direct object of the planetary verb is represented by the dispositor of the planet in question. In the case of, say Venus in Aries, this means that the Venus-like behavior falls upon a Mars-like object. This is not exactly what I have found when running this hypothesis through the charts. What appears to be happening is that the houses are functioning as the objects of our sentences. But before we get into the grammatical details, we need to clarify a couple of concepts.

In the planetary verb forms in the table above, we have kept things simple by using verbs that are intransitive. An intransitive verb is a verb that does not need an object to complete it in order to have meaning. "I scream" is a complete statement which makes perfect sense and requires no object or person to receive the scream. However, if I said "I gave," this would not be a complete sentence because it would not make sense. The verb "to give" is a transitive verb which requires an object – a thing, concept or person that receives the action – to make sense. The object answers the question "what?" or "who?"

Now let’s get back to our Venus example. In order to proceed, we must decide whether the verb we will choose for Venus is a transitive or intransitive verb – or whether it is both. Some verbs are perfectly OK without a direct object but also function well with an object. A Venus example would be the verb "to love". We could say "I love Rock & Roll" (transitive) or "I love intensely" (intransitive). In the intransitive form "intensely" is an adverb, not an object because it does not answer the question "what does one love", but rather answers the question "how does one love?" An intransitive verb does not require a direct object but may be able to use some other qualifier after it in order to give it more meaning. With an intransitive verb, an option is to use indirect objects after our verbal to indicate to or for whom the action is performed. It is important to notice whether we are choosing an intransitive or transitive verb because that will dictate what type of object we are needing in our sentence construction and consequently how we read our symbols. If we use transitive verbs we need to find something to receive the action. We thus turn to the house placement of the planet Venus. In my chart Venus is in the 9^th house. If we generalize the pronoun, the sentences can then read:

Ex: Venus in the 9^th with a transitive verb:

"One who loves (what?) astrology" or

"One who attracts (who?) foreigners or students

"One who reconciles (what?) disciplines" or with a nominalized verb:

"The reconciliation (of what?) of disciplines"

Now, if we construct the sentence with an intransitive verb, we may want to say something else about the circumstances surrounding this "act of uniting". We therefore turn to the 9^th house and this time approach it as an indirect object, which will indicate to whom or for whom this action is being performed:

Ex: Venus in the 9^th with an intransitive verb:

"One who unites (to whom?) to a foreigner" or " with a foreigner"

Indirect objects, such as the bolded parts of the sentence above, often take the form of a prepositional phrase. A prepositional phrase is a part of a sentence which always begins with a preposition (to, of, with etc.) and is followed by an object (represented by the astrological house). A prepositional phrase locates the action of a sentence in time and space. This is essentially what a house does – it locates or coordinates the action of a planet in time and space! As will be demonstrated below, some of the most interesting discoveries in a chart are made when employing the construction of prepositional phrases. Consider this example:

Ex: Venus in the 9^th as a prepositional phrase:

"One who socializes (where? how?) at college" or "with students"

The prepositional phrase functions as an adverb because it answers the questions: where, when, how, or why something is happening. This is perhaps what Schmidt had in mind when he talks about the "adverbalization of the planetary infinitive". Although there are many commonly used prepositions, not all of them will work with all verbs. The planetary verb will significantly narrow down the options, making our selection that much easier. Here is a list of commonly used English prepositions which we can choose from in linking a planet with its house.

All of the statements I have made above for Venus in the 9^th are true about me. However, were I to look to the dispositor of Venus (Mars) for an object, I would get far more statements which are not true about me: I do not attract athletes; I do not love sports; I don’t try to unite radicals, etc. In fact, it seems the gods will not allow us to objectify them – as this structure would require! Even when we nominalize a planet, the god as performer of the action is still implied in the nominal; he is subject, not object. As we will see below when we get to the rulers of the houses (the dispositors of planets), a planetary god may stand in relation to another planetary god and/or act in a qualifying manner to another god’s objects, but s/he will never be objectified. What you have here in grammatical terms is what Moses and Luther were railing about! This makes sense since the planet represents the dynamic part of existence – to objectify it, would be to change its essence as that which moves and can create change.

So far I’ve spoken about planets as the subjects and predicates of our yet-to-be-completed statements. Whether they are nominalized subjects or fully predicated subjects, they characterize the executor of the action or the recipient of the action, as well as the nature of the action itself. There is however, another role that planets may play in the grammatical structure of a chart. This is where things begin to get especially interesting.

The planetary Gods are also associated with particular objects which they would prefer to act upon or manipulate if they had their choice. In fact, the objects which a particular God is said to rule over appear to be things which stimulate, simulate, or allow them (and us as the God) to express their basic natures. In Venus’ case, she prefers objects that are attractive (i.e. they prompt a desire for her/us to unite or reconcile with them) or which attract others (i.e. we use them to encourage others to unite/reconcile with us). Examples would be objects such as jewels, money, acquisitions, friendships, beauty, gifts, sex, amiability, etc. Similarly, sports allow Mars to compete, i.e. to fight to separate himself from others; a knife allows him to make a separation in a particular object; a war allows him to sever groups of people, and so on.

You will recall that I said above that a God does not like to be objectified. So what do we do with all these planet-ruled objects? In Hellenistic astrology, as Schmidt explains, the sign ruled by a planet was thought of as the domicile (home) of that planet. Thus, Aries and Scorpio were the domiciles of Mars; Taurus and Libra, the domiciles of Venus; Gemini and Virgo, the domiciles of Mercury; and so on following the traditional rulerships. If a planet was located in another planet’s sign, that planet was looked upon as temporarily residing in the domicile of another lord. In effect, the dispositor of that planet was its landlord. The relationship between the two planets was one in which the dispositor functioned as a host for the planet in its sign. Schmidt says "it had to provide for it from its basket of significations." This implies that the dispositor is providing the direct objects for the use of the visiting planet. As we’ve seen above, I don’t think this is what is happening. In testing out this landlord/tenant relationship, I’ve found that while the analogy works, the relationship needs to be refined and expanded to better include the role of the house.

It should be remembered that the sign where a planet is located is also the sign that occupies all or part of the house. (For the time being, let’s assume we are using a whole sign house system in order to simplify things). In effect, the planetary landlord rules over a whole area, not just that tenant; s/he is landlord whether or not there is even a tenant there. Therefore, it seems to me that s/he has first and foremost a relationship to something or someone in time and space (a house). I like to think of it as the God having claimed a part of my existence and infused it with his conditions. While these conditions may be satisfied with the aid of some of the God’s objects of preference, they (the conditions) qualify the main objects represented by the house. In other words, the conditions are like the landlord’s lease. This lease can be read through the sign on the cusp of a house. The lease goes so far as to set forth conditions for the actions of any planets occupying this house. Since we have established grammatically that a planet functions primarily like a verbal, then the sign will indicate its conjugation: its voice; its mood; its tense (more on this below). For now, let’s look at a couple of simple examples of just the house and sign combination.

Ex: Aries on the 9^th: radical beliefs; pioneering schools; original thinkers; athletic foreigners

Notice that I did not use "active travel" for example. Why not? Because "to travel" is to perform an action, which would be depicted by Mercury. The house would indicate the object of that travel – to a foreign place (9^th) or to a familiar place (3^rd) (Note also the preposition "to"). The sign in these examples is functioning as an adjective because we are describing an object indicated by the house – not qualifying the act of traveling. However, with Venus in the 9^th, I could use the sign to qualify the action of Venus. In that case, Mars’ conditions are qualifying not only the objects represented by the house, but also the actions represented by the planet it disposes. Compare the following three examples:

Ex: Venus in the 9^th disposed by Mars:

"One who unites with a foreign native who is in exile" (adjectival)

who does sports" (adjectival)

who is alone" (adjectival)

who is born anew" (adjectival)

"The reconciliation of philosophies or beliefs which are independent" (adjectival)

"One who acquires a degree with interruptions" (adverbial)

In the last statement the prepositional phrase "with interruptions" functions as an adverb which describes how my degree (house) is acquired. Mars is dictating the conditions for Venus’ actions. In the first five statements, we’ve introduced a relative clause to function as an adjective which is describing the foreign native (house) or the beliefs (house). In all cases, Mars is setting the conditions for the house – his property. Before we expand these statements (which are all true) even further, let me explain what a relative clause is.

A relative clause is a group of related words which contain both a subject and a predicate and begin with a relative pronoun. These are:

This group of words is meant to establish the relationship between our two planets – tenant and landlord –mediated through the house. The relative clause, because it contains its own subject and predicate, describes the object of the statement in dynamic terms. You will notice that the relative clause (the Mars part) describes the object (the house part) as performing some action in the present, past or future. The way this is phrased depends on the tense indicated by the sign in which we find the dispositor. But how does this work since a new-born baby has a chart and yet everything s/he experiences will be in the future? What seems to be happening is that the verb tenses of the related planets are functioning in relation to each other. In the first statement above, Venus in Aries correlates to action that is yet to come, while Mars in Taurus correlates to on-going or continuous action. When I started dating my husband, he had just emigrated from his native country so he was in the beginning of his continuous exile. "Exile" may seem like a medieval word, but in this case, for reasons which I will not get into, it is actually an accurate description of how he felt. Our union (marriage) did not take place until a few years after he had left his country. While he and I are actually from the same country, when he arrived, he was someone from a foreign country. While this matter of verb tenses, moods and voice is too long to get into in this article, I will list here Schmidt’s descriptions for the Zodiac groupings followed by the grammatical correlates, as closely as I can ascertain, given his descriptions.

There is something else that needs to be added regarding this business of not objectifying the planets. Students of horary may wonder about this statement because they know that in horary one must locate every subject of a particular question in the houses. For example, if someone wants to know about the possibility of having children one looks to the 5^th house, which signifies children, and uses the ruler of that house as the significator for children. It might seem as if what is being done in horary is an objectification of the ruler of a house as an object that typically belongs to that house. However, I don’t think this is quite what is going on. Those experts in horary will correct me if I am wrong, but when one asks a horary question – for example, "Will I find a job?" – one is asking about two topics or objects in one’s life: me and my job. Naturally, as objects, these belong to the 1^st and 6^th houses respectively. However, when we then look at what the rulers of those houses are doing, we are essentially reading the planets in terms of the change or movement that is being experienced by these areas of our lives. If in our example, I am signified by Saturn and my job is being represented by the Moon, I can interpret that I am "one who is waiting" and my job (as subject) as "one which is taking in something or someone". If these two energies connect through other factors in the chart, say by mutual reception or by a favorable aspect, then we can expect an affirmative reply but with some delay. This is why applying aspects are so important in reading future dynamics. As you can see, what we are doing in horary is not objectifying the planets but rather personalizing the movement or change which will be exerted by or upon those objects of our lives.

So far we’ve covered the role of the planet as subject and predicate; the house as direct and indirect object, and as an adverbial in the form of a prepositional phrase; and the dispositor as both an adjectival and as an adverbial in the form of a relative clause. I would like to run through a couple more examples, focusing on the house as prepositional phrase and the dispositor as a relative clause. However, now we’ll add to our statement the house placement of the dispositor. You’re probably sick of my Venus in the 9^th, but bear with me – there is a method to my madness.

Ex: Venus in the 9^th in Aries, dispositor Mars in the 10^th in Taurus

Venus 9^th Mars 10^th

"I will unite with a foreigner who is being exiled because of his career"

subj. + pred. prep. phrase relative clause prep. phrase

Ex: Mars in the 10^th in Taurus, dispositor Venus in the 9^th in Aries

"I am separating from a career when I [will] desire a higher degree

subj. + pred. prep. phrase relative clause direct object

Here I’ve actually written these statements in the tenses implied by the signs which the planets occupy and used the personal pronoun ("I"). I translated these two particular planets because they are in mutually receptive signs. Mars rules the sign which Venus occupies and Venus rules the sign in which Mars is located. In the first statement, when my husband left his country he also transferred to a college here in the US and changed his degree area. He was in effect changing career paths and schools. So the translation for the 10^th house Mars could also use a 9^th house object. The same thing applies to the second statement. When I left a career in banking (Venus as adjectival), I not only desired a higher degree, I also wanted a career change. This mutual exchange between objects of the 9^th and 10^th are, I think mediated by the mutual exchange between the sign rulers.

There is one last example that I would like to illustrate. You’ll be happy to know it does not involve Venus in the 9^th! This example comes from the chart of a friend and former student and is interesting for a couple of reasons.

Ex: Mars in the 5^th in Capricorn, dispositor Saturn in the 7^th in Pisces

Mars 5^th Saturn 7^th

sub. + pred. prep. phrase relative clause prep. phrase

Both of these planetary placements are in feminine signs and therefore call for a passive voice – meaning the relevant subjects receive the action rather than execute it. This event actually happened recently in my friend’s life. She was remarried, had two boys from her first marriage, and was pregnant with her second child from her new marriage. Her second husband and her boys did not get along and she felt her husband rejected them because they were not his. Although she was the one to make the decision to have them go live with their father, I know she agonized over it for many months and felt she had no choice. Saturn in Pisces correlates to the subjunctive mood which has to do with a conditional statement of the sort that starts "If…." In this case, if the partner does not reject the children, then the separation does not need to occur. This statement could have been written in a different way with very different implications. Consider this statement:

Mars 5^th Saturn 7^th

sub. + pred. prep. phrase relative clause prep. phrase

If we constructed the statement in this manner, we might be tempted to think that the separation was from the partner in order to preserve the union with the children. But that statement does not fit with this particular portion of the chart. Mars is in the 5^th, therefore the children experience its energy. This is an example of how the grammatical structure may fit the chart, but the semantics do not. Also the tense of Saturn is incorrect. The other interesting thing about this chart is that these house placements only apply if we use a whole sign house system. Because she has late degrees rising, her Mars falls in the 4^th and Saturn in the 6^th in most other house systems including Placidus. While I have not tested out the grammar on enough house systems to ascertain whether there are consistently more true statements with a whole sign system than with others, I know that the Hellenistic astrologers used a whole sign system of house division with regard to ascertaining meaning from a chart.

When all is said and done, why would we want to make what some might call "fatalistic" statements about events in people’s lives? The point of working toward discovering an astrological grammar is not to be able to guess "what will happen to people". In fact, the grammar itself seems to be built in such a way that it allows for possibility and choice (We have subjunctive and optative moods, for example). The point, as far as I’m concerned, is to be able to make falsifiable statements. What do I mean by that? For a long time skeptics and mainstream academics have argued that astrological delineations are so vague and ambiguous that they say nothing concrete. Astrologers counter with the free will argument and the claim that even though the chart implies one thing, we still have the choice to circumvent it. Maybe, they say, that is why some people don’t relate to parts of their charts. Let’s face it folks – if we’re saying everything, then we’re saying nothing. Karl Popper said that science had to be able to make falsifiable statements – that is, it had to say something that could either be proven or disproved. I don’t claim that astrology fits this strict definition as a discipline. But I do think that in order to be fair and authentic with clients we need to be able to make falsifiable statements – those that a client can verify as true or not – if not at the time of the reading, then at some point in her/his life.

Being able to make falsifiable statements in astrology also has tremendous technical advantages. We have already seen that the problem of the house systems can be tested with falsifiable statements. We have also been able to more clearly demonstrate that – as one of my professors likes to remind me – the houses, signs and planets are not interchangeable! I would like to continue to expand this grammar to include a better understanding of how the various forecasting techniques integrate with it. How does a transit fit into the picture in a grammatical sense? Do the new planets mediate through the time/space coordinates – that is, can they "landlord" any houses? I would also like to know how the various dignity rulers fit into a grammatical model. How do we read interaspects in synastry? I’ve also not even touched on the aspects in general. Answers to these questions will only be forthcoming with something solid to build from.

For me, there is an even more important reason for establishing an accurate astrological grammar. I said at the beginning of this article that one of my inspirations for this work was a well-known psychological astrologer. This is because I think having an accurate grammar allows us not only to be able to clearly see the outer manifestations of our charts, but also the inner dynamics of those same forces. Most astrologers believe there is a parallel between the outer and the inner worlds and incessantly quote the Hermetic dictum to that effect. If that is so, then why should we be afraid to allow astrology to reflect that outer reality as clearly as we want it to reflect the inner? Are we afraid we cannot navigate between them? An accurate astrological grammar, like a good psychopomp, allows us this freedom of movement.

[1] James Herschel Holden. A History of Horoscopic Astrology. P. 208.

[1] Glenn Perry. An Introduction to AstroPsychology. p. 111.

[1] Robert Schmidt. Original Source Texts and Auxiliary Materials for the Study of Hellenistic Astrology. week 1, p. 6.

[1] Robert Schmidt. Original Source Texts and Auxiliary Materials for the Study of Hellenistic Astrology. week 1, p. 6.

[1] Glenn Perry. An Introduction to AstroPsychology. p. 75.

[1] Robert Schmidt. Original Source Texts and Auxiliary Materials for the Study of Hellenistic Astrology. week 3, p. 3.

[1] Class lectures.

[1] Robert Schmidt. Original Source Texts and Auxiliary Materials for the Study of Hellenistic Astrology. week 3, p. 12.

[1] According to Schmidt, in order to assess planetary strength, they used a non-Zodiacally based system of house division (Porphyry to be exact) because this allows us to locate the planets relative to the angles more accurately.

[1] Schmidt contends that the aspect doctrine is built upon an understanding of Aristotelian logic. I’ve read Aristotle’s On Interpretation, which discusses logical propositions, but have not yet tackled the task of integrating this into the grammar. Schmidt’s forthcoming work may clarify some of this and expand upon some of the grammatical structures I have and have not covered.

Bibliography

Hodges, John C. and Mary E. Whitten. Harbrace College Handbook. HBJ Publishers.  San Diego, CA. 1986.

Holden, James. A History of Horoscopic Astrology. AFA. Tempe, AZ. 1996.

Perry, Glenn. An Introduction to AstroPsychology. AAP. San Raphael, CA. 1998.

Schmidt, Robert. Original Source Texts and Auxiliary Materials for the Study of Hellenistic Astrology. Project Hindsight. Phaser Foundation. 2002.    

Maria J. Mateus is a professional astrologer who is currently a student in the astrological counseling program at Kepler College. Visit her website at www.cyclelogical.org.