Skyscript Astrology Forum

GarryP wrote:

I remember some time back, there was a project underway to put all of Alan Leo's works onto CD. It seemed to me like a waste of time then, but now it would be quite useful to be able to search for 'AASB' in there. Does anyone know what became of that project?

Hi Garry,

Midheaven Bookshop has a cd collection of Alan Leo's works. From what I remember, it is not the complete works but those in the AA Library, which is a substantial collection anyway.

Cheers
Sue

Major thanks to Kirk Little for tracking 'AASB' down in Alan Leo:

It appears at p.12 of 'How to Judge a Nativity': "Everywhere throughout Nature there is analogy, or rather, a reflection of attributes, from that which is above to that which is below---As above So below runs the Hermetic axiom."

And at p.29 of 'The Art of Synthesis': "But it is evident that applying the maxim 'As above so below,' the Sun of our System is a Star having streams of influence which seem to link it with each planet and give to each its special lordship over certain signs of the zodiac; for the Sun has primal lordship over all the signs, and then each planet is allotted its separate rulership under the Sun."

I've got the 2nd edn of 'How to Judge' from 1908, where the quotation appears as above. It's described as 'revised and greatly amplified', so I guess there's a small chance the quotation may not be in the first edition. Anyone?

I have to say, I'd assumed it would occur much more frequently in Leo's books, but those seem to be the only two occurrences.

Hi Garry

In case this helps, Culpeper slips into Latin to quote the abbreviated phrase in the preface to his Astrological Judgement of Disease, (1655). It?s on the page marked c in the Ascella reproduction. I?ve copied the bits that seem of most interest to you below:

Excellent and true was that Mottoe of HERMES TRISMEGISTUS: QUOD EST SUPERIUS, EST SICUT INFERIUS; and this will appear to the eye of everyone that deserves the name of a reasonable man, if he do but consider, that his whole body is made of the same materials that the whole Universe is made of, though not in the same form, namely of a composition of contrary elements. There is scarce a man breathing that knows his right hand from his left, but knows that if you set bottles of hot water to a man?s feet it will make his head sweat; and the reason is the mutual harmony of one part of the body with another; why then as well should not the actions of one part of the creation produce as well effects in another, that being also one entire body, composed of the same elements, and in as great harmony? ?. Why then should not the Celestial bodies act upon the Terrrestriall, they being made of the same matter and by the finger of the same God.

The capitalisation is as in the text.

Thanks Deb, yes, that helps a great deal. Not only is it way earlier than Alan Leo, but I also find it interesting that he was just quoting the 'as above' bit without the converse.

It's on p.7 of my copy btw.

Now, I wonder where he got it from....?

I?m probably a bit dense but I haven?t followed this discussion very well. If I say something stupid just roll your eyes to heaven and tut.

Now, I wonder where he got it from....?

This is why I?m confused. He?s obviously referring to the Hermetic tradition which is capturing a very ancient philosophy of the universe being an integrated whole, with correspondence between above and below, inside and outside. This is the Mesopotamian outlook captured in the Epic of Creation, (presumed to belong to the old Babylonian period: 1900-1650 BC), which states that the Earth is the counterpart of Heaven and therefore any event in the sky must have its equivalent upon the Earth. Similarly, their outlook was such that any event on earth must have its counterpart in the sky. All astrological philosophy derives from this perspective.

I think you are going to say ?yes I know that, but??

It?s the ?but? bit I don?t understand. Culpeper abbreviates the expression and talks about the celestial acting upon the terrestrial, but even so he talks about mutual harmony and one part of creation producing an effect in another so I don?t think his understanding of the phrase was any different from if he?d used the full quote on the Emerald Tablet. (Eg., presumably his metaphorical reference to the feet influencing the head doesn?t mean he doubts the head also influences the feet, it just gets tedious to go into such detail).

Since I?m not sure I'm hitting the relevant point, I'd best leave it at that

Yes I know that, but...

(Well I wouldn't want to disappoint you, Deb )

The thing is this: so far as Holmyard & Needham (ref'd earlier in thread) are concerned, the earliest positive identification of the Emerald Tablet is in the 9th century CE, in Arabic, probably translated from Syriac, possibly from a Greek original though this is seen as less likely. In fact Needham is quite keen on the idea that it may have originated, much earlier, in China. But he admits that this is just an idea based on a perceived similarity in ideas between the E-Tab and Taoist/alchemical ideas.

So if you reckon there's a solid case for 'as above' etc being found in the 'Enuma Elish' (that's the epic you have in mind isn't it?) then this would be interesting, maybe even ground-breaking. I mean - so far as I know, I make no claim to be an authority on all this stuff!

Text of 'Enuma Elish' is available online btw:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/index.htm

But that's only one issue, around the question of the origins of the saying. The other thing which I find interesting is, when did astrologers cotton on to it and start using it? (There might be an argument to say that it was astrological in origin, and that it goes in and out of vogue, with Blavatsky being the most recent person to give it a big push.)

And was it always the first part only that was used - 'as above so below'? Because I think the argument can be made that this is symptomatic of an attitude where the emphasis is all on the planets doing things to us down here - in other words a model which fits much more nicely with classical science than 'as above so below, as below so above' - which, with its emphasis on two-way traffic, is much closer to the idea of a participatory universe (and therefore some of the ideas of modern physics - not to mention the idea of the astrologer's mind having a crucial role to play in the act of judging a chart).

Does that make sense? I'm sure I could express it more clearly if I had a week or two.

I?m used to references to the Emerald Tablet of Thoth, so I?ve always assumed it originated from Egypt or from ancient ?biblical? times ? ie, being ?Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven? sort of stuff.

Is there any reason why the information given in the link below has been discredited? This claims that the Emerald Tablet of Thoth was carved from a single piece of green crystal and although believed to date back many thousands of years, it?s earliest official dating is when it was translated into Greek by Alexandrian scholars and put on display in 330 BC. The translation here is

?That which is below is like that which is on high, and that which is on high is like that which is below; by these things are made the miracles of one thing. And as all things are, and come from One, by the mediation of One, So all things are born from this unique thing by adaptation.

http://www.crystalinks.com/emeraldtablet.html

I?m sure I?ve seen more relevant references but not knowing their significance I haven?t noted them. It certainly seems to express monotheistic cosmic sympathy, which underlines Stoicism, neo-pythagoreanism and the oriental (ie, Egyptian/Babylonian) philosophies that established the framework for classical astrology. I?d be surprised if the quote or something very similar isn?t in the works of Galen or Hippocrates, especially since the latter?s ?Ars longa, vita brevis? has been so often repeated in astrological works. (I know he wrote "There is one common flow, one common breathing, all things are in sympathy", but I think you want something more specific. That sort of comment is all over the classical texts).

I?m going to keep a look out and get back to you if I can come up with something that bears a more direct relation to the phrase you?re looking at, and its use in the abbreviated form.

Hi Deb,

I think what there is on that page is one of the legends about how the Emerald Tablet was discovered, retold without the proviso that nobody knows whether it's true or not.

I found what looks like a good piece of work on the tablet on this site... whose URL it's impossible to cut & paste, strangely enough. I've never encountered that before. Must be some secret hermetic thing. Hold on while I laboriously copy it out by hand, the way we used to do in the olden days...

www.sofiatopia.org/equiaeon/emerald.htm

Oh yes, and this one:

http://www.alchemylab.com/hyper_history.htm

goes into detail on the tablet being put on display in Heliopolis after being discovered by Alexander the Great. Allegedly.

Maurice McCann kindly looked up a few more instances of Leo using it - at the start of ChXIV 'Esoteric Astrology' he refers to it as 'the well-known Hermetic maxim'.

Well according to http://www.ancientroute.com/cities/heliopolis.htm Plato studied under the high priests here, so it would seem that at least some of the story has merit. Glass, being made from fine sand and heat, was also something more commonly found in the desserts of egypt than other places, so I can imagine if someone found a particularly nice chink of natural glass, that it would be a fine surface to use for inscription, all they would need is acid, also quite compnly used in ancient egypt. So, I dont know how factual the account is, but it at least has some plausibility.

granny

Hi Garry,

I?ve been meaning to get back to you for a while, but needed some time to check out various translations of the Enuma Elish. I agree, it doesn?t offer any support for the comment I made earlier. I got this from notes I made years ago, and the reference I have for it is R. C. Thomson, The Epic of Gilgamish; Clarendon Press, Oxford 1930. But I don?t have access to that particular text now so I have no idea how or why I have him on file as saying that the Mesopotamians viewed the Earth is the counterpart of Heaven and therefore any event in the sky must have its equivalent upon the Earth. Perhaps this was in some commentary of his which I still need to verify, or maybe it?s just my own error that has been brought to light by the information you have placed here.

I?m still looking into this and will get back to you later if I turn up anything of value (might take some time).

I?m still inclined towards the view that it existed as an ancient philosophy that was translated according to the alleged reports. I noticed that in his article on Mercury in Myth and Occult Philosophy David McCann writes:

As a result of Thoth's position as a patron of knowledge, writers in Ptolemaic and Roman times attributed various books to 'Hermes Trismegistus', as they called him. These dealt with philosophy and religion (e.g., the Corpus Hermeticus and the Asclepius), astrology (e.g., the Liber Hermetis), and magic (numerous texts which have not been published, much less translated). The philosophical books were read and admired not only by pagans, but also by Church Fathers such as Lactantius. They were highly regarded in the Renascence, when they were considered to have preserved the wisdom of the ancient Egyptians and to predate both the Greek philosophers and the Bible; that is why Marsilio Ficino was asked to translate Hermes before Plato. Later scholars dismissed them, claiming that they were written at the end of the Roman Empire and contained no more than a mixture of Greek and Christian ideas. Modern scholars have largely abandoned this extreme view, and the discovery of the Asclepius in Coptic (the late form of the Egyptian language) has shown that they are indeed a legacy of Egyptian culture.

Whether that applies to the Emerald Tablet too I don?t know, but there doesn?t seem to be any reason to believe that it can?t. I called David to ask if he knew of any early references to the phrase. He didn?t off the top of his head but was as surprised as me to think that they wouldn?t exist, so he is going to keep on the look out too.

If you get any more information, let me know.

Deb

Deb penned "I got this from notes I made years ago, and the reference I have for it is R. C. Thomson, The Epic of Gilgamish; Clarendon Press, Oxford 1930. But I don?t have access to that particular text now so I have no idea how or why I have him on file as saying that the Mesopotamians viewed the Earth is the counterpart of Heaven and therefore any event in the sky must have its equivalent upon the Earth. "

My tuppence: Isn't this the very definition of Astrology? I believe some things are so well ingrained, part of what we do, we presume that others already understand this and therefore we dont verbalize the ideal. Or pen it. =) If the earth is a reflection of the sky, and the reverse, then Astrology makes sense, else we're all enjoying a fruitless excersize. I have found astrology too usefull and insightful to consider it fruitless...

Granny.

I?ve encountered some interesting leads since my last post on this theme, so thought an update might be in order:

1) William Lilly?s mate Elias Ashmole quoted ?as above?? in Latin in his alchemical work 'Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum' (1652):

?For this is the maxim of old Hermes, Quod est superius, est sicut id quod est inferius.? (p.446)

Ashmole?s text can be found online here:
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/fl ... N=83074057

Many thanks to Ruth Clydesdale for this.

2) The general idea of a both-ways relationship (above to below and below to above) is found in Kabbalah?

?Though similar to the Neoplatonic vision of the universe issuing forth in a series of hierarchically ordered emanations from the divine monad, as discussed, for example, by Plotinus in his Enneads, the Sephiroth have a more dynamic quality in that while they rule creation and determine its fate, they do not embody the same sense of stasis as the Neoplatonic system, but partake of a reciprocal relationship with creation, such that the actions of the individual Cabalist are also held to decide the fate of the
Sephiroth themselves.?

- Peter J. Forshaw, 'Ora et Labora: Alchemy, Magic and Cabala in Heinrich Khunrath's Amphitheatrum Sapientiae Aeternae (1609)', Doctoral Thesis, Volume 1, University of London, 2003, Chapter 3: Wonder-Working Words, The Origins of Cabala, p.132

Many thanks to Peter for this. He provided the following refs relating to the above passage: Joseph Dan, ?The Early Kabbalah?, New York: Paulist Press, 1986, p.13. For the Neoplatonist angle ? Plotinus Ennead V for his discussion of emanations and R. T. Wallis, Neoplatonism, London: Duckworth & Co., 1972, pp.61ff.

3) At p.126 of 'Belonging to the Universe' - a book of conversations between Fritjof Capra and two religious types, one of whom is David Steindl-Rast - David S-R says:

"...the Greek definition of a human being as a zoon logikon is not entirely correctly translated as 'rational animal'. It means an animal that has the logos, or the 'word', the principle of reading patterns. The Greek logos is the pattern that makes a cosmos out of chaos. We are animals that have the logos within us, and therefore, we can understand the cosmos."

- Which seems to me to come very close to ?as above, so below; as below, so above?. People who know about these things reckon that ?rational animal? comes from Aristotle, probably the Metaphysics, though we haven't actually caught Aristotle red-handed yet. Any offers on this front welcome.

Given the influence of Aristotle, and the idea of the human as a ?rational animal? in the West, it?s interesting to think how different things might have been if zoon logikon had been translated differently.

OK, enough for one post!