However what I think is clearer from the opening posts and many subsequent ones is that what's really wanting to be discussed isn't so much whether or not traditional techniques can be applied to the sidereal zodiac as much as a comparison between the sidereal astrologer's approach and the tropical astrologer's approach.

If we accept the argument that tropical astrologers have been shifting the meaning of the signs to match the precessing sidereal signs, as put forth here by others, then we should see that the tropical qualities of Pisces should match the sidereal qualities of Aries.
From Vettius Valens, on sidereal Aries (Riley's translation):

Quote:
.... Depending on its relationship with the house ruler, men born under this sign will
be brilliant, distinguished, authoritarian, just, hard on offenders, free, governing, bold in thought, boastful, great-hearted, restless, unstable, haughty, inflated, intimidating, quickly changing, wealthy. When the houserulers are favorably situated and have benefics in aspect, kings and powerful men are born, those having the say over life and death.
Aries is by nature watery, with thunder and hail. From its first degree to the equinox, it is
stormy, full of hail, windy, destructive.

With the exception of the apparent contradiction of originally referring to Aries as fiery, and then later as watery (we can assume the latter is in relation to weather only?) we can clearly see that tropical Pisces does NOT resemble sidereal Aries.

Someone mentioned about how Scorpio is now considered erotic and sensual.

So let's examine this one as well.
Sidereal Scorpio from the same translation of Valens...

Tropical descriptions has:
A) Changed noticeably from the Hellenistic period which Martin Gansten associates as being predominantly sidereal (Ptolemy excepted)
B) That these changes match precession
C) That a similar theme isn't equally found by some arbitrary other sign to be used as a control, I suggest a 'pro'cessed sign to compare against a precessed sign...I've never been compelled by the argument that tropical astrologers have shifted their meanings of the signs in correspondence to precession and whilst several have made the claim I'm not aware of any who demonstrated the claim.

...comparing 'traditional tropical' and 'traditional sidereal' sources is problematic, for the simple reason that all traditional authors (including Lilly) rely for their descriptions on earlier sources which often go back to a time before the difference between the tropical and sidereal zodiacs was commonly recognized.

Just as tropical astrologers have tried to remove the emphasis on the stars contained within the signs, yes.

Valens is problematic in that he combines seasonal and weather symbolism with constellational, star and planetary rulership symbolism. So Valens is an interesting look at a collection of sign information, but if we really want to understand the sidereal signs, we need to study today's natal charts.

It is only modern sidereal astrology that has a reason to dissociate its techniques from the seasonal symbolism ? this was not an issue that ancient astrologers had to worry about, nor something that they strove to do. They blissfully used the system created in their own time, as it worked in their own time in all respects.

Chill out, Mark. The tropical zodiac is based on seasonal symbolism, the sidereal is not. It's as simple as that. Please don't accuse me of creating a false dichotomy of signs.

It also might help if you'd take time to really study alternate points of view rather than jumping in with commentary on your own perspective.

Mark wrote:Exactly! That in a nutshell is the real difficulty I have with Therese's position that there is a specific approach to signs which are distinctly sidereal or tropical. Its creating a false dichotomy in my opinion. At least in regards western traditional astrology stemming back to the hellenistic period.

I am less clear about a distinction between Indian and western traditions regarding the signs. Has the use of the Nakshatras and padas had an influence on the interpretation of the 12 sign sidereal zodiac in India? That is an open question for me. Perhaps you can answer that?

If we are discussing western traditional astrology the suggestion that tropical astrologers have 'tried to remove the emphasis on the stars contained within the signs, yes' is a nice sounding reposte but grotesquely inaccurate.

Traditional western tropical astrology has always retained a clear sidereal perspective.

Martin Gansten wrote:As Paul has mentioned my name, I should like to clarify that I for one do not claim that the meanings of the signs have consistently changed in tropical astrology over time

(making tropical Aries resemble sidereal Pisces, etc -- Paul has the order backwards). Some shifts in sign symbolism can be seen when we compare different epochs and cultures, but nothing as clear-cut as that.

I don't really understand what this means. But comparing 'traditional tropical' and 'traditional sidereal' sources is problematic, for the simple reason that all traditional authors (including Lilly) rely for their descriptions on earlier sources which often go back to a time before the difference between the tropical and sidereal zodiacs was commonly recognized.

Just as tropical astrologers have tried to remove the emphasis on the stars contained within the signs, yes.

Therese Hamilton wrote:

Someone mentioned about how Scorpio is now considered erotic and sensual.

If so, then that is the Venus rulership of sidereal Libra. I don't believe Mars has ever been called "erotic and sensual."

You're doing it again, this is the point I made on page one of this thread, if you're comparing sidereal and tropical astrology then that's fine, but we must separate what is used in one from what is used in the other. Here it is not that Venus has rulership of sidereal Libra, Venus just has rulership of Libra. Both in tropical and sidereal.
We cannot have it both ways. You were suggesting that "Libra here in Fern's chart isn't the nice friendly tropical Libra. It's the energy we see in tropical Scorpio." etc.

Although Sari wrote a clever post comparing Valens to the precessed tropical signs of today, Velens is problematic in that he combines seasonal and weather symbolism with constellational, star and planetary rulership symbolism. So Valens is an interesting look at a collection of sign information, but if we really want to understand the sidereal signs, we need to study today's natal charts.

No, wait a second. Your argument was that the tropical astrologers have changed their meanings over time. To demonstrate that we must look backwards through history. Not look at today's natal charts. Let's find a sidereal authority you are more comfortable with, if not Valens then someone else. Then find me a traditional tropical astrologer, I suggest Lilly, and show me that the Lilly's Cancer is like sidereal Gemini etc.

My point is that this is inaccurate so you won't be able to.

edit:
Also you yourself referenced Valens in your very first post so I'm not sure why it's so problematic that I too use your own source

Your "C" is much too complex to take on, and we don't really have a lot to go on with the ancient interpretation of signs, except when the symbolism is obviously connected to the ruling planets.

Again you can't have it both ways. Either we don't have enough information to go on, in which you case you cannot claim that there's enough information to know that tropical astrologers have changed their meanings to match precession, or we accept that there's enough to go on that you're able to make that statement, and if you're able to make that statement then there's enough to go on to demonstrate WHY you're making that statement.

C is not difficult whatsoever. You have suggested that tropical astrologers have changed their meanings. This is a common argument I have heard from some sidereal astrologers. If this is the case all I'm asking you to do is demonstrate it.
If you can demonstrate that there's a fundamental change in meaning with the symbolism all we need to do is offer a control. The reason I say this is that simply observing that the signs have changed does not in itself suggest that they changed in accordance with precession. We can tell if it's in accordance with precession in particular by offering a simple control.
Returning to your example of tropical cancer being like sidereal Gemini, all we need to do is first of all see if tropical cancer has changed meanings, if so if they resemble sidereal Gemini, and if so make sure they don't also resemble, for example, sidereal Taurus. In other words make sure that it's not just a 'change' but rather a change directly in accordance with precession.

I have many collections of charts that support the sidereal correspondence, but these collections would make a book.

What does this prove or what is the point of it?
We can all reference our charts that demonstrate the techniques we use work. I have no doubt that sidereal astrologers get great results using sidereal astrology. I greatly respect many sidereal astrologers. I have no problem with sidereal astrology.
What I have a problem with is the attack upon tropical astrology where it is suggested that tropical astrologers, fooling themselves, are really just ignorant sidereal astrologers, who ignorant of their actions, are changing the meanings over time to match the 'real' signs, which are the sidereal ones. That's basically the point you've put forth. That's the point I disagree with and am challenging you on.

This is again the point I made in my first post. You claim you want to demonstrate traditional approaches with sidereal charts, and to some extent you've made progress on doing so via Fern's chart, but rather than stick to this you've also compared or referenced against the tropical approach to demonstrate how flawed it is. You say:
"Thus, tropical Pisces is similar to sidereal Aquarius, tropical Aries is similar to sidereal Pisces, and so forth. "

Now when I questioned you originally about what exactly you were trying to do, as it was confusing, you suggested you just wanted to see if the traditional techniques work with sidereal zodiac. But this isn't strictly true. You've another motive too which is to demonstrate that the tropical zodiac is to some degree flawed and as you put it that the tropical signs change to match the sidereal zodiac.

I've no problem with your use of the sidereal zodiac, nor even a comparison against tropical. It's the, as I see it, incorrect statements that are littered through the posts in reference to belittling tropical astrology that I am disagreeing with.

If we return to Martin Gansten's comment, we can see that the traditional hellenistic astrologers were themselves using a sidereal zodiac, and that being the case then there's no reason to discuss the matter really. We already know that they work in sidereal astrology.
But again that's not really what your true motive is, rather it is to demonstrate that they work better in sidereal astrology, which is in itself fine. But in trying to do so you've raised some strawman arguments and it's those arguments I'm attempting to show up and dismantle.

Therese Hamilton wrote:Chill out, Mark. The tropical zodiac is based on seasonal symbolism, the sidereal is not. It's as simple as that. Please don't accuse me of creating a false dichotomy of signs. When you have personally used the sidereal zodiac for ten years (as I have used the tropical), then you'll be qualified to speak about that zodiac with some authority.

It also might help if you'd take time to really study alternate points of view rather than jumping in with commentary on your own perspective.

Paul wrote:Sorry but saying that unless someone has your experiences that they're not permitted to discuss the arguments you put forth is erroneous. That you have used the sidereal zodiac for 10 years informs us not at all about your contrasting of the sidereal and tropical zodiacs. It's non-sequitor.

I have to say I agree with Mark in regards the false dichotomy.

Konrad wrote: If you had read the rest of the thread, Paul, you would see that its creation was not to debate which zodiac is "right".

Therese wanted to demonstrate "Tropical" techniques in a Sidereal context