Skyscript Astrology Forum

Bogdan

I've removed one of your posts and amended another so that I could remove copyrighted material, the scans from Astrological Origins by Cyril Fagan.

I've PM'd you to include the post I removed so you can re-edit it and just quote the relevant parts.

Let me know when you see the PM and I'll remove this post, or will do so when you repost the one I removed!

Sorry, I know it's a pain!

Paul

Bogdan574 wrote: Here it is, from Astrological Origins page 118. It discusses Taurus' role in the Egyptian calendar. The last paragraph is especially important because it answers your question: the lunar month of Taurus was the new year to the Egyptians.

Thanks for the reference Bogdan, I understand that it may have been the time of the new year, but this doesn't mean that the ancient Babylonians and Egyptians specified that Taurus begun the zodiac, which is a different thing, even if it seems subtle at first. I'm just curious if there's a reference which suggests the zodiac begins with Taurus.
To expand upon what I was thinking privately is that if we're saying that the constellation in which the equinox is placed should determine the beginning of the zodiac, then surely sidereal astrologers ought to use Pisces as their first sign of the zodiac today?

No. These ideas do not come from ancient texts but are ideas from modern sidereal astrologers. It is Fagen who first proposed the idea, and how much that idea is followed depends on the sidereal astrologer in question. There is no centralized consensus like there is with tropical astrology. We are kind of a minority after all.

But are they supported by ancient texts, in your view? I took it to be that you were only 'including' that which you verified yourself - you said that you screened the data and if it didn't match you didn't include, which made me think you had done this screening with this idea too. So in your view is this idea actually supported by the ancient texts? As I've heard this a few times by individuals, mostly inspired by Fagan, but I cannot say for myself that the idea is justified. What do you think?

A huge majority of tropical astrologers describe Scorpio as very mysterious and profound, as dignified, and romanticizing aggression and violence to show how oh-so deep and mysterious Scorpio is.

Right, but this brings us to the first problem, are we comparing traditional sidereal astrology with modern tropical astrology? Should we compare traditional sidereal astrology with traditionally inclined tropical astrology? We can look at late medieval astrologers or rennaissance astrologers for example (to allow for precession etc.). The problem can be that modern western astrology, in my opinion, tended to rose tint all the signs so that they all read slightly more romanticised. Can we do the reverse, as a control, and see if for example Scorpio had traits of Sagittarius as well?

For me, this idea is far from demonstrated, it would be nice if someone actually demonstrated this to be the case with clarity, rather than, what I think Fagan does, which is to state it as a probable truth, and then take one or two obvious examples to support it. But really we should see Capricorn becoming more like Sagittarius, and Aries becoming like Pisces as well.

However, no ancient astrologer at all (at least from what I've read) describes Scorpio as either mysterious or profound. Instead, they describe Scorpio as martial, because Scorpio's ruling planet is Mars and because of the malevolent omens of war and pestilence both the planet Mars and the Scorpio constellation brought.

Right, but, just to reiterate my point, that is true of both tropical and sidereal astrologers. So really what we may discover is that modern western astrology has airbrushed sign descriptors, and indeed placed emphasis on sign descriptions, in a way that traditionally inclined astrologers didn't - whether those astrologers used tropical or sidereal being less important!

Something else to consider I think.

Likewise, Valens and Rhetorius describe Scorpio as being bitter, irascible, rapacious, and wicked. They also, like Firmicius, describe Scorpio as cunning, having sharp minds and sharp tongues (critical), courageous (engaging in difficult and dangerous tasks), and highly sexed. Firmicius especially highlights Scorpio as being pursued by a bad reputation. But mysterious and profound? Nope.

Just to consider this, as I think it's an important point to make, the case would be altogether more compelling if, for example, in addition to tropical astrologers apparently, as is attested, giving Scorpio traits from Libra, that they also gave traits to Scorpio from Sagittarius, namely that modern western astrologers suggest that Sagittarius is "bitter, irascible, rapacious and wicked" etc. And yet we don't see this happen.

Yes they do...

No, just taking one example as the same thing applies to the others.
Regarding Taurus, you say:

Her detriment body is Mars, most unfitting for Taurus, while her fall body is most likely Saturn or Uranus (Scorpio?s exultant).

So Mars is in detriment in Taurus, and Saturn or Uranus are likely in fall. However the table shows something else. We see Saturn exalting in Libra. Which would put its fall in Aries.

No, it's not a good example. These possible exhalations are nowhere near the most prominent points of my thread. They're really just afterthoughts and suggestions, not the corpus of my ideas. You're confusing this as if the possible exaltations are something big that I am proposing to be true when it is not. You're acting as if these suggestions are my big ideas to base my entire work on.

Well really I am taking that what you are putting forth is a lost zodiac which each idea screened against the three ancient authors - which is what you suggested. Really I am only going by what you are saying, but clearly there is more than what you were saying originally which is my whole point. In juxtaposing things from ancient sources alongside things which really are not, we are inferring something about them as we're not clear in which point is established from an ancient source and which is not. This is really my whole point for posting.

If we are going by what ancient astrologers did with regards the zodiac (which is what you suggested you were doing) then we do not need to imagine or reinvent what the exaltation may be, we already know. But if instead we're inventing A NEW way to use the zodiac, as opposed to recovering a 'lost' one, then your theories become more a focus.

I hope this makes sense. Btw you mention the exaltations etc. in every summary of the signs of the zodiac so I took them to be of at least relative importance.

My exaltations are the rare (if not only) ideas that don't do that. That is why they are just speculations and not a serious "thesis" of mine in this thread.

So what is the most important part?

Paul wrote:

Instead we have a modern astrologer, namely you [Bogdan] coming up with a form of astrology, rather than a summarisation of ancient texts and I think it's important to highlight this point.

In addition, it seems to me that at least a part of what you are setting out to achieve is not to look at astrology with fresh eyes, agnostic of what is said about it by others, but instead to juxtapose in places against tropical astrology to highlight perceived failings of tropical astrology (without providing references to support the views proposed).

This is why I am confused by your posts. It seems that whilst you are stating that you are examining ancient authors and looking at astrology without preconceptions and prejudice, what you appear to be actually doing is focusing primarily on modern authors, comparing constantly to modern tropical astrology and ignoring entire schemes of ancient astrology as practiced by those authors you claim to be focusing on (such as the schema of exaltation and domicile).

This is a good summation of what Bogdan is doing here, despite what he might otherwise say.

And Bogdan, you need to reference the diagram you lifted from my web site, posted on 22 April (cite web site, article and author) or delete all reference to that diagram of planet alignment with the zodiac. Professional writers know that it's important to cite the work of others if they are taking ideas from those authors or teachers.

You don't seem to be aware of your responsibility when using the words and ideas of others. You haven't cited references except for a list of sources at the end of the 12 signs you crafted within a few days of concentrated writing. There is no way of knowing whose ideas you are copying, as there are no specific references throughout the writing. This is, strictly speaking, legally questionable. This type of omission wouldn't be allowed in professional journals.

The nature of the 12 astrological signs isn't a topic that can be easily summarized in a few days of stream-of-consciousness writing, especially if concepts are lifted from various undocumented sources and authors.

However, Bogdan, you seem to enjoy writing. There are many literary avenues that might appreciate your contributions on other topics. But writing with authority on astrological topics will take a great deal more study and practical application on your part.

Thanks for the reference Bogdan, I understand that it may have been the time of the new year, but this doesn't mean that the ancient Babylonians and Egyptians specified that Taurus begun the zodiac, which is a different thing, even if it seems subtle at first. I'm just curious if there's a reference which suggests the zodiac begins with Taurus.
To expand upon what I was thinking privately is that if we're saying that the constellation in which the equinox is placed should determine the beginning of the zodiac, then surely sidereal astrologers ought to use Pisces as their first sign of the zodiac today?

Yes, by that logic Pisces would indeed be the first sign today. That is why when I described Taurus I said "traditionally" such as "Taurus was traditionally regarded as the first sign." It arguably isn't now, but it was definitely so in the past.

But are they supported by ancient texts, in your view? I took it to be that you were only 'including' that which you verified yourself - you said that you screened the data and if it didn't match you didn't include, which made me think you had done this screening with this idea too. So in your view is this idea actually supported by the ancient texts? As I've heard this a few times by individuals, mostly inspired by Fagan, but I cannot say for myself that the idea is justified. What do you think?

What idea? Taurus being the first sign? Well, yes, because Fagen did his research into astrology as it was practiced in Ancient Egypt. And according to the research he had done, Taurus was given the role as the first sign in Ancient Egypt. Unfortunately, the Ancient Egyptians didn't give us any primary sources. We have to deal with Rhetorius, Valens etc. who don't have comments in that area. But Fagen's research into Ancient Egypt was sound. It makes sense, since the Ancient Egyptians based astrology by observing the night sky.

Right, but this brings us to the first problem, are we comparing traditional sidereal astrology with modern tropical astrology? Should we compare traditional sidereal astrology with traditionally inclined tropical astrology? We can look at late medieval astrologers or rennaissance astrologers for example (to allow for precession etc.). The problem can be that modern western astrology, in my opinion, tended to rose tint all the signs so that they all read slightly more romanticised. Can we do the reverse, as a control, and see if for example Scorpio had traits of Sagittarius as well?

For me, this idea is far from demonstrated, it would be nice if someone actually demonstrated this to be the case with clarity, rather than, what I think Fagan does, which is to state it as a probable truth, and then take one or two obvious examples to support it. But really we should see Capricorn becoming more like Sagittarius, and Aries becoming like Pisces as well.

For the first paragraph, no there was no traditional tropical astrology. Astrology began as sidereal astrology because it was based on observing the actual night sky. It wasn't until Ptolemy when things changed. Then, astrologers decided to fix the night sky on Aries starting on March 21, ignoring the constellations changing their positions for millennia. That is how tropical astrology came to be.

For your second paragraph, research could be done in that area to see if, for instance, Sagittarius becoming like Scorpio and Capricorn becoming like Sagittarius. I have no problem with research. However, as I am forced to give an answer now, from this point it seems unlikely. It doesn't make sense because the signs have processed "backwards" over time, not "forwards". March 21 used to be when the sun was in Aries, now the sun is in Pisces, 2000 years later the sun will be in Aquarius.

Right, but, just to reiterate my point, that is true of both tropical and sidereal astrologers. So really what we may discover is that modern western astrology has airbrushed sign descriptors, and indeed placed emphasis on sign descriptions, in a way that traditionally inclined astrologers didn't - whether those astrologers used tropical or sidereal being less important!

Something else to consider I think.

Sounds like a good idea. Unfortunately I don't fully understand it. What is the difference between sign descriptors and sign descriptions?

So Mars is in detriment in Taurus, and Saturn or Uranus are likely in fall. However the table shows something else. We see Saturn exalting in Libra. Which would put its fall in Aries.

Supposing my suggestions are in fact correct, then Saturn would be in fall in both Aries and Taurus. But as it stands right now, Saturn is exalted in Libra and Scorpio has no exultant (some would say Uranus though). For instance what bodies are exalted in Libra, in this case Saturn, would be in fall in the opposite sign, Aries. That same logic applies to all the signs.

In juxtaposing things from ancient sources alongside things which really are not, we are inferring something about them as we're not clear in which point is established from an ancient source and which is not. This is really my whole point for posting.

I'll have to devote an entire new post for that.

If we are going by what ancient astrologers did with regards the zodiac (which is what you suggested you were doing) then we do not need to imagine or reinvent what the exaltation may be, we already know. But if instead we're inventing A NEW way to use the zodiac, as opposed to recovering a 'lost' one, then your theories become more a focus.

I see what you're saying here. If you want to go to only the ancient sources that is fine by me. In fact, I would even like it if you bring up all the ancient sources and compare them to the descriptions I made of the planets and signs in this very thread. Test my ideas for yourself! See which ones are true to the words of the ancient astrologers and which aren't. I invite you.

If you want to base your own astrology solely on what ancient astrologers said, that's fine by me too. That is actually my second option. I would have just read the ancient astrologers if only I had more ancient sources.

Speaking of which, do you have any ancient sources I could research also. I would love to peruse over more ancient sources. I wish there was more out there.

Thanks for your comments. I hope they cleared things up.

In addition, it seems to me that at least a part of what you are setting out to achieve is not to look at astrology with fresh eyes, agnostic of what is said about it by others, but instead to juxtapose in places against tropical astrology to highlight perceived failings of tropical astrology (without providing references to support the views proposed).

This is why I am confused by your posts. It seems that whilst you are stating that you are examining ancient authors and looking at astrology without preconceptions and prejudice, what you appear to be actually doing is focusing primarily on modern authors, comparing constantly to modern tropical astrology and ignoring entire schemes of ancient astrology as practiced by those authors you claim to be focusing on (such as the schema of exaltation and domicile).

No, I really did remove all conceptions of astrology beforehand. That mostly ended up being tropical astrology because tropical astrology was what I "grew up with" and they were ideas I was most ingrained with. In my entire thread, I bring tropical astrology comparatively briefly. It is there, but it wasn't like I spent all my time arguing against tropical astrology not even close.

My descriptions of the planets (their characteristics and domains) for instance, are brought up from Valens. (The link to Valen's description of the planets is there. Check it out.) The part where I talk about the archetypes are brought from a variety of different myths and legends. It makes sense, since I was at those sections talking about the various myths and archetypes inspired by the planets. However, the parts that describe the planets' characters and what parts of life they rule over comes from Valens. I do not bring up tropical astrology once when discussing the planets.

My sources for the sign trigons (or elements if you prefer to call them that) come from the statistics conducted by Pareptis (whose links are also available). My descriptions of the signs qualities (fixed, mutable, cardinal) come from Fagen's astrological origins. Once more, I do not mention tropical astrology at all, let alone make constant comparisons.

The only place you can remotely claim I did such a thing is when I describe the signs. But the comparisons of how the signs are originally described and how tropical astrology describes them are brief. Most last only a sentence. I do not, for instance, constantly compare how the ancients originally described Taurus with tropical Taurus, nor do I do that for any other sign.

My descriptions of the signs are sourced from the writings of Valens, Rhetorius, Firmicius, and Mannilius. I do also source the descriptions from modern sources like Soluners.net and Alex-Blaire's website. But, like I said, they are pretty consistent with the writings of the ancient astrologers above.

Once again, you are fully welcome to go over the writings of Valens and the rest, and compare their descriptions to the descriptions I gave to the planets and signs. Using any other ancient sources would also really be appreciated.

One more thing...

what you appear to be actually doing is focusing primarily on modern authors, comparing constantly to modern tropical astrology and ignoring entire schemes of ancient astrology as practiced by those authors you claim to be focusing on (such as the schema of exaltation and domicile).

Where am I ignoring entire schemes of ancient astrology? Point it out. If you are referring to the schemes of exaltation and domicile, I'm not ignoring it at all. It's all there. (I describe Aries as being ruled by Mars and exalted by the Sun. Likewise, I describe Libra as being ruled by Venus and exalted by Saturn while the Sun is in fall and Mars is in detriment. And likewise, I also write that Venus is in detriment in Aries and Saturn in fall in Aries.) I give the same thorough treatment to all the signs.

You don't seem to be aware of your responsibility when using the words and ideas of others. You haven't cited references except for a list of sources at the end of the 12 signs you crafted within a few days of concentrated writing. There is no way of knowing whose ideas you are copying, as there are no specific references throughout the writing. This is, strictly speaking, legally questionable. This type of omission wouldn't be allowed in professional journals.

The signs can be said to be "crafted" in the sense that I took the many points made on Soluners and other web sites, verified them in comparison to Valens and the other ancient astrologers, and then glued them together to form an overall picture or archetype, which is represented well by the picture before each sign. All I really did was take a bunch of bullet points and notes and rewrote them into a cohesive paragraph.

However, I ultimately did not change or distort anything. My descriptions are pretty consistent with that of the ancient astrologers. The modern sources I used are pretty consistent with the ancient astrologers also, as they are consistent with each other.

True, I didn't site every single little reference, but this is more a complaint of formality than of substance. Anyway, plenty of nonfiction books such as biographies include their sources at the end but don't quote every point they draw from a source. At most they might mark a number that references to a source in the bibliography.

The nature of the 12 astrological signs isn't a topic that can be easily summarized in a few days of stream-of-consciousness writing, especially if concepts are lifted from various undocumented sources and authors.

However, Bogdan, you seem to enjoy writing. There are many literary avenues that might appreciate your contributions on other topics. But writing with authority on astrological topics will take a great deal more study and practical application on your part.

Agreed. That is why I said my Lost Zodiac was only a beginning at one of the earliest paragraphs. I wrote that the Lost Zodiac was to begin a discussion, and we're having one right now.

Nevertheless, I'll give you a general idea of which sources were used where.

For All The Planets
Alex-Blaire ? For signs put their name in the search box
http://westernsiderealastrology.wordpre ... astrology/

Astrological Origins - Fagen
Book

Esoteric Astrology
http://www.light-weaver.com/astrology/toc.html

Papretis? Research ? Rising Planets and Signs
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7695

https://skydrive.live.com/view.aspx?res ... at_DHG_WsQ

Soluners ? Planets
http://www.solunars.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=18

http://www.solunars.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=96

Valens
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/Vet ... entire.pdf

Zodiac Revealed (With writings from Valens, Rhetorius, Firmicius)
Book

The Trigons (Elements)
Papretis? Research ? Rising Planets and Signs
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7695

https://skydrive.live.com/view.aspx?res ... at_DHG_WsQ

Papretis? Research ? Rising Sign Elements
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 5b16b0d353

Papretis? Research ? Sign Ascendants
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 5b16b0d353

The "Qualities" (Hub, Spoke, Rim)
Soluners ? Hub, Spokes, Rim
http://www.solunars.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=21

Astrological Origins - Fagen
Book

All The Signs
Alex-Blaire ? For signs put their name in the search box
http://westernsiderealastrology.wordpre ... astrology/

Astrological Origins - Fagen
Book

Babylonian Texts
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 88&start=0

Mannileius Text
http://www.solunars.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=56

Mythic Astrology
(book)

Papretis? Research ? Sign Ascendants
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 5b16b0d353

Soluners ? Fagan notes on Moon in Constellations
http://www.solunars.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=58

Soluners ? Garth Allen notes on the Constellations
http://www.solunars.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=34

Soluners ? Moon in Constellations
http://www.solunars.net/viewtopic.php?f ... 8ca0e296bf

Soluners ? Sun in Constellations
http://www.solunars.net/viewtopic.php?f ... 8ca0e296bf

Valens
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/Vet ... entire.pdf

Zodiac Revealed (With writings from Valens, Rhetorius, Firmicius)
Book

Bogdan wrote:

What idea? Taurus being the first sign? Well, yes, because Fagen did his research into astrology as it was practiced in Ancient Egypt. And according to the research he had done, Taurus was given the role as the first sign in Ancient Egypt. Unfortunately, the Ancient Egyptians didn't give us any primary sources. We have to deal with Rhetorius, Valens etc. who don't have comments in that area. But Fagen's research into Ancient Egypt was sound. It makes sense, since the Ancient Egyptians based astrology by observing the night sky.

Much of Fagan's research into ancient astrology has been proven false by translations that weren't available when Fagan was alive. These so-called Egyptian studies of Fagan contain serious errors. There was no Egyptian astrology as such apart from Mesopotamian and Hellenistic astrology. Though Egypt did use the decans for timing purposes.

Those who still follow Fagan's "Egyptian astrology" seem to be unaware of the latest scholarship. They have missed the many translations from the mid-1990s on. So they are repeating concepts from old books that have been proven to be false or misleading. But this isn't the place to discuss Cyril Fagan's errors. Perhaps I will start a new topic for that subject.

Can you show me the translations of the mid 1990s on and the books that prove Fagen false.

Bogdan

Please add the source for the image you posted, Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:05 am.

Therese maintains that this is her copyright, and I have already asked that you source it. See Therese's post, Thu Apr 24, 2014 6:12 pm.

Otherwise I'll have to remove the chart myself, which would be a shame.

Hi Bogdan

I think I'm at risk of just repeating myself now.

Before continuing let me just explain once again that I do not consider Fagan to be a traditional source, he was a modern day astrologer. We should also avoid arguments by authority, it is not enough to say "Cyril Fagan says so" we need to demonstrate the point. You claim you went to the traditional sources to verify and screen everything you included. It is this that I am looking for when I ask for a reference/citation.

Bogdan574 wrote: Yes, by that logic Pisces would indeed be the first sign today. That is why when I described Taurus I said "traditionally" such as "Taurus was traditionally regarded as the first sign." It arguably isn't now, but it was definitely so in the past.

Right, so we can only speculate why you started your list with Taurus as well. However I would still like an ancient source to verify this as it would be interesting to me if it were true. Can we conclude now that you don't have one and you are just going by Fagan's say so?

Unfortunately, the Ancient Egyptians didn't give us any primary sources. We have to deal with Rhetorius, Valens etc.

And have you searched through Rhetorius, Valens etc.? What did you discover?

It makes sense, since the Ancient Egyptians based astrology by observing the night sky.

Right but what we're looking for is evidence for the theory, not assertions that astrology is based on observance of the night sky, because that's true of everyone, and nobody has ever observed the equinox in the night sky, we observe chiefly the sun's declination etc.

For the first paragraph, no there was no traditional tropical astrology

Define traditional? I said you could source medieval or renaissance tropical astrologers during which time the equinox will have precessed enough to be noticeable.

Astrology began as sidereal astrology because it was based on observing the actual night sky.

Actually a lot of astrology even by the time of Valens was based on mathematical calculations and tables, but observation as well.

Then, astrologers decided to fix the night sky on Aries starting on March 21, ignoring the constellations changing their positions for millennia. That is how tropical astrology came to be.

I understand the history of tropical astrology. But this doesn't actually show or indicate anything whatsoever about the premise you supposed with regards tropical signs borrowing their qualities from sidereal signs - you implied that, not me. We are now living in 2014, Tropical and Sidereal ceased to be aligned from around the 4th century. You have 1600 years of history to observe the phenomena you claim exists. I am just asking if you have actually studied the traditional astrology from the traditional period (let's say up to 1800s) and observed this phenomena. Can you cite some examples?

For your second paragraph, research could be done in that area to see if, for instance, Sagittarius becoming like Scorpio and Capricorn becoming like Sagittarius. I have no problem with research. However, as I am forced to give an answer now, from this point it seems unlikely. It doesn't make sense because the signs have processed "backwards" over time, not "forwards".

Well then you can throw away the logic you used yourself, as I'm only referring to that. You say it goes backwards not forwards and therefore Sagittarius ought not become Scorpio-like. And yet you said that Scorpio becomes Libra like.

These are the kinds of issues with the logic you are employing that I am trying to highlight. We should beware of jumping on the bandwagon just because we're swept up with the work of one author.

Supposing my suggestions are in fact correct, then Saturn would be in fall in both Aries and Taurus.

But why are we considering your suggestions at all? We already have a thorough body of knowledge on exaltations which defies your suggestion. Once again, are we inventing a new use of the zodiac or trying to establish and recover some "lost" one?

You claim repeatedly to be using ancient sources. Find me one example from Rhetorius, Valens, etc. which indicates the possibility of a planet having more than one fall sign, and of Saturn being in fall in Taurus.

If you want to go to only the ancient sources that is fine by me. In fact, I would even like it if you bring up all the ancient sources and compare them to the descriptions I made of the planets and signs in this very thread. Test my ideas for yourself! See which ones are true to the words of the ancient astrologers and which aren't. I invite you.

Bogdan I was hoping you would read between the lines and see that this is already done.

It is not my place to do your research for you. You suggested, not me, that you were using ancient sources. Clearly you are not. This is my point.

Let me ask plainly: Do you have a copy of Rhetorius, Valens etc. and have you used them to research all the points you have made like you originally claimed you did?

I would have just read the ancient astrologers if only I had more ancient sources.

But until then, isn't it better to hold fire on deciding what the "lost zodiac" is?

Which ancient sources HAVE you read? And I don't mean snippets or quotes from other authors.

Speaking of which, do you have any ancient sources I could research also. I would love to peruse over more ancient sources. I wish there was more out there.

I already listed a few authors but really until you decide what ancient means, I cannot help more than I have. You listed Valens and Rhetorius yourself, have you read through their work carefully? Firmicus Maternus?

With respect, your posts do not seem like they are inspired by those authors at all.

No, I really did remove all conceptions of astrology beforehand. That mostly ended up being tropical astrology because tropical astrology was what I "grew up with" and they were ideas I was most ingrained with. In my entire thread, I bring tropical astrology comparatively briefly. It is there, but it wasn't like I spent all my time arguing against tropical astrology not even close.

Actual you mention tropical astrology in every single sign summary you listed. Obviously the planets and the houses have no relation to sidereal or tropical descriptors, only the signs provide this. So when listing the signs, you, without fail, contrast with the mistakes of tropical astrology.
Your very first post on this topic mentions the Tropical astrology and incorrectly states that:

Tropical astrology holds the ayanamsa is on the spring equinox

You actually mention tropical astrology on almost every single post. Go back to the beginning of the thread and do a search for the word "tropical" to find out just how often you mention it. This despite saying "During this entire post I will entirely neglect the tropical zodiac".

Clearly you did not mentally start with a fresh slate here.

My descriptions of the signs are sourced from the writings of Valens, Rhetorius, Firmicius, and Mannilius.

I guess I'm repeating myself now (Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:15 am)
Please cite which of the above suggested:

The Moon controls and directs not only the Sun?s light but the very course the Sun travels

Strangely enough, research shows the Moon influences people to have aggressive ?masculine? professions such as business executives, military careers, and politicians.

Her detriment body is Mars, most unfitting for Taurus, while her fall body is most likely Saturn or Uranus (Scorpio?s exultant).

she [Taurus] rules the sexual organs

Gemini is insecure and needs the attention and acceptance of others, is very afraid of losing friends, companions, and family.

Gemini?s ruling planet is Mercury while his exulting body has been proposed to be Neptune and perhaps Jupiter also (Pisces?s ruler). Likewise, Gemini?s fall is Pluto and maybe Mars (the exultant bodies of Sagittarius), while his detriment is paradoxically Jupiter and Neptune

Leo is ruled by the Sun, with possibly Mercury (Gemini?s ruler) as the exalted body. His detriment body is Saturn and maybe Uranus (Aquarius?s ruler) and his fall body may be Venus (Aquarius?s possible exalted body).

Unfortunately Virgo is often ridiculed and bullied as a child, often scapegoated for others? problems. She isn?t too fit for authority positions and is best as an employee. She even possesses quite a martyr complex, and generally is hyperactive and neurotic. However, when she needs to stand up for herself she can be very brave. Virgo has a strong touch with the ?common man? and thus is often liberal and seeks to improve everyone?s life.

, but here goes again.


If you're happy to keep repeating that you are sourcing these primarily from ancient sources then I am happy to keep asking you for those sources.

If you are referring to the schemes of exaltation and domicile, I'm not ignoring it at all. It's all there. (I describe Aries as being ruled by Mars and exalted by the Sun. Likewise, I describe Libra as being ruled by Venus and exalted by Saturn while the Sun is in fall and Mars is in detriment. And likewise, I also write that Venus is in detriment in Aries and Saturn in fall in Aries.) I give the same thorough treatment to all the signs.

Yes I'm referring to this, amongst others, you are ignoring them by juxtaposing happily alongside notions that are definitely not traditional. Saturn and saturn only exalts in Libra. This is not the scheme you have set out at all.

All I really did was take a bunch of bullet points and notes and rewrote them into a cohesive paragraph.

I'm happy for you to provide the bullet points from these ancient sources either if you prefer.

However, I ultimately did not change or distort anything. My descriptions are pretty consistent with that of the ancient astrologers.

I very strongly disagree with this, particularly with regards the references I listed above as they are the most glaringly obvious, but in truth there are many more throughout your posts, though I do not have the inclination or enough passion to go and debate them all when we can't get past the most obvious ones.

True, I didn't site every single little reference

Every little reference? Did you actually provide any reference from a traditional author? I did not see any.

Every little reference is one thing, any reference whatsoever is another.

True, you have said "Valens says..." or "Ibn Ezra says..." but have you actually provided a reference? I agree with some of the examples you provided - Valens does indeed refer to the air signs as feminizing for example, and at least some translations of Ibn Ezra have him list Mars as feminine (though in my opinion this seems incorrect and a confusion between feminine and nocturnal).

But what about all the others? Can we have ANY references for them? I've posted now several times asking for ancient references. The best I've gotten is a few scans from Cyril Fagan, with the unspoken argument that Fagan is very knowledgeable and therefore must be right (an argument from authority).


I realise you can lead a horse to water, and I suppose I am guilty of it here.

Right, so we can only speculate why you started your list with Taurus as well. However I would still like an ancient source to verify this as it would be interesting to me if it were true. Can we conclude now that you don't have one and you are just going by Fagan's say so?

Two reasons:
1) Because "Fagen says so". The Ancient Egyptians can't speak for themselves unfortunately, but if a modern man deciphers their methods carefully he can be adequately said to "speak for them". No, Valens and Rhetorius etc. did not mention Taurus being the first sign, but that doesn't mean that astrologers who lived long before them didn't. As much as I rely on Valens etc. I know they're not gods who have the completely absolute knowledge of what the most ancient astrologers practiced. No human is.

2) In the "Age of Sign X" The Sun is in Sign X at March 21st, the beginning of the Spring Equinox and thus the New Year. Now, the New Year is in Pisces. Back in Ancient Egypt, the New Year was in Taurus. The sign that is in the New Year is the first sign, so to speak of that Age.

Right but what we're looking for is evidence for the theory, not assertions that astrology is based on observance of the night sky, because that's true of everyone, and nobody has ever observed the equinox in the night sky, we observe chiefly the sun's declination etc.

The evidence of that theory is in Fagen's astrological origins. Further evidence is in the fact that astrology wasn't based on the seasons until Ptolemy decided to fix the Spring Equinox onto Aries. Until then, astrologers didn't do that and observed the night sky instead. What else would they have done?

Suppose you are right in that astrologers observe the Sun's declination. It is still absurd for instance to say the Sun is in Aries in March 21 when it really is in Pisces. Besides how would they have observed the other planets anyway if not seeing them in the actual positions they occupied in the sky.

Define traditional? I said you could source medieval or renaissance tropical astrologers during which time the equinox will have precessed enough to be noticeable.

You asked for a distinction between "traditional tropical astrologers" and "traditional sidereal astrologers". You first introduced the word. Allow me to clarify again... with me defining "traditional" for you as before and up to the Commen Era (and the writings of Valens, Rhetorius, and so forth).

• Originally, there was only sidereal astrology, observing the planets in the actual positions they held regarding the constellations.
  Then, Ptolemy decided to make astrology about the equinoxes and the seasons, not the constellations.
  From then on, almost if not all western astrologers were now tropical. Sidereal astrology comes back when a handful of modern astrologers realize that measuring planets with the equinoxes and seasons doesn't align to the actual constellationals, and thus seek to rectify astrology as it originally was.

Actually a lot of astrology even by the time of Valens was based on mathematical calculations and tables, but observation as well.

Of course.

I understand the history of tropical astrology. But this doesn't actually show or indicate anything whatsoever about the premise you supposed with regards tropical signs borrowing their qualities from sidereal signs - you implied that, not me. We are now living in 2014, Tropical and Sidereal ceased to be aligned from around the 4th century. You have 1600 years of history to observe the phenomena you claim exists. I am just asking if you have actually studied the traditional astrology from the traditional period (let's say up to 1800s) and observed this phenomena. Can you cite some examples?

It was Fagen and some other sidereal astrologers who suggested the idea. And his ideas so far at least seem to stand up to scrutiny. I could however test this idea further.

I could peruse the writings of Medieval and Renaissance astrologers and go straight up to the modern astrologers. And then compare astrologers from all of these different eras from Egypt and Valens and Rheotius in Rome (the ancients) to the Medieval astrologers to the modern astrologers. If the tropical signs indeed borrowed qualities from sidereal ones since tropical astrology has been established then a shift in the signs definitions could be seen.

So far (just by comparing original sign meanings to modern ones) Fagen seems to be right. When I was describing the signs (specifically the parts you took to conclude that I was constantly trying to make comparisons to tropical astrology), that's what it was all about. To see how the signs as originally described differed from the signs as described by most tropical astrologers.

Well then you can throw away the logic you used yourself, as I'm only referring to that. You say it goes backwards not forwards and therefore Sagittarius ought not become Scorpio-like. And yet you said that Scorpio becomes Libra like.

These are the kinds of issues with the logic you are employing that I am trying to highlight. We should beware of jumping on the bandwagon just because we're swept up with the work of one author.

No, you misunderstand me. What I'm trying to say is that Sagittarius ought not to become Scorpio-like AND Scorpio ought not to become Libra-like. Unfortunately, they have to a certain degree against people's better judgement because of the confusions that arose from tropical astrology.

I am consistent in my logic. You are mixing up what I said OUGHT to be done (not mixing the signs) against what HAS BEEN DONE (the signs mixing up).

I'm not jumping on the bandwagon of one author. Fagen is not the only sidereal astrologer there is. There is Kenneth Bowser, Rupert Gleadow, Garth Allen, Jim Eshelman etc. It's not just one guy.

But why are we considering your suggestions at all? We already have a thorough body of knowledge on exaltations which defies your suggestion. Once again, are we inventing a new use of the zodiac or trying to establish and recover some "lost" one?

You claim repeatedly to be using ancient sources. Find me one example from Rhetorius, Valens, etc. which indicates the possibility of a planet having more than one fall sign, and of Saturn being in fall in Taurus.

It's not a zero sum game. In all the descriptions of my signs I describe all the rulers and exaltations etc. used by the ancients. Just because I say a tentative "maybe" for some new ones doesn't negate the fact that I have indeed listed all of the traditional.

You seem to think that just because I used some modern sources and ideas that it somehow negates me using traditional sources at all. It's not black and white between "I used only Valens and Rhetorius" and "I only used modern sources". That is your fallacy.

Bogdan I was hoping you would read between the lines and see that this is already done.

It is not my place to do your research for you. You suggested, not me, that you were using ancient sources. Clearly you are not. This is my point.

Apparently you did not. You never once actually talked to me about how my descriptions of any of the signs actually stack up against the descriptions given by the ancients. You just keep insisting on your false dichotomy and nit-picking at a comparatively small part of my work (where I even go out of my way to say that they are mere suggestions) and then inflating it into a molehill.

Let me ask plainly: Do you have a copy of Rhetorius, Valens etc. and have you used them to research all the points you have made like you originally claimed you did?

Dude, it's in my sources.

But until then, isn't it better to hold fire on deciding what the "lost zodiac" is?

Which ancient sources HAVE you read? And I don't mean snippets or quotes from other authors.

Valens and Firmicius for instance are my sources. You can click on them any time and read the entire texts for yourself.

TO BE CONTINUED...