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?

Their. Work. Is. In. My. Sources.

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.

Yeah, mention briefly. I am not, as you are claiming, using my entire Lost Zodiac thread just to bash tropical astrology. If I did, I would use much more of the four or five long pages I wrote to that task than just mention with a sentence or two at the end of each description of the signs. (And I describe the signs only after devoting two long pages of describing the planets, the trigons, and the qualities).

Once more, you would think that if the whole point of my work was to bash tropical astrology I would devote a lot more words and pages to that task rather than only a dozen or so sentences. You just find these sparse sentences offensive, and that is why you make such a big deal out of them.

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".

I was explaining what tropical astrologers believe to be the starting point of Aries to someone who may not know astrology so well. I wasn't bashing tropical astrology at that time.

Because saying the word "tropical" once or twice in a post with a thousand words clearly means I am using my entire Lost Zodiac just to discredit tropical astrology.

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.

If I was ignoring them then I why would I take the time to mention them at all, for every single sign. Once again, you're making a false dichotomy. My little suggestions don't negate the fact that I used the ancient astrologer's ideas for every sign in there too. In fact, those ancient astrologers' ideas take precedent. I list them all as essential things and as fact. I don't use "maybe" or "perhaps" with each of them.

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.

Once again dude, false dichotomy. Look at my sources (that I listed at the end by the way) of Valens, Rhetorius, Firmicius etc. and say that my descriptions of the planets and signs aren't consistent with them. Challenge me on any particular sign or planet.

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).

Yes, Valens does. He describes Gemini, Libra, and Aquarius as "feminizing". My source to Valens' work (and many others) has a link. A link you can click on and go straight to the source itself, so you can do all the reading in the world.

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

Pot, meet your new friend. His name is Kettle.

Bogdan574 wrote: 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.

Right, not good enough to just say "Fagen says so". I could talk about gravity and say "newton says so" but much more compelling to provide his argument/reasoning/evidence/formulae. Then someone else could come back and cite Einstein. Otherwise we'll have "because my authority says so, and they must be right".

Thank you for accepting that none of the sources you claimed to have screened all this against suggested this. This was my whole point for posting. To demonstrate that the ancient authorities you're using to prop up your points aren't actually saying what you are suggesting they are.

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.

I know what precession is and what the astrological ages are. It tells us nothing whatsoever about whether or not the ancient egyptians used the equinox as the inception point for the zodiac. No matter how much the theory/idea appeals to you, it tells us nothing about whether or not it appealed to others.

The evidence of that theory is in Fagen's astrological origins.

Which is what? That Fagan says so? I'm afraid we need more than that.

In addition, you've yet to actually quote Fagan where he says this, which is a point I made previously. I am not sure whether or not he does make this point to begin with, but even if he did, we need more than just that he thinks so. People, as you so rightly said, are not gods. This includes Fagan.

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?

Which tells us absolutely nothing about what the ancient egyptians thought about the starting point of the zodiac, and everything about what you think about it.

It's simple. Just quote the egyptian source.

Suppose you are right in that astrologers observe the Sun's declination.

Is there something else they may observe other than this?

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.

It isn't absurd. It's called tropical astrology. It's no more or less astronomically real than sidereal astrology, even if you don't understand that. Sidereal astrologers hold one philosophical premise in denoting meaning from the apparent position of a given star (say, Spica) and then mathematical abstractions of the rest of the sky based on this star or several stars' positions.
Tropical astrology holds another philosophical premise that the declination of the Sun and in particular 0 degrees of declination is the beginning and then the same thing happens and astrologers make mathematical abstractions of the rest of the ecliptic based on this.

Both are 'real' and both are 'abstract'. There is a difference in philosophy in the two of course.

It is not, therefore absurd. The problem is in not actually understanding what the word "Aries" might mean, or what tropical astrologers do. As a helpful aid, it's worth noting that neither sidereal astrologers nor tropical astrologers mean "constellation" by the term zodiac sign.

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).

You said "ancient", and compared Sidereal to Tropical, but in doing so compared sidereal source of nearly millennia ago, to tropical sources of today. The two are not comparable, because, as I said already, modern western astrology has changed its focus in regards sign meanings. Therefore comparing traditional sidereal with modern tropical is no comparison at all with regards the idea of tropical signs borrowing signification from sidereal ones.

• Originally, there was only sidereal astrology, observing the planets in the actual positions they held regarding the constellations.

This is too complex to get into here and has been discussed before. Suffice it to say that it is probably true enough to conclude that astrologers measured positions sidereally.

Then, Ptolemy decided to make astrology about the equinoxes and the seasons, not the constellations.

Wrong, it hadn't been about constellations at that time, at least not as we recognise them. It was already about abstract mathematical divisions of the ecliptic into 12 exactly equal sections and using constellations which ran through those sections as demarcation points to aid in measurement. The only constellation of importance here is Aries and discovering its starting point, because after that there are constellations which are useful in helping us determine the position of planets in signs, but they are not the signs themselves. As you know, seeing as you read Valens.

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.

I don't know if that's true, but if so, then we ought to recognise that they haven't done it well if they keep abstract equal 30? divisions.

Instead, I understand that sidereal astrologers recognise that the inception of the zodiac ought to be based on a starry position, such that the measurement of planets through the sky over long periods of time remains constant in relation to the starry backdrop. Whilst the constellations are very important in this, it is not about "rectifying astrology as it originally was" as there is no "original".

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 thought you said you had?

This is my point. You haven't.

So far (just by comparing original sign meanings to modern ones) Fagen seems to be right.

Apart from when he isn't. Note my Sagittarius to Scorpio point.

To see how the signs as originally described differed from the signs as described by most tropical astrologers.

Which is not what you said you were doing - which was to look at it all with fresh eyes to see just what the ancients said.

Clearly you're doing a lot more than that by mentioning tropical astrology several times. It's not the most important part of your posts, but in doing so you reveal that actually you are not doing what you claim. This, coupled with the complete lack of references and apparent total reliance on Fagan and solunar website is the source of contradictions to you.

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.

No, you have misunderstood the point I have been making. I am saying if your previous assertion on Scorpio is true, that modern tropical astrologers have altered their meaning of Scorpio based on the fact that it is not overlapped with Sidereal Libra (summation of your point), then it stands to reason that it must also be true that this happens with all the signs, namely that Sagittarius, which now overlaps with Scorpio, will, in modern tropical astrology, be seen to have traits of Scorpio.

My point: It doesn't. My conclusion: The premise is flawed.

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.

Popularity has never been a good barometer of truth.

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.

No but it does mean that your assertions that you are ONLY going by ancient authors and those which agree with those authors is incorrect, and it also shows that you are not trying to discover how the ancients used the zodiac and discover some "lost zodiac" you are instead trying to put forth an idea of a new way to use the sidereal zodiac, and are trying to juxtapose your own ideas with more established idea from ancient sources, in such a way as to not differentiate between them, so that a connotation that your own ideas have some ancient validity will be created.

It's not black and white between "I used only Valens and Rhetorius" and "I only used modern sources". That is your fallacy.

No, that is not my position, my position is that your assertion that you only kept that which was in ancient sources, having screened the modern ones, is clearly false.

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.

Actually my asking you to provide references was an attempt to do just that. Let you see that actually what you are posting is not to be found in those ancient sources. Twice now I have quoted some which are particularly noticeable.

Dude, it's in my sources.

But it is references that I am looking for. Not "it's in Valens" somewhere. And if it's not there, try Rhetorius, and if it's not there, try Maternus.

You say you screened it all, provide a reference. The problem is that it doesn't actually exist in these sources.

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

You could reference these sources to validate your points. I clearly cannot reference them to disprove your viewpoint. I cannot point a reference to what they didn't say.

Their. Work. Is. In. My. Sources.

Subtle change, but a more honest one. Now Valens etc are not your sources. Your sources are something else (Fagan, Solunar, other modern sidereal astrologers) and those sources reference the ancient authors.

I am not, as you are claiming, using my entire Lost Zodiac thread just to bash tropical astrology.

Actually I have not claimed that anywhere. My claims are very clear, I am using this as an example to show that you are doing more than you are pretending to do and that clearly comparing your approach to tropical modern astrology, in an effort to highlight some flaws in tropical modern astrology (presumably) is a part of that.

But you have pretended you are not doing this by suggesting that you start from a blank slate and that you are not going to refer to tropical astrology at all in your posts, then proceed to do exactly the opposite of what you claimed to do.

You just find these sparse sentences offensive, and that is why you make such a big deal out of them.

I don't get offended half so easily as you might think. I also highlighted your theory on exaltations and several other things. My point is to demonstrate that this is not about discovering a lost zodiac, and presumably never has been.

If I was ignoring them then I why would I take the time to mention them at all, for every single sign. Once again, you're making a false dichotomy. My little suggestions don't negate the fact that I used the ancient astrologer's ideas for every sign in there too. In fact, those ancient astrologers' ideas take precedent. I list them all as essential things and as fact. I don't use "maybe" or "perhaps" with each of them.

No, you then build upon what they say with theory of your own interspersed seamlessly in between saying that you only included that which can be found also in ancient sources such that it seems your own theories, if we weren't to know better, are also just as speculative in those ancient sources. They are not.

If you had stuck to the ancient sources and took some time to understand and explore the ancients' use of exaltation etc. then you would recognise why your scheme is not at all something consistent with their view. A point you keep trying to make as being the case.

Therese has some interesting views on the exaltations and the ways in which the modern planets may fit into them. Personally, I couldn't find any problem in her logic whatsoever, and tried, so perhaps you could look through her thoughts on the matter.

Look at my sources (that I listed at the end by the way) of Valens, Rhetorius, Firmicius etc. and say that my descriptions of the planets and signs aren't consistent with them. Challenge me on any particular sign or planet.

Again you mean? I thought I already had. I quoted the parts I found contentious and asked you to find a reference for them.

I presume you dont' want me to do it again, and that you can just go back to those posts?

Until such time as you provide references for the theories you put forth, I think that it's worth seeing your contributions as being a modern astrologer's take on a way to use the sidereal zodiac.

And that's fine.

But it absolutely isn't what you were claiming it to be originally. It certainly isn't about discovering a lost zodiac, and it certainly isn't about only going by trusted sources from ancient authors.


There is no point in continuing to repeat myself, so I'll bow out unless you provide some references. In the meantime, please make providing the relevant references to Therese's image a matter of priority. Otherwise the post will be edited to remove it, or the post itself will be removed.

Paul wrote:

Therese has some interesting views on the exaltations and the ways in which the modern planets may fit into them. Personally, I couldn't find any problem in her logic whatsoever, and tried...

Thank you, Paul. It means a lot to me when another astrologer takes the time to look into my work. I've made the study of astrology the center of my life since 1965, so it's no small "thank you" to be appreciated.

I have most of Fagan's writings in my library, even the almost-impossible-to-find Symbolism of the Constellations, so as time allows I'll begin a thread on Fagan's claims that have no support in modern scholarship. Fortunately I've been able to purchase all the translations of Hellenistic and classical texts from Project Hindsight (mid 1990s) on, so I have all the sources necessary to place Cyril Fagan in context.

There are several points in Paul's responses and questions for Bogdan that I believe should be emphasized, so I'm placing them in a bold font below. My concern is that newer students of astrology will read Bogdan's post on the 12 signs, and take his sign traits as "the word" on the sidereal zodiac. Clearly this is not true as Paul has taken pains to point out.

In Bogdan we have a young student who is unfamiliar with astrological history and the development of the zodiac, yet who proposes a "better" system of sign traits with little, if any historical foundation. Paul has taken many hours attempting to inspire Bogdan to seriously look at his false premise, but to no avail.

Quotes from Paul's posts:

"You suggested...that you were using ancient sources. Clearly you are not. This is my point."

"Thank you for accepting that none of the sources you claimed to have screened all this against suggested this. This was my whole point for posting. To demonstrate that the ancient authorities you're using to prop up your points aren't actually saying what you are suggesting they are."

"...but it does mean that your assertions that you are ONLY going by ancient authors and those which agree with those authors is incorrect, and it also shows that you are not trying to discover how the ancients used the zodiac and discover some "lost zodiac."

"You are instead trying to put forth an idea of a new way to use the sidereal zodiac, and are trying to juxtapose your own ideas with more established idea from ancient sources, in such a way as to not differentiate between them, so that a connotation that your own ideas have some ancient validity will be created."

"Now Valens etc. are not your sources. Your sources are something else (Fagan, Solunars, other modern sidereal astrologers) and those sources reference the ancient authors."

This will be my last word on the subject, as Paul said he won't comment anymore. After that, I will be done. No more for me.

"You suggested...that you were using ancient sources. Clearly you are not. This is my point."

I was the whole time. I relied on them to describe the planets and the signs. Yes, I use modern sources but that doesn't negate the fact that I actually did use ancient sources. And most of the time when I did use modern, as I said before, were "screened" against the ancient ones. Sometimes I didn't (like with some exhalations I suggested), but the overwhelmingly I did. (Like with the planets and signs.)

The only way Paul can make this argument is if he makes a false dichotomy and turns the whole situation into a zero sum game. By his logic, me using modern sources automatically negates me using ancient sources. This is obviously bad logic.

"Thank you for accepting that none of the sources you claimed to have screened all this against suggested this. This was my whole point for posting. To demonstrate that the ancient authorities you're using to prop up your points aren't actually saying what you are suggesting they are."

Actually they are. Let Paul compare the descriptions of the planets and signs given by Fagen, Bradley, Gleadow, Jim Eshelman and Alex-Blaire with the writings of Manilleus, Valens, Firmicius and co. He must show me how the descriptions of the planets and signs given by modern astrologers fail to match up to the descriptions provided by the ancients.

He doesn't have to be needlessly nit-picky and dig through exact quotes made by any of these astrologers. He just needs to build a specific case. For instance, he can say "The way Fagen describes Gemini does not match the way Firmicius describes Gemini because of X and Y reasons."

But he never once does that. He never once builds a specific case. Therese, when I first discussed about your sidereal signs, at least I made the case of "The way Chiria describes Taurus and Scorpio does not match the way Valens, Rhetorius, and Firmicius describe Taurus and Scorpio for X and Y reasons." I even used exact quotes that time.

Paul just brings up the "tropical signs are really disguised sidereal signs" controversy to try to make it look like I didn't rely on the ancients at all when I did. At least it is backed up by evidence. Valens, Rhetorius, and Firmicius do not describe Taurus as being stubborn or bad tempered, neither do they describe Scorpio as mysterious or profound.

"...but it does mean that your assertions that you are ONLY going by ancient authors and those which agree with those authors is incorrect, and it also shows that you are not trying to discover how the ancients used the zodiac and discover some "lost zodiac."

I never once said that. I said from the very first or second paragraph that I would use ancient and modern authors alike. The modern authors I selected are consistent with the ancients. Sometime they aren't, but they mostly are. The way Jim Eshelman and Alex-Blaire describes the signs and planets is consistent with the way Valens and Firmicius describes the signs and planets.

"You are instead trying to put forth an idea of a new way to use the sidereal zodiac, and are trying to juxtapose your own ideas with more established idea from ancient sources, in such a way as to not differentiate between them, so that a connotation that your own ideas have some ancient validity will be created."

Proposing ideas based on the ancients doesn't mean I'm juxtaposing my ideas with them. Once more, feel free to compare my descriptions of the signs and planets with the way the ancients do, and point out the ways my ideas do not match theirs. Use a specific example and stick to it.

"Now Valens etc. are not your sources. Your sources are something else (Fagan, Solunars, other modern sidereal astrologers) and those sources reference the ancient authors."

I use both. Using one does not negate using the other.

And Therese, everything Paul levied against me could be used against you also. Your descriptions of the signs (and Chiria's, who you endorse and whose ideas seem are very similar to your own), ignore the ancient writings in some very basic ways. (Or at least heavily tag on tropical stereotypes on them.) You take the whole "tropical signs are really sidereal signs in disguise", something Paul really didn't like from me, to a much greater degree than I do.

You even state there is no real difference between Tropical Gemini and Sidereal Taurus, Tropical Scorpio and Sidereal Libra, Tropical Sagittarius and Sidereal Scorpio etc. "no matter what you call them". You even anticipate why one would even bother to use different a different zodiac since your descriptions and tropical astrology's are so similar.

Furthermore, the theories you use to make your "tropical signs are really sidereal signs in disguise" case, the crux of your arguments to justify said case, go far away from the ancient writings. For one, you assume modern tropical astrology to be accurate, and filter your descriptions of the sidereal signs through that. For someone who named their website "The Lost Zodiac of the Stars", it would make more sense if you took the zodiac as described by the ancients on faith and judge tropical astrology through their lenses, not the other way around.

Two, you primarily use Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, which has nothing to do with astrology at all, to say that the male and female signs are a certain way. You do not verify whether the ancient astrologers thought of diurnal and nocturnal (male and female) signs thought in that way too. (You also use Aristotle's concepts of passive and active to describe male and female but you don't source Aristotle's writings to prove this. You should because you're so fastidious about using quotes.)

At least I cut to the chase and went on with the planets as the ancients and the moderns I selected described them, without any such theories beforehand.

Bogdan, I have removed an image from this thread, because it didn't contain details of its source or any kind of reassurance that the originator's copyright had not been breached. Please make sure that you give proper accreditation for any published comments or images that you reproduce in the forum.