skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Journal of sidereal astrology called 'The Constellations'
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> News, Notices, Books, Links
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Philip Graves



Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 436
Location: Europe

Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:03 pm    Post subject: Journal of sidereal astrology called 'The Constellations' Reply with quote

I have recently obtained a bundle of six of the first eight supposedly quarterly issues (two of them numbered as double-issues, so for example the eighth is in fact numbered as No. 09 & 10) of an obscure astrological journal from the 1970s called 'The Constellations'. The first issue is dated August 1975; the eighth (ie 'No. 09 & 10') is dated 'Summer-Fall 1977'.

Does anyone reading this know how long this journal ran for or what happened to its parent organisation, the 'Registry of Sidereal Astrologers'? There doesn't seem to be any documented history of either the organisation or the journal on the Internet. Donna Cunningham's 'Astrologer's Memorial' site contains a defunct link to a former web-page for the Registry of Sidereal Astrologers which to judge from the 'Wayback Machine' at archive.org has been a dead site hosting only an advertising home page since some time in 2001, which tallies with WHOIS records indicating that the domain, siderealzodiac.com, was registered by a major Internet corporation some time in 2001, the previous record of ownership having clearly expired at that point. Prior to this change of hands, the site appears to have been called the 'Contreras Home Page'.

OCLC suggests that there are no member libraries having any holdings of this journal at all. I presume that it must survive in various American astrological libraries such as the AFA library and the Heart Center and the Kepler College library, however.

The editor of the first issues from 1975 was James A. Eshelman, well known to this day for his books 'The New Instant Astrologer' (co-authored with Tom Stanton) and 'Interpreting Solar Returns'. Then at some point he was replaced in this role by a Gene Lockhart. Under both of them was the same pairing of two assistant editors, Karen Wilkerson and Joan G. Piszek. I cannot find any information about any of them (as astrologers) other than James Eshelman on the Internet currently.

The first issue features a list of over a hundred and fifty then-current members of the Registry of Sidereal Astrologers, including honorary memberships granted to some of the recently departed founders of the western siderealist movement such as Cyril Fagan and Brigadier Firebrace, as well as (somewhat to my surprise, since he had passed away in 1954 and is not especially famed for his contributions to sidereal astrology to the best of my awareness, but perhaps he supported it in his latter years?) Llewellyn George.

Articles and discussions were contributed by some of the most famous astrologers of the day, however, members and non-members of the Registry of Sidereal Astrologers alike. Writers included (to take the example of the double issue No. 9 / 10 I have in front of me) Carl Stahl and Robert Hurtz Granite, and in the first issue George Noonan. There is also for example an interesting though somewhat heated tropical vs sidereal debate between well-known medical astrologer Ingrid Naiman and an intelligent though staunchly siderealist regular contributor to the magazine called Peter Stapleton (who appears to have had the misfortune to become the victim of an absolutely vicious and horrific Internet hate campaign by the anti-astrology quackbusting fraternity doing the rounds of other, less well-kept astrological forums in recent years, to judge by archived posts) in the issue No. 9 / 10.

I personally find the history of the western siderealist movement and its literature to be fascinating to delve into, both on account of its technical ideas and on account of its somewhat arcane publishing history, as well as the creative personalities behind both, even though I do not personally agree with all of its precepts.

Anyhow, if anyone has more information upon what became of 'The Constellations' journal or the Registry of Sidereal Astrologers that oversaw it, I'd love to know the history.

It is apparent that James Eshelman went on to serve as technical consultant for another, later journal of sidereal astrology begun in the very late 1970s called 'The Siderealist', but whether or not 'The Constellations' continued concurrently with it is something I don't know but would like to find out.

Philip
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Philip Graves



Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 436
Location: Europe

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:18 am    Post subject: Further bibliographic discussion etc. Reply with quote

Just to update, I've been informed outside the forum by someone who was active in the western siderealist circles in the US in the 1970s that the eighth actual issue of 'The Constellations' magazine, numbered 09/10, may in fact have been the last ever, and that the later journal 'The Siderealist' (edited by a Norman Bones) ran for only six issues in total (of which I have but three), starting in January 1979, and published sporadically, with the final issue in 1981.

This places both as much shorter-lived journals than Brigadier Firebrace's 'SPICA', which I believe ran under Firebrace's personal direction for thirteen straight years in quarterly issues that came out like clockwork with no gaps (someone please correct me if I'm mistaken in this presumption, since I have the majority but not all of the issues of this journal), from I think about October 1961 to Volume 14 No. 1 around October 1974, following which Firebrace died.

[SPICA, incidentally, was founded by Firebrace as a break-away journal from the Astrological Journal published by the Astrological Association of Great Britain. Initially Firebrace was centrally involved in the preparation of the A. A. journal, but he fell into a disagreement with the others on the journal's team over his desire for the contents of the journal to be slanted heavily, if not exclusively, towards sidereal astrology. So it was that he went his own way and did his own thing outside the A. A. for the rest of his days....]

However, SPICA was then briefly continued under new American directorship for at least two more issues (Vol. 14 Nos. 2 and 3), and my informant dates the last of these to January 1976, indicating that publication must have been interrupted by nine months following Firebrace's death, since otherwise No. 3 of Vol. 14 would have been published in April 1975 and No. 2 in January 1975.

My informant (who wishes to remain anonymous) also tells me that the American directors of these late issues of Spica were none other than Karen Wilkerson and Joan G. Piszek, and that they together with James Eshelman founded the Registry of Sidereal Astrologers. Thus, Wilkerson and Piszek would appear to have been working as editors of two separate journals of sidereal astrology at once in 1975-6, only one of which, 'The Constellations', was edited by Eshelman.

All in all, until someone steps forward with testimony to the effect that they ran for longer, the evidence available to me so far indicates that SPICA ran for 53 issues under Firebrace and a further 2 issues under Piszek and Wilkerson; 'The Constellations' ran for 8 issues in total, and 'The Siderealist' ran for just six issues in total. All the same, collectively these journals of the 1960s and 1970s must form a fairly substantial part of the overall corpus of published literature on western sidereal astrology.

As far as books on the subject are concerned, I have already mentioned James Eshelman's books 'The New Instant Astrologer' (co-authored with Tom Stanton) (1976) and 'Interpreting Solar Returns' (1979; reprinted several times in the 1980s). He also previously authored a shorter introduction called 'The Sidereal Handbook' (1975).

Cyril Fagan is best known for having written 'Zodiacs Old and New' (1950; reprinted 1951, and more recently by Ascella and Ballantrae Reprint), 'Astrological Origins' (1971) and the posthumously published compilation of his magazine articles on sidereal astrology 'The Solunars Handbook' (1976).

Brigadier Firebrace is notable for his output of numbered booklets published by Firebrace under his 'Moray Series' imprint. I have not seen all of these or a full list, but those I've managed to collect so far are restricted to the first three: No. 1 'An Introduction to the Sidereal Zodiac' (co-authored with Cyril Fagan; first published probably in the late 1950s, and reprinted 1961); No. 2 'Wars in the Sidereal' (1959); No. 3 'New Directions in Astrology'. A No. 5 is also available on the used market, but this is a mere set of tables and I didn't consider it worth my buying, but this leaves me wondering what No. 4 may have been; and I know a collector who tells me that there were eight booklets in the entire series; if this is true, there must be at least four that are extremly scarce! It seems apparent that the first three are by far the most common and best known.

It appears that at a later stage, at least a decade after Moray Series No. 1 was first published, a very much enlarged book was developed by Firebrace and Fagan based on it, but renamed 'A Primer of Sidereal Astrology'. Strangely, the appelation 'Moray Series No. 1' was retained for this newly enlarged book even though it is several times as long as the original pamphlet. And miraculously, this rehash of the Moray Series No. 1, unlike almost all the rest of the literature on western sidereal astrology by all authors, seems to have survived in print into the new century in which we now find ourselves.

Carl Stahl most notably wrote a trilogy of books on western sidereal astrology, all three of which bear the common name 'Beginner's Manual of Sidereal Astrology', but separate numbers and different contents. All three have fallen out of print, and all have become very scarce second-hand, though the first is more common. I only recently managed to obtain a copy of Volume Two, which is focused on natal interpretation, and have yet to see any sign of the third volume.

[It seems that Firebrace established a peculiar fashion with his 'Moray Series' for sidereal astrologers giving all their different books on sidereal astrology exactly the same name followed by only a number and optional subtitle to distinguish them, and then Stahl and others (see below) followed his example. We should perhaps count ourselves fortunate in being spared from yet further potential confusion by the fact that Eshelman and Fagan, who also both authored at least three books on sidereal astrology each, as detailed above, did not follow this pattern.]

There have of course also been various more isolated contributions by other western sidereal astrologers of high repute to the literary corpus on the subject: Donald Bradley wrote a well-respected work on interpreting solar and lunar returns according to the sidereal zodiac, among other books on astrology in general; Rupert Gleadow wrote a number of works on sidereal astrology from an historical perspective; and John Filbey also wrote a later work on solar and lunar returns from a sidereal methodological perspective that, if I recall correctly, was sourced in the earlier work of Bradley and Eshelman on the same subject.

But I think that overall the five authors who have contributed the most in terms of volume and content to the literature of western siderealism would have to be acknowledged as Firebrace, Fagan, Stahl, Marr and Eshelman, all of whom have authored and / or co-authored at least three important books each on the subject.

The fact that of these five astrologers' collective tally of fifteen important books and booklets on sidereal astrology only two remain in print today might be viewed historically by some as a sign of a decline in interest among western astrologers as a whole in western siderealist thought and the failure of the movement. However, another, simpler interpretation would be along the lines that since Firebrace, Fagan, Stahl and Marr all passed away there have been few activists for the cause still living with their level of enterprise and energy. James Eshelman, who was a prodigious early-twenty-something when he wrote all his books on astrology in the 1970s and is only just over fifty to this day, is the sole survivor; and as far as I can gather his attentions have been turned to involvements in the broader occult fields, off the beaten track from astrology, since the early 1980s.

Intellectual movements tend to keep going for as long as their proponents are alive, free and dedicated to promoting them. When the leading proponents of any school of thought die, the school of thought in question tends to shrink from general view and acclaim until and unless others of similar abilities step into their shoes. If this does not happen, the school of thought may fade into oblivion.

As far as I can gather from Internet searches, western siderealism is still alive as an underground movement, but with so little literature left in print to support it, its adherents must be a lot smaller in number now than at its height thirty to forty years ago. This I feel to be a shame for western astrology as a whole, even though I'm not a siderealist myself and think that historically a lot of siderealists have completely missed the point when it comes to how and why, logically and rationally, the tropical zodiac might be directly relevant. It is surely healthy for students and astrologers to be exposed to different technical ways of thinking and to be able to try them out and compare results rather than accepting the modal practice of the day simply because they lack adequate access to detailed information on the intellectual and technical alternativies.

Philip


Last edited by Philip Graves on Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Papretis



Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Posts: 346
Location: Finland

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Philip and thank you for bringing here the information you've got!

You wrote:
Quote:
It is surely healthy for students and astrologers to be exposed to different technical ways of thinking and to be able to try them out and compare results rather than accepting the modal practice of the day simply because they lack adequate access to detailed information on the intellectual and technical alternativies.


It's interesting that in the past few months I've bumped here and there in the internet world onto people who are asking, could we try, or even should we try traditional techniques sidereally. I'm personally one who's thinking about and experimenting with the subject.

It's clear that Vettius Valens defined the signs sidereally (because he located them according to fixed stars, that's the very definition of the sidereal zodiac). But it also seems that at least some of the medieval Arabic authors used a sidereal zodiac. For example the chart by Masha'allah on Rob Hand's site http://www.robhand.com/recept.htm is clearly a sidereal one. One can try date 13th February 791 at 6.04 Bagdad, Iraq with Shri Yukteswar ayanamsa, the differences between what's given on the site and what a modern program gives, are from 2' to 2 degrees 58' to the most. And the date fits nicely with the era Masha'allah lived. In fact the interesting Greek horoscope on this site http://www.skyscript.co.uk/greek_horoscope.html , that Deb presented last month, gives also even more accurate positions sidereally using an ayanamsa that's around Lahiri.

So, when studying the techniques that are inherited from Greeks and Arabs, should we take into consideration the possibility that they could work on the sidereal zodiac? I made quite a large study about Egyptian bounds last summer using a large database and studying people who have a lot of planets in the bounds ruled by a certain planet, and the groups I got were so homogenous and reflected so clearly common themes correlating with the planet under consideration, that it was obvious that there really is something deeply meaningful in bounds, when looked sidereally. After that it has simply not been possible for me to ignore the possibility of sidereal traditional astrology.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
star_flier



Joined: 29 Jul 2008
Posts: 4
Location: Colorado USA

Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:15 pm    Post subject: western sidereal astrology Reply with quote

Hi,
My studies in Sidereal Astrology go back more than 30 years.

I have all but 8 SPICA Journals...a few "Constellations" ROSA and a few "Siderealist" Journals and would be willing to sell copies of any or all.

Anyone curious about Fagan-Allen School Sidereal Astrology please contact
for more info.....or to chat on my favorite subject.


Sidereal Regards,
Mike[/b]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It's interesting that in the past few months I've bumped here and there in the internet world onto people who are asking, could we try, or even should we try traditional techniques sidereally. I'm personally one who's thinking about and experimenting with the subject.

For what it's worth:

I think that taking a look at things sidereally could be an interesting exercise and a way to alleviate fears that we might be missing out on something, but the gold is to be found in learning to drop the modern rational detachment and entering fully into the astrological experience. We can spend a lot of time looking for the most accurate techniques believed hidden away around the corner, but yet fail to see straight ahead the entrance to a full-bodied and lived astrology.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Papretis et all,

I'm happy to see more discussion on the issue too, though I personally agree with Kirk (I think). However, in regard to one of your comments:

Quote:
It's clear that Vettius Valens defined the signs sidereally (because he located them according to fixed stars, that's the very definition of the sidereal zodiac). But it also seems that at least some of the medieval Arabic authors used a sidereal zodiac. For example the chart by Masha'allah on Rob Hand's site http://www.robhand.com/recept.htm is clearly a sidereal one.


At the time of Vettius Valens the two systems were virtually matching up, so his reference was possibly more of a convenience than a statement of principle.

Also, I don’t think we can present the suggestion that Masha’allah was a siderealist. In his work ‘The Motion of the Orb’ –recently translated by Ben Dyles (see his websiteGreat book BTW, review coming later to say get it if you can), Masha’allah follows Ptolemy in teaching that the sphere of the signs is separate from that of the stars, and he describes it as having motion from the east and having no stars (because it is mathematically derived). He does say that the 12 divisions are named after the stars in the sphere below it (the 8th sphere, of the fixed stars), but again, in his day, the overlap was such that it was natural and convenient to make this connection. The text is very clear that these divisions are based upon the seasons, for example:
Quote:
“Therefore when the Sun enters Aries, day and night are made equal, and spring comes”.
This is a very clear statement of principle, so unless the authorship of that text is doubted, Masha’allah cannot be said to have defined the signs sidereally. I think we perhaps have to be more realistic about how neatly practice match up with principle at a time when astrologers were just as reliant on old tables as we are (nearly) all reliant on computers today.

But I don’t want anyone to think that I’m against the sidereal zodiac. The arguments I had with Ken Bowser years ago taught me that the system deserves a lot of respect.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I see that Deb parenthetically thinks she agrees with me. Her apparent indecisiveness may seem odd, but it's surely better than hostile fists-up disagreement. Not to worry – she and I may be quite close to agreement.

My point was, and is, that it's not so much the astrological techniques we use, but the mind we bring to the techniques. 'Mind' in this case being much larger than commonly thought, enlarged through reverence and a sense of the sacred. That's right – the sacred. Not a comfortable fit with the 21st Century educated crowd.

(Are you still with me, Deb?)

Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I’m not very good with decisions. It takes me a long time to make them, and a long time to change them, and that seems like a lot of hard work sometimes. I think I am with you (I am reserving my right to have indecision), because I accept what you say about the sacred and I am sure that astrology is often less about the technique than it is about the astrologer and how the astrologer uses the technique. But I am not sure that this is always the case. My views on the zodiac and its divisions – both tropical and sidereal – are quite complex. It would probably be the last element of astrology that I would cling to with an expectation of objective reliability. On the other hand I like the idea of incorporating more reliance on the stars and constellations, and at some level I wish that astrology were more observational in its emphasis. … Yet at the same time, the seasonal element, and the symbolism it generates, is absolutely essential to my understanding of and attraction to astrology. Do you get the sense that I am still weighing up what my true position really is? No, I am not about to stop being a tropicalist, but I think it is nice to not have to have a fixed position sometimes, which is why I want to float a little around this discussion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If and when to choose our categories can occupy and distract us as completely as deciding which categories to hold on to. I'm sure you're on to something with your Piscean float past the Virgo storage bin. Smile

I also wish astrology now were more observational, perhaps even going back to the use of clouds and the flight of birds. Why not? If we can confidently talk about Saturn on the Ascendant bringing someone grief we could surely find a use for a flock of ravens flying to the northeast ... Confused
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 2:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now here I absolutely agree (even without needing to think about it)! Divinational symbolism doesn't just end with the celestial spheres, it's universal. And cloud analysis IS astrology - or at least it used to be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1282
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deb wrote:
I think we perhaps have to be more realistic about how neatly practice match up with principle at a time when astrologers were just as reliant on old tables as we are (nearly) all reliant on computers today.


I agree with Deb that many ancient and medieval astrologers seem to have been only dimly aware of the difference between tropical and sidereal zodiacs. But just as references to the fixed stars located in a (tropical) sign may have been a matter of convenience, so may references to the seasons coinciding with the (sidereal) signs, so this argument really cuts both ways. And we should note that the sidereal as well as the tropical signs are ideal divisions and may be conceived of as located in a different sphere than the unequally sized constellations.

It is certain, however, that (pace Rob Hand) the zodiac actually used by pre-Ptolemaic Hellenistic astrologers for casting horoscopes was sidereal. James Holden, himself a tropicalist, has described the development very well in his History of Horoscopic Astrology.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Papretis



Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Posts: 346
Location: Finland

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I tried to avoid posting during the eclipse, but it's separating now so here we go Cool

Deb wrote:
Also, I don’t think we can present the suggestion that Masha’allah was a siderealist.


I must say that the zodiac debates are something that I very hesitantly participate nowadays. It’s a subject that arouses a lot of emotions and too often it ends up in fruitless arguing whether someone is a Pisces or an Aries and whether s/he is “Piscean-like” or “Aries-like”. That’s boring. But I try here to summon my thoughts about the issue and why I personally favor the sidereal zodiac without entering into exhausting disputes.

Strictly speaking, I didn’t say that Masha’allah was a (conscious ) siderealist, but that he seems to have used – at least to some extent, in some of his charts – sidereal tables. Robert Powell and Peter Treadgold write in the little booklet The Sidereal Zodiac:

Quote:
Raymond Mercier’s study of the medieval conception of precession leads to the conclusion that 0 Aries of the Indian zodiac was fixed in the years A.D. 562/3 when the vernal point lay 10 minutes East of Zeta Piscium. He shows, moreover, that this location of the zero point defined by Indian astronomers was also adopted by the Islamic astronomer al-Khwarizmi (first half of the ninth century) in the Khwarizmian tables, and by the Jewish astronomers who prepared the Toledan tables (eleventh century). Thus the reform of Indian astronomy, which led to the definition of the Indian zodiac with zero point (0 Aries) coinciding with the vernal point of A.D. 562/3, also influenced Islamic and Jewish astronomers.

Probably it is these Khwarizmian tables that put 0 Aries on Zeta Piscium (which is not the same as Eta Piscium, better known as Al Pherg), that some of the Arabic astrologers were using, regardless of which zodiac they thought they used. In modern programs the closest ayanamsa to that is Usha-Shashi. You will find more information about this and other sidereal ayanamsas in the Swiss Ephemeris document http://www.astro.com/swisseph/swisseph.htm#_Toc204425063 under headline “The Hipparchan tradition”. In fact it says:

Quote:
Raymond Mercier has shown that all of the ancient Greek and the medieval Arabic astronomical works located the zero point of the ecliptic somewhere between 10 and 22 arc minutes east of the star zeta Piscium. This definition goes back to the great Greek astronomer Hipparchus.

In the year 800, when Masha’allah lived, the difference between the Usha-Shashi zodiac and the tropical zodiac was 3 degrees 22 minutes – not much and definitely not enough for us to validate the search for an answer to the zodiac issue from what ancient astrologers did. Only now is the difference between the zodiacs big enough so that we can really do comparison.

Kirk wrote:
I think that taking a look at things sidereally could be an interesting exercise and a way to alleviate fears that we might be missing out on something, but the gold is to be found in learning to drop the modern rational detachment and entering fully into the astrological experience. We can spend a lot of time looking for the most accurate techniques believed hidden away around the corner, but yet fail to see straight ahead the entrance to a full-bodied and lived astrology.


I agree with you completely. The point is, actually I am a full-blown siderealist, though I don’t want to bring it on people’s face. I live fully the astrological experience just like you suggested but using a different framework than most. For me, today’s eclipse happened obviously in Cancer and I’ve just experienced it in Cancer on my 2nd Regio cusp.

But Cancer for me is not the same thing than Cancer for a tropicalist. When I see Cancer in a horoscope I get different feelings and images than a tropicalist. A tropicalist sees probably something fluctuating, sensitive, withdrawing, security-seeking, or whatever characteristics you’ve used to associate with Cancer. But when I see Cancer I see something cardinal, heavy and wet, something quite physical, even a bit overbearing, but at the same time something quite charismatic, alluring, theatrical and perhaps a bit self-centered. There’s emotional drama of the Water element, physicality of the Moon (because the Moon signifies body and instincts when the Sun signifies spirit), and cardinality.

Of course I also see the elements differently than a tropicalist. When I see Fire, I don’t see anything especially dramatic or flamboyant, but rather something quite reserved but very goal-oriented, active and decisive – masculine characteristics (a true man neither talks nor kisses – a Finnish aphorism). When I see Air, I don’t see anything especially fact-oriented, detached or intellectual but rather something social, people-oriented, warm, moist, sensitive, light, possibly a bit superficial. And when I see Earth, I don’t associate it with fruitful, productive soil of the springtime like tropicalists often seem to do, but more with autumnal dead sand flying around on a lonely desert, dry and cold, analytical nature having a pinch of Saturnine detachment.

Virgo is an interesting sign in this regard, because ancients have said quite strange things about it from a modern tropical point of view. Al Biruni writes about it in The Book of Instruction in the Elements of the Art of Astrology:

Quote:
Indication of the signs as to morals & manners:
Virgo: Liberal, good manners, truthful, well-informed, pious, a judge, thoughtful, lively, playful, fond of dance and music, a hafiz.

As to places:
Virgo: Divans, women’s quarters, musician’s houses, threshing floors cultivated fields.

And then Abu Mashar says in Astrological metaphors http://www.cieloeterra.it/eng/eng.testi.metafore/eng.metafore.html :

Quote:
As for Venus, it humiliates itself in Virgo, but it agrees with this sign owing to the feminine nature and besides almost everybody knows that Virgo means dancing, singing harmonies, lyres and other musical instruments and the search for marriage, all the things which are typical of Venus.

Dancing and singing, lyres and musical instruments, possibly even while laying on a divan seeking marriage! But Linda Goodman (whose influence on modern interpretation of the signs is considerable, liked it or not) says in Sun Signs that marriage is not a natural state for the Virginian nature! And she says that Virgo does not make much noise (so much for dance, music and lyres then) and that Virgo doesn’t like cocktail parties (so it probably doesn’t like women’s quarters or musician’s houses either, Goodman says nothing about divans though). Did Linda Goodman know better, or are Abu Mashar and Al Biruni talking about different Virgo than that we encounter in modern textbooks? Are they actually talking about the stars of Virgo laying behind tropical Libra? I think they are. For them the difference between the stars and the tropical signs was not such a big issue, but for us it is.

The most common mistake that astrologers do when they hear about the sidereal zodiac is that they automatically think that sidereal signs should be similar to the tropical ones. No one changes from a tropicalist to a siderealist overnight, because it takes a lot of time and processing to learn to see signs differently, to set going different images and connotations than what you’ve used to do and what majority of astrologers around you keep on doing. It takes time to learn to associate Virgo with dancing, lyres and music (and divans), but when you get that validated on the charts that are calculated using the sidereal zodiac, it helps the process.

The burning question is not whether someone is *really* a Pisces or Aries, but which part of the zodiac is more Watery, two-fold (at times moving, at times fixed), ruled by Jupiter (and no, we are not talking about Neptune here), ruled by Venus by exaltation etc. – that belonging to tropical Pisces or that belonging to sidereal Pisces? What should a sign ruled by Jupiter (or Zeus) actually be like? What should “Water” mean as an element? What is femininity and how it manifests in the world outside astrology? What do dignities actually mean in the natal charts and how do they really manifest? Those questions should be at the heart of the zodiac issue, not whether someone is more like this or more like that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martin wrote:
Quote:
just as references to the fixed stars located in a (tropical) sign may have been a matter of convenience, so may references to the seasons coinciding with the (sidereal) signs, so this argument really cuts both ways. And we should note that the sidereal as well as the tropical signs are ideal divisions and may be conceived of as located in a different sphere than the unequally sized constellations.


Yes. That’s a valid point.

Thanks for the enlightening post Papretis. I feel I know you a little better now that you have come out of the closet about being a siderealist all this time:) I understand your reluctance to engage in ‘debate’ because it does becomes boring to keep going over the same arguments, but it was very interesting to hear what you say about needing to adapt and probe the zodiac expectations.

It would be insincere of me to pretend I am appropriately open-minded on this issue, but one thing I will say – whenever I read articles and books by western siderealists I have always been impressed by the clarity and depth of their technical and symbolic knowledge. At this stage I am more convinced by the quality of astrologers that I know who take the sidereal perspective seriously then I am by any theoretical argument for or against. It would be refreshing to have more siderealists willing to calmly offer the benefits of their experience without feeling the need to persuade or defend whatever they have to say. (So thanks for waiting for the eclipse to pass to avoid responding in the tone of a ranting madman Laughing )
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
unique_astrology



Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Posts: 175

Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 1:06 am    Post subject: Journal of sidereal astrology called 'The Constellations' Reply with quote

What would members think of an astrology that uses no houses or signs but relies only on astronomical positions and consistently (I believe every time) delivers appropriate symbols in appropriate places?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Papretis (Sari, is it?),

I thought that you may be another one chasing technique rainbows, but I was wrong. You obviously have put a lot of thought into it – that's what counts. I'm with Deb in just not feeling a draw toward the sidereal zodiac, but I also enjoy the enthusiasm and knowledge of those who have put a lot of thought into it.

BTW, I've been told there are support groups for siderialists. You know, twelve signs, twelve steps ... Twisted Evil ..................... oops ........................................ Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> News, Notices, Books, Links All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 1 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated