MarkC wrote:Fagan's over ready adoption of outer planet rulerships rather disappointed me. It also brings out the fact that western siderealists must have their modernist and traditionalist perspectives too.

Hi Mark,

you have to remember that this was a common practice at the time of Fagan?s activity. The traditional revival was still in the future. When I started to study astrology in the 80?s, no one talked about traditional rulerships. In fact I didn?t know that they even exist. There?s no doubt about that Fagan would have been extremely excited about Project Hindsight and everything that came after that. But the truth is that Fagan was not right in everything and he had quite colorful theories.

Now I'm hesitantly turning this discussion into a tropical / sidereal debate, but I cannot resist myself .

The biggest mistake people make with the sidereal zodiac is that they try to apply modern tropical delineations onto it, then dismiss it altogether when they don?t work. One should instead read old texts very carefully, for example Valens. Comparing Vettius Valens and Linda Goodman is especially interesting.

For example, why does Valens say that Leo despises flattery (Anthology I, translated by Project Hindsight), and then Linda Goodman writes: ?A little flattery will get you everywhere with your Leo lady. You've already found out it's her secret weakness.? Is Goodman simply wrong? Why then has her Sun sign book sold possibly more than any astrological book before and after, being the bible of the sign traits in modern astrology? Or was Valens wrong? Or have the signs mysteriously changed? Or has the meaning for words changed so that what we today see as proneness to flattery was something completely opposite for the ancients?

But then we have Cancer who ? according to Valens ? is theatrical and fond of repute, pleasure and entertaining. Wait a minute, isn't this the Leo whom Goodman describes as follows: ?But the typical lion is a spectacular gambler at heart, often wildly extravagant; even the rare cat who pinches pennies will dress expensively, and always look well turned out. He wants first class and luxury all the way, and he'll spend freely on fun and pleasure.??

There are more surprising delineations in Valens: Geminis who are prudent, effeminate and capable in matters of household management (and we thought that it was Cancer whom Goodman wrote about ?Don't ever let her get the edge on cooking and homemaking. Let her teach you how to bake lemon chiffon pie.?). Valens says that Taurus is versed in handicraft, Goodman writes about Gemini that ?Geminis are experts at sleight of hand?.

Valens says that Sagittarius is enigmatical, authoritative, kingly, notable and lover of reputation, and this is how Goodman describes Capricorn: ?He's such a shy, sweet soul, a trifle stubborn perhaps, but gentle about it. He seems so harmless. What a safe person to trust and confide in-how pleasantly he builds your ego. Who could hurt him or suspect him of ambition? All the while, Capricorn is using your own weaknesses, conceits and jealousies to make himself stronger. He's useful and eventually so indispensable that you ask him to take over the reins. Then hell rule unobtrusively in the corner, modestly pulling the strings of authority. The goat sub?merges his ego to gain what his ego truly desires-the position of the real leader.?

And how about Capricorn, the Goat-Horned, in Valens? text? Here we find the following list: licentious, bad, fond of laughter, making bad mistakes, fickle, mischievous, a shameful liar. Compare this with the respectable cautiousness of Capricorn in Goodman?s text! But as you've already guessed, we?ll find all the qualities of Valens? Capricorn in Goodman?s Aquarius. And then of course Pisces by Valens: full of eruptions, restless, rough, sociable, erotic, licentious, popular. I need not to quote what Goodman says about Aries here, don?t I?

Couple of days ago I published a little study on the sidereal section of the ACT forum about people who have Mars as their sidereal Asc ruler: http://actastrology.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=131 . Most of these people are tropically ruled by the two benefics, Jupiter and Venus ? that?s why Mars was such a good subject for study, the difference should be clearly visible. And it was. You can figure it out by yourself whether these people better represent Mars or the benefics.

carriere.francois wrote:?...Deinde praecessio equinoctii verni apparens hinc est subducenda, remanet locus Solis verus a prima Arietis stella numeratus, & non ab intersectionis puncto vernali...?

But, when Junctinus gives examples, they are regular, non precessed, solar return charts.

Well, both Morin and Placidus argue for the use of lunar parallax correction, but it doesn't show up in their example charts. 'Do as I say, not as I do'?

Hello Sari,

I hope I didn't seem too hard on Fagan. The man was clearly a pioneer in the field. Its easy with the benefit of greater academic research today to dismiss him now but I think he does deserve recognition. As someone said on a sidereal site 'before Project Hindsight there was Cyril Fagan'. Personally, though I find Rupert Gleadow a more substantial researcher. His conclusions seem to have held up better to later scrutiny than many of Fagan's ideas.

Tempting as it is I will avoid getting into a general discussion on sidereal vs tropical zodiacs. I feel such discussions like personal choices on house systems are rather circular debates. As I perceive it it the zodiac you incline to or the house system you use are about what resonates with your consciousness. I mean no disrespect to your efforts but my personal perspective is that such issues cannot be resolved by attempts to produce empirical evidence through statistics.

Couple of days ago I published a little study on the sidereal section of the ACT forum about people who have Mars as their sidereal Asc ruler: http://actastrology.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=131 . Most of these people are tropically ruled by the two benefics, Jupiter and Venus ? that?s why Mars was such a good subject for study, the difference should be clearly visible. And it was. You can figure it out by yourself whether these people better represent Mars or the benefics.

I couldn't avoid a chuckle on seeing this. As one of the demographic you are referring to it seems I am lucky to have avoided a life behind bars.

Actually, in terms of personal factors this is a major reason why I cannot work with the sidereal zodiac. Of all the points in my chart the changeover of my ascendant sign from tropical Taurus to sidereal Aries is the most unacceptable element for me. I just cannot accept I am Aries rising as it does not coincide with either my experience or the feedback I receive from the vast majority of people that initially encounter me.

I feel I strongly embody many of the Taurus rising characteristics. Strangers on first meeting me frequently think I am the placid, 'quiet silent type' in terms of their initial impression. I accept this is all very subjective but it seems to me most of the choices we make in astrology are. I did look at the Vedic/Jytosh approach and I feel the Nakshatras my ascendant falls in mitigates this apparent contradiction in a way I could more readily accept than a straightforward switchover to western siderealism. So in essence my objection to western siderealism is experiential rather than philosophical or historical.

However, on a more technical basis there is one point I think your research may be ignoring. As George Noonan once stated western tropical astrology has always been inherently 'sidereal'. Its just not the kind of 'siderealism' most modern astrologers think of. In particular, I am very conscious that many of the fixed stars of Aries now fall in tropical Taurus. Particularly, in the early part of Taurus. Many of these stars are according to Ptolemy of the nature of Mars and Saturn. Have you considered the impact of such martial malefic fixed stars such as Mesartim, Sharatan or Hamal in the first decan of Taurus or the mars like influence of the Pleiades at the end of tropical Taurus?

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aries_myth.html

Mark C wrote:
?Considering the quite dramatic claims made by the author I find it really disappointing he doesn't include any bibliography or references for his sources. I have always felt Dante should have reserved a special place in his Inferno for authors that leave out references and a bibliography.?

Mark?there are no references for Fagan?s sources in ?Astrological Origins? because he himself is the source for what he is writing about. Fagan rediscovered BY HIMSELF the truths he is writing about. If you read carefully Chapter VII, ?Decans or Pentades? and Chapter VIII, ?World?s most Ancient Horoscope?, you will realize Fagan discovered the ancient Egyptian star groupings were in fact Pentade (5degree) groupings not 10 degree star groupings as the so called expert Egyptologist?s claimed. Ask yourself this question: How many astrologers have you read about who were Egyptologists? Fagan?s sources were the ancient Egyptian?s pictographs and when he applied the pentade star groupings to these very ancient pictographs it allowed him to realize they were Celestial Diagrams?what we moderns call Horoscopes. Fagan?s sources were the ancient Egyptian?s.

?Dissatisfied with all available material on astrology, he (Fagan) decided to set out and find the answers for himself. He combed the libraries of many of the capitals of Europe and soon concluded that a working knowledge of astronomy and Egyptology was essential if the embryo of astrology was to be unearthed. These he mastered alone as he had done everything else.? Pauline Fagan, Preface of ?Astrological Origins?.

Regards, Steve

Mark C. wrote:
The biggest mistake people make with the sidereal zodiac is that they try to apply modern tropical delineations onto it, then dismiss it altogether when they don?t work.

But more importantly it is implicit for any astrologer before attempting to learn the brilliant timing methods of Fagan?s teachings is to understand where Fagan is coming from pertaining to his work.

In ?Solunar Handbook?, Fagan says under the title, ?Dangerous to Mix Methods?:

?Many seasoned astrologers, to say nothing of the tyros, find the correct delineations of a nativity, or the interpretations of a return chart, no simple task. The reason for this is there are two distinct and separate systems of interpretations which, with the passage of time, have become intertwined and intermingled, thus causing contradiction and endless confusion. So before attempting any serous delineation, the astute student should first acquaint themselves with the fundamental difference between these systems and their respective merits, and be able to disentangle them.
These two systems may be termed (a) the genethliacal and (b) horary systems. In the horary system, in its original pristine form, no planet exercised any intrinsic influence. They were neither benefic nor malefic. Their significances were derived solely from the mundane houses over which they ?ruled.?
In the genethliacal system each planet has its own permanent intrinsic influence which is unique to itself, not being shared by any other member of the planetary family. In this system the nativity or return chart is judged and delineated solely on the planets relative intrinsic strengths, in the mundane sphere ( on their closeness to the angles), no attention whatever being paid to the rulerships of the planets over the houses.
The student may proceed to delineate any horoscope or return chart by either of these methods separately and obtain excellent readings, free of contradiction and confusion. But should the astrologer attempt, as does the vast majority of astrologers, to interpret a horoscope or similar chart by a mixture of both methods, the astrologer cannot fail to land in a morass of muddle and incongruity. Claudius Ptolemy was obviously the first to lead the western world astray in this matter, for in his ?Tetrabiblos?, which has been the standard authority since the 5th century A.D., both systems are unabashedly and indiscriminately mixed together.?

Regards, Steve

Hello Steve,

I am facing an extremely busy week so its most unlikely I will be able to respond to you properly until the weekend.

In the meantime I just want to make clear that the quote attributed to me by you above in your second post is most certainly not what I have stated! I assume its another quote from Cyril Fagan? I take it this is aimed at my comments on my own chart earlier? I would be interersted to know what special delineation approach western sidereal astrology can offer as indicated in the quote above? Am I working from some fundamental misunderstanding of how a siderealist would interpret a Taurus vs Aries rising chart?

In ?Solunar Handbook?, Fagan says under the title, ?Dangerous to Mix Methods?:

But should the astrologer attempt, as does the vast majority of astrologers, to interpret a horoscope or similar chart by a mixture of both methods, the astrologer cannot fail to land in a morass of muddle and incongruity. Claudius Ptolemy was obviously the first to lead the western world astray in this matter, for in his ?Tetrabiblos?, which has been the standard authority since the 5th century A.D., both systems are unabashedly and indiscriminately mixed together.?

I will be the nasty one, but one says he is the only one to have the truth and the others are wrong in everything, and nobody understood before him generally I stop reading.

Margherita

Gjiada wrote:
I will be the nasty one, but one says he is the only one to have the truth and the others are wrong in everything, and nobody understood before him generally I stop reading.

Fagan presented certain truths he discovered in his historical research on astrology.

?It has been the purpose of my astrological career to search all the extant monumental and textual records of remote antiquity in an endeavor to recreate the original teachings of astrology and present them to the modern world for the light they throw on ?modern astrology.? The astrology that I present to the public is the result of my fact-finding tours involving ancient Egypt which contains the very embryo of astrology.? It is obvious to me with the attacks by other astrologers that have been leveled at my work; there has been misunderstanding as to my teachings simply because other astrologers refuse to digest my work. They would rather take the easy way out and dispute my teachings on sidereal astrology without a serious investigation.?

This topic is about astrological books, journals and magazines about sidereal astrology. I am presenting written material with certain quotes that offers the astrologer a glimpse into the life-long historical research by Fagan into the field of astrology. Some astrologers may appreciate this thread topic?others may not.

Regards, Steve

Steve wrote:[. Some astrologers may appreciate this thread topic?others may not.

I was sure I'm the most wicked one
Still I was talking neither about you - I always read your post- and nor about sideral astrology.

It's just that I don't like some sentences of the kind "everybody was wrong" (the Egyptologists, the other astrologers) and moreover I am not convinced they are true.

I believe that people are not stupid, and hardly can repeat others'mistakes for centuries and milleniums...Mistakes are discarded in the natural process of living, it's just my opinion, obviously, but I tend to avoid every Revelation

MarkC wrote:I feel I strongly embody many of the Taurus rising characteristics. Strangers on first meeting me frequently think I am the placid, 'quiet silent type' in terms of their initial impression. I accept this is all very subjective but it seems to me most of the choices we make in astrology are. I did look at the Vedic/Jytosh approach and I feel the Nakshatras my ascendant falls in mitigates this apparent contradiction in a way I could more readily accept than a straightforward switchover to western siderealism.

Hi Mark,

yes, you're right, nakshatras are really decisive. I've noted too that the rising nakshatra is important. Which nakshatra you have rising, Asvini, Bharani or Krittika?

Adopting the sidereal zodiac is tricky because one has to re-adjust the way s/he's used to see the signs. That process has taken time, at least from me. It's funny that you mentioned the "quiet, silent type" because I see those as archetypical masculine qualities, belonging to the masculine signs. For example sidereal Leo rising is especially difficult to accept for a tropicalist, because - especially with the Magha Ascendant (0-13.20 sidereal Leo) - there's none of the flamboyance or extroversion associated with tropical Leo.

What that means essentially is that both zodiacs work on the delineative level. I'm not saying in any way that tropical delineations of signs wouldn't work! They do. People don't change when the zodiac changes, they remain the same. It's the dignities and rulerships that matter, and there we encounter problems.

Sari

Hi Sari,

Just a quick reply on my Nakshatras as I have limited time:

Asc: Bharani
Moon: Anuradha
Sun: Shravana
Merc/Venus: Poorvashada

I have been reading a few books on this topic such as those by Dennis Harness, Ken Johnson and Prash Trivedi. Of these Prash Trivedi's 'The Book of Nakshatra' is especially impressive in its depth of coverage and its beautiful illustrations. I have been meaning to give more time to studying the individual Pada within each Nakshatra too but haven't got round to this yet.

I am perhaps a little unusual for a a tropicalist in being interested in sidereal lunar mansions. Not just Nakshatras but the Arabic and Chinese systems too. I dont really relate to the medieval changeover to tropical lunar mansions. I suppose many will see this as paradoxical and even contradictory for a tropicalist. However, for me a solar tropical zodiac is complemented, rather than contradicted, by a sidereal lunar zodiac.

I am also interested in how the Vedic understanding of fixed stars/star groupings compares to Mesopotamian, Greek, Roman and Arabic star-lore.

Mark

Hi Mark, and thanks for the information. I've read those three books on the nakshatras too, Ken Johnson is my favourite. Dennis Harness' book I didn't like at all, and Prash Trivedi blends in a bit too much Western astrology and outer planets for my tastes. The book is really beautifully illustrated, though.