Cyril Fagan on Zodiac Signs

[Guest guest]

This post is in response to Dark*Star's request for examples of how Cyril

Fagan wasn't always accurate in this take on the sidereal signs.

 

First of all, in general, Fagan followed the Tropical error of placing far

too much emphasis on psychological attributes of signs, when we know now

that the key to psychology lies in the planets. For some unexplained reason

he emphasized Ptolemy's cardinal-fixed-mutable category of the signs but

ignored the far older Mesopotamian triplicities, which in my experience are

much more apparent as sign categories. Here are a few specifics (there are

hundreds) from THE SOLUNARS HANDBOOK (Clancy Publications, 1970)

 

LIBRA (p. 27): " Without question this constellation [...so apparently we

owe it to Fagan for the incorrect ‘constellation' terminology...], which

has the pacific Venus as its traditional regent, produces the most

beautiful and peace-loving types of humanity. "

 

Well, first of all the goddess Venus wasn't ‘peaceful.' She was a trouble

maker, and the scales as a constellation are related to courts of law where

judgements are handed down in an attempt to create a judicial balance of

fairness. Libra also symbolizes the legality of marriage and the cultural

responsibilities that come with marriage. (Saturn's exaltation in Libra)

 

It's an oddity that although Fagan's sidereal astrology has always called

itself an astrology of the constellations, there has been no attempt to

link the star and constellational myths to the signs. In India, the

nakshatras help to fill this void.

 

Beauty: Beauty doesn't relate to any one sign of the zodiac, but to the

disposition of planets in relation to the ascendant.

 

Fagan points out how Libra is a sign of mediation, but Mercury is the

mediator rather than Venus.

Venus has to do with the romantic aspect of relationships, but Mercury is

the go-between.

 

ARIES (p. 32) " In their climb to power they will ruthlessly liqidate

anyone who stands in their way. "

I suppose here Fagan was thinking of Hitler, but there are many

multiple-planets-in-Aries people out there who are quiet and unassuming.

Mostly they seem to be into themselves and their own life with no interest

in aggression toward other people.

 

Fagan wasn't always off the mark, but his more accurate comments are mixed

up with all kinds of assumptions, probably based on a few actual

horoscopes. I believe the truth is closer to how the signs have been

understood in India. Each planet acts more or less like itself depending on

the zodiac sign it's in. So to really describe how the signs manifest, we

need the many actual horoscopes of individuals with clusters of planets in

each sign. From there we deduce the underlying qualities and expression of

each sign.

 

I'm sorry I don't have more time to get into this, but many followers of

Fagan's sidereal school mostly ignore the signs anyway. It seems as if they

never really took Fagan's commentary on the signs seriously.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

Hello Therese,

 

> This post is in response to Dark*Star's request for examples of how Cyril

> Fagan wasn't always accurate in this take on the sidereal signs.

 

About the zodiacal signs, I would like to know how we can grasp the correct

meaning they have?

 

As far as I know, Jyotish essentially define them according to their

quadruplicity and their lord (probably also their exalted planet, but I

don't remember and not sure). Tropical astrology added triplicity. At least

that is how Morin de Villefranche did, in tropical, according to Jean

Hieroz, a late specialist of Morin around the 1950-1970. So I don't see what

IS the difference in the signs in sidereal or tropical astrology as to how

to define them.

 

However, I saw that post from Bill Johnston on youngastro's where he said

tropical sign were also defined by Ptolomee according to the fixed stars

found in them (which means tropical Libra *are* now Virgo since Spica is in

tropical Libra!):

 

«The rest of their properties come from their domicile rulers, which remain

stable through precession, and the fixed stars and constellational

formations that fall in them, which do not. In this view, some of the

characteristics of the tropical signs change through precession: when Spica

made its ingress into tropical Libra, the characteristics of tropical Virgo

that were due to Spica's presence there transferred to Libra.»

 

In this way tropical Libra is now defined as Cardinal + Air + Venus + Spica.

If I apply this theory to Sidereal sign then Virgo remains Mutable + Earth +

Mercury + Spica. Nothing changes...

 

Or do I go nuts? ;-)

 

--

Best regards,

François

 

 

 

 

--

 

 

Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release 05-01-03

[Guest guest]

At 09:00 PM 1/3/05 -0500, Francois wrote:

>

>About the zodiacal signs, I would like to know how we can grasp the correct

>meaning they have?

 

Francois,

 

As for the triplicities and polarity, I've suggested how these *may* work

in the sidereal zodiac. (Parts 1, 2 and 3 and 'What is a sign of the

zodiac?' (Hamonics)

http://users.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

 

This is assuming that sign energies really do change from sign to sign.

Perhaps the best way to test this is to consider people who have a stellium

in one sign in the ascendant.

 

>However, I saw that post from Bill Johnston on youngastro's where he said

>tropical sign were also defined by Ptolomee according to the fixed stars

>found in them...

 

This is true. The ancient Hellenistic writers considered the stars of the

constellations as influencing the signs, but these were restricted to

degree areas, not the entire sign.

 

It's true that if the stars influence certain degree areas in the signs,

these will shift over time in the Tropical zodiac, but remain stable in the

sidereal zodiac.

 

>In this way tropical Libra is now defined as Cardinal + Air + Venus + Spica.

>If I apply this theory to Sidereal sign then Virgo remains Mutable + Earth +

>Mercury + Spica. Nothing changes...

 

Do you mean that the *methods* of defining a sign remain the same? (Thus,

tropical Libra is cardinal, but in the same area of the sky today where

Virgo is mutable?) Recall that Tropical Libra has the reputation of seeing

many sides to a question. This is an attribute of mutable Mercury, not Venus.

 

The sidereal signs can be catagorized by triplicity, but it's best to drop

the 'fire, earth, air, water labels. These weren't used in Mesopotamia.

Ptolemy may have invented them. (Please see the article on triplicities on

the Lost Zodiac site.)

 

>Or do I go nuts? ;-)

 

Not quite, but you do bring up many questions!

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

The astrologers grab out of mythology what they want and shove the

rest back on the shelf. The Chiron people totally ignore that Chiron

was so super masculine that the gods killed every one of his children

for punishment. They just see everybody including boot blacks and

ribbon clerks as walking wounded healers.

 

I don't know how return charts can be read if Venus means peace

and also by the way, not peace. In mundane Mars means war and

Venus peace. Venus the Aztec god of war has no meaning here...

wrong culture, wrong tinker toy.

 

Let's look at the Great War. The declaration of which is shown in

the Cancer Ingress of July 16, 1914 (I used Washington). Mars is

in the 8th. and having attained higher degree stands above her in

excellent Leo with an exact trine from Moon close to the IC.

Venus also in Leo with little going for her and must submit.

The conjunction of Saturn-Pluto is exact two months later.

 

The Armistice is shown Oct. 18, 1918 in the Libra Ingress. Sun and

Mercury are there together with Mercury entering that sign a week

later. Mars is showcased in the 10th. to show how he is made docile

by the trine of Neptune on the DSC. A new world with Uranus rising

at 0* Aquarius. Mercury (your mediator) in Libra is brokering the peace.

 

Dark*Star

_________________________________

 

Therese Hamilton wrote:

 

> but Mercury is the

> mediator rather than Venus.

> Venus has to do with the romantic aspect of relationships, but Mercury is

> the go-between.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Dark*Star,

 

No time to reply to your post in detail this morning (will do so later),

but I believe there's a *distinction* between planets and the signs. Thus

the signs tend to express more like the mythological figures while the

planets have their own specific meanings, which would hold across various

cultures and times.

 

A planet isn't a sign--Venus itself does have to do with harmony, the home,

nurturing (rather than the Moon). Mars is the aggressive warlord (rather

than Pluto). Sidereal Libra has different areas that express differently.

So do all the other 11 signs. They're not necessarily a pure expression of

their ruling planets.

 

Also a note to Greg and other longer posters. Due to time constraints and

the fact that I need to do a lot of (off list) writing, I can't read long

posts in detail. I can only scan them, so a note to myself and others:

Please keep posts on this list to a few paragraphs if you possibly can. (Of

course, other readers may welcome longer posts.)

 

More later,

Therese

 

 

At 01:01 AM 1/7/05 -0800, you wrote:

>

>

>The astrologers grab out of mythology what they want and shove the

>rest back on the shelf. The Chiron people totally ignore that Chiron

>was so super masculine that the gods killed every one of his children

>for punishment. They just see everybody including boot blacks and

>ribbon clerks as walking wounded healers.

>

>I don't know how return charts can be read if Venus means peace

>and also by the way, not peace. In mundane Mars means war and

>Venus peace. Venus the Aztec god of war has no meaning here...

>wrong culture, wrong tinker toy.

>

>Let's look at the Great War. The declaration of which is shown in

>the Cancer Ingress of July 16, 1914 (I used Washington). Mars is

>in the 8th. and having attained higher degree stands above her in

>excellent Leo with an exact trine from Moon close to the IC.

>Venus also in Leo with little going for her and must submit.

>The conjunction of Saturn-Pluto is exact two months later.

>

>The Armistice is shown Oct. 18, 1918 in the Libra Ingress. Sun and

>Mercury are there together with Mercury entering that sign a week

>later. Mars is showcased in the 10th. to show how he is made docile

>by the trine of Neptune on the DSC. A new world with Uranus rising

>at 0* Aquarius. Mercury (your mediator) in Libra is brokering the peace.

>

>Dark*Star

[Guest guest]

Therese wrote:

> ...Also a note to Greg and other longer posters...I can't read long

posts in detail. I can only scan them, so a note to myself and

others: Please keep posts on this list to a few paragraphs if you

possibly can....

 

Hi Therese,

Got it. I'll be more succinct.

-Greg

[Guest guest]

At 06:58 PM 1/7/05 -0000, Greg wrote:

>

>Got it. I'll be more succinct.

 

Thanks, Greg. Keep your thoughts coming! Some lists are now hosting very

long posts. The Youngastro list is an example. I don't know how so many

astrologers find time to write such long posts!

 

Therese