Ken Bowsers "Zodiacs Old and New" edited edition?

[staragewiz]

Jim,

RE: Ken's edited Zodiacs Old and New due to be released soon.
What do you think about Ken replacing the cover with Babylonian Imagery ??
Fagan, has always placed the origin of astrology in Ancient Egypt.
In one of Fagan's writings he says that the Chaldeans learned astrology from
the Egyptians and then passed this knowledge on to the Babylonians.
I think it's a disservice for Ken to 'edit' Zodiacs Old and New to fit his
theory of astrological origins. He should publish his own origins theory
instead of ripping off Fagans book. Really curious Jim , as to what your opinion is.

Mike Viele

[Jim Eshelman]

What do you think about Ken replacing the cover with Babylonian Imagery ??
Fagan, has always placed the origin of astrology in Ancient Egypt.
In one of Fagan's writings he says that the Chaldeans learned astrology from
the Egyptians and then passed this knowledge on to the Babylonians.
I think it's a disservice for Ken to 'edit' Zodiacs Old and New to fit his
theory of astrological origins. He should publish his own origins theory
instead of ripping off Fagans book. Really curious Jim , as to what your opinion is.

After being in book publishing so many years, I recognize that the purpose of a cover is to sell a book, not necessarily to make a statement about its contents. Therefore, anything that serves the sale of the book is a benefit.

That said... and since you're asking for an opinion... Although Fagan placed the origin of astrology in ancient Egypt, he did specifically place the origin of the exaltation degrees in Babylon, and that's what Zodiacs Old and New is about. A big publishing company generally doesn't involve the author in cover decisions and often doesn't really care whether the cover has anything to do with the content - as long as it's eye-catching.

In my work-in-progress, I will be placing the origins of astrology (as such) in Egypt but the origins of the zodiac more aligned with Gleadow (or a Fagan-tipped version of Gleadow), i.e., that the zodiac as we know it today has some signs traceable to Egypt and other signs traceable to Babylon. But that, of course, isn't the question you asked

[staragewiz]

Guess I'm too much of a Fagan Purist. Ok, then sue me
Jim, I'll be looking forward to your new book. Publication date?

[Jim Eshelman]

The smaller HOSNI (Handbook of Sidereal Natal Interpretations) will be available as soon as we can get the last details handled (meaning: soon). The big book (Comprehensive Sidereal Astrology) is a three-year project with Vol I not done yet (admittedly the most demanding), so it will be a while.

In terms of Fagan purism, remember that this is Fagan's book on the origins of the exaltations and he thought those to be of Babylonian origins.

[staragewiz]

Correct about the Babylonian origins of the Exaltations. Fagan also wrote that the
Egyptians included Aries in their zodiac, whereas the Babylonians did not.
Please release a preview of your new book when available.

[Jim Eshelman]

Longtime members like yourself can see sample chapters in the CSA sub-forum. (It's hidden. I don't want to say much about it outside those hidden areas.) Yes, Rams appeared in Babylon Ian zodiac very late while the sheep pentades were in the Egyptian zodiac by 2800 BCE.