the stars which occupy the Zodiacal band of the skies.

But this is not so, as any ordinary astronomer well knows. This
single fact, i.e., the gradual shifting of the constellations,
the DISPLACEMENT, let us say, of the starry influx from one sign
to another without any ALLOWANCE being made in the astrologer's
rules for any such change, has been one of the greatest
obstructions to the popular spread of the art among EDUCATED
MINDS. Argues the scientist: The "fiery influence of Aries," if
depending upon the stars of that constellation, ought now to be
shedding forth their caloric from the sign Pisces, and Aries
ought to be lumbering along with the earthy Taurine nature. So,
also, the lords of these signs ought to be changed, but that they
are not can be proved by the fact that our earliest records of
that dim, historic past show, equally as well as your latest
"text-book," that Mars is the lord of Aries--a fiery planet in a
fiery sign; but astrologers still say that Pisces is watery and
Aries fiery, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE, IF THE STARS HAVE ANY
INFLUENCE AT ALL. It is not necessary," say these logical
thinkers, "to learn your abstruse science if we can demonstrate
that the very basis upon which your conclusions rest is in every
sense fundamentally false." The scientific facts of the case are
as follows: The influence of the twelve signs, as described by
astrologers, is a delusion, because in all ages they are reported
the same; whereas WE KNOW that every 2,160 years each sign
retrogrades to the extent of thirty degrees, and, as your art
does not make allowance for this, it is false. For, if the
influence of the twelve signs does not emanate from the stars
occupying the space of those signs, it must emanate from
nothing--a doctrine well suited, no doubt, to musty old sages of