The other, called tropical astrology, is practiced in the Americas, Europe, Australia, and parts of Africa. We could call it “Western” astrology.

The most obvious difference between them today is that the tropical zodiac is about 25° degrees ahead of the sidereal one. Since each sign is only 30° long, it means these two astrologies are almost a whole sign apart. So, for instance, if you were born in the West and your tropical sun is at 15° Cancer, in the East, that is, sidereally, it is at 20 Gemini.

The same thing happens to all the planets in your chart--in the East, they drop back almost a whole sign. Ditto for signs on the cusp of Angles and houses.

Two conditions remain the same in both systems. The planets themselves stay in the same houses, and they retain the same aspects, that is, their relationship to each other remains the same. Everything has just changed signs.

Considering that signs play a prominent part in astrology (see footnote 1, at bottom), this situation deserves more reflection. How did the West end up with a different system than the East? Is their difference one only of sign, or is more involved? What implications does the co-existence of two different systems have on astrology as a whole? Is astrology so flexible that both systems can be equally valid?

In order to better understand how this split came about, let’s start with a short tour of past astrological habits.

Contemporary Foci
People usually start out, then continue with the zodiac they culturally inherit. So, only a small number of Western astrologers practice sidereal astrology. The remainder (about 99% I’ve heard) are tropical astrologers using the system they inherited. I do not know, but suspect the same is true in the East, but reversed. They are mostly sidereal astrologers. Tradition, habit, lack of comparative literature, and other life obligations curtail astrologers’ investigation of the “other” zodiac.

Some Western astrologers are not even aware a sidereal zodiac exists. Of those who are, some think of it as a completely different zodiac. That is the case, I believe, with Chinese astrology, which defines some its constellations differently from ours, giving it, in that sense, a different zodiac. But tropical and sidereal use the same zodiac, they just approach it differently. When I buy software which, with a simple conversion factor, allows me to switch back and forth between tropical and sidereal signs, it means the software makers (astrologers) recognize the signs, and therefore the constellations, are being defined the same way (footnote 2).

Some astrologers--those who know about both zodiacs--think the difference between sidereal and tropical astrology the same as the difference between Fahrenheit and Celsius temperature readings. It is true: at any one time a specific degree in one zodiac always equals a specific, but different, degree in the other. If I am given the exact location of the sun in one, with the (date, time and) conversion factor I can find the exact location of the sun--and all the planets--in the other. In that way, the comparison between Fahrenheit and Celsius holds true. Their difference condenses to a simple matter of conversion. Every one is familiar with this kind of simple difference: in the United States we still use measurements involving quarts, miles, inches, etc., while much of the rest of the world has switched to the metric system. Changing miles to kilometers, if bothersome, involves simple conversion.

In astrology, however, each 30° segment--that is, sign--has a ruler. A ruler is a planet--usually one of the standard nine or ten--which “represents” the sign, that is, there is a kind of intimate connection between the sign’s meaning and the planet’s meaning. Both, in turn, are correlated with the constellation from which the sign took its origin (footnote 3). Established qualities of each ruling planet are fundamentally involved in generating descriptions of the signs they rule. So, for instance, astrology has long known that mercury forefront--that is, on or ruling an Angle--sponsors writing, communicating, and recognized intelligence. In traditional astrology, mercury rules Gemini and Virgo. Therefore, the signs Gemini and Virgo should, in their description, be essentially mercurial--different because they are different signs--but mercurial.

Since East and West differ in the sign they assign to the same 25° degrees of each 30°, they differ on rulers defining those 25°. They should, if signs really have rulers, differ enormously on the sign description generated by those rulers. That has not been the case. Each purports to represent its differing 25° segment as, for instance, “Gemini,” ruled by mercury, description generated by mercury.

Most astrologers approach this dilemma--if they approach it at all--empirically. They examine charts cast both ways. At some point, they decide, “I prefer X zodiac.” Empirical observation is usually a good approach. In this case, however, most astrologer’s end up preferring the zodiac they culturally inherited--which they studied first, when they were the least objective. Preferring what they started with does not mean they have to be biased. It just raises the suspicion they might be.

To further understand these different systems, we need to look at their inception. Before doing that, I include a short history of how I--the writer--got myself embroiled in practicing a form of Eastern astrology in a Western bailiwick.

My Journey from Tropical to Sidereal
Mostly self-educated in astrology, my grasp of it is variable. My research over the past twenty-nine years, however, has been both intensive and extensive, and has yielded impressive results. For the last nineteen years I have used only the sidereal zodiac. Before that, for ten years I did tropical research. My results, and years of musing about it, constitute my qualifications for writing this paper. I am not an expert on either zodiac. I can, however, make some sensible statements about their differences.

I became interested in sidereal astrology after some one loaned me his collection of Cyril Fagan’s sidereal articles from the magazine American Astrology. Fagan, now deceased, was an Irish civil servant. He was also an astrologer well-versed in astronomy and Egyptology. Following reading Fagan, I experimented for months with both zodiacs. After that I switched permanently to the sidereal one.

My switch from tropical to sidereal astrology was an uncomfortable experience, as can be any radical change of perspective. It was uncomfortable, but reasonable. How was it reasonable? I did not, as often occurs with astrologers trying to evaluate these two zodiacs, jump--using our example of change in Cancer sun to Gemini from above--from using the tropical definition of sun in Cancer to using the tropical definition of sun in Gemini. My experience of switching to sidereal astrology was reasonable because I reverted to rulers as the key to sign descriptions. In encountering any sign, instead of going by its usual (we could say “cook-book”) description, I asked, “what are the qualities of this sign’s ruler?” That way I did not fall into a variation of what Fagan called the homonymous error (footnote 4). Still, it was not easy. With time, however, signs resumed some of the reputation--today found so puzzling--they had centuries ago.

Doing it that way, of course sign meaning agreed with ruler meaning because that is, by definition, what I started with. Beyond that, however, signs produced consistent results: writers really do have suns, moons, and nodes in Gemini, a mercury-ruled sign associated with the 3rd house and communication; psychics really do have suns and moons in Pisces, a neptune-ruled sign associated with the 12th house and concealed or atypical matters, and Sagittarian lights, ruled by jupiter and associated with the 9th house of non-mundane mind, produce explorers, jurists, clergy, philosophers, and, yes, horsemen. (The connection is distance from the ordinary and the perspective it can produce.)

The result of correct sign alignment is that signs and their rulers coalesce as meaningful and dependable indicators of individual behavior.

It is almost unbelievable how lacking in curiosity about fundamentals even a convert can be. It was many years after switching that I asked myself, “What, after all, is the story behind the existence of these two zodiacs? How did the world get two?”

The Tropical and Sidereal Approaches
There are not really, as Fagan points out in his book, two zodiacs. The zodiac--the belt of constellations which is the basis for both Eastern and Western zodiacal signs--is cut by the apparent path of the sun and planets around the heavens. In making their path, the planets, including Earth, do not just wander anywhere they please. As they make their neat ellipse around the sun, they do so in the same plane (except occasionally one) and against the backdrop of certain constellations. If their path were to be tipped 30° “north” or 30° “south”, different constellations would be highlighted. Those different constellations would, then, have comprised a different zodiac. This solar system, however, has only one set of constellations highlighted by our one angle of inclination to our part of the universe. The difference of opinion is not over the existence of the one zodiacal belt. It is over the way we relate to it. Why, then, do East and West relate to it so differently?

It is true: the apparent (seen from Earth) path the sun describes relative to the constellations is constant. The time it takes for Earth to make one complete revolution around the sun we all know as “one year.” The time it takes, however, for the sun to return to exactly the same spot in a constellation it was at the year before is not the same as our Earth year. The time it takes for that larger revolution is “one year” and 50 seconds, and that revolution is called a “sidereal year.” Fifty seconds difference per year is not much difference. Over centuries, however, 50 seconds per year adds up to a sizable difference between Earth years and sidereal years (footnote 5)

This phenomenon--the sidereal year being a little longer than the solar year --is known as the Precession of the Equinoxes. This term need not be intimidating. Webster’s dictionary states the Equinoxes occur twice each year when the sun, in apparently crossing the Equator, creates days and nights of equal length everywhere on Earth. People not living on the Equator know these moments as the first day of Spring and Autumn. Webster’s defines precession as the minute, slow westward movement of these Equinoxes. “Westward” is an interesting word choice. It seems like it is a matter involving space. Westward, however, also translates as time, and it means the Equinoxes occur slightly later (Westward) each
year--50” sidereal time later. But our calendars are not linked to the sidereal year; they are adjusted to the solar one. By linking the calendar to the solar year, spring and autumn occur nearly the same day annually “forever” and our seasons stay aligned with our calendar.

It is precession, then, or rather our different ways of handling it, which caused the existence of two zodiacs.

One zodiac (the tropical) is linked to the solar year; the other (the sidereal), to the sidereal year. Precession is also the basis for “Ages,” one of which was referred to often in the 60s as “the Age of Aquarius.”

Practical Differences
The Sidereal Zodiac has origins which disappear in the mists of antiquity. Also called the Fixed zodiac, it aligns, and keeps aligned, each sign with the constellation from which it took its name. In factoring in precession, signs of sidereal astrology are tied to the sidereal year. Because of that, relative to the same date (a solar calendar phenomenon) each year sidereal astrology’s signs are gradually slipping backward from Taurus to Aries to Pisces, etc. Sidereal 0° Aries-- 0° Aries being an easy point for comparison--has moved slowly backward relative to the Spring Equinox. In 1702, sidereal 0 Aries occurred at 6:45:06 p.m. EST on April 10. In 2002, three hundred years later, sidereal 0 Aries occurred at 5:58:28 p.m.. Eastern Daylight Time on April 14, four calendar days later. So, on April 10, 2002, the sidereal sun was at 26 Pisces.

Tropical astrology, according to Cyril Fagan, originated among the Greeks over a period of several hundred years, being mostly systematized by the 1st century BC (footnote 6). Today’s tropical astrology was established around 139 BC when a Greek named Hipparchus “invented the modern version of the tropical zodiac with the equinox fixed in Aries 0 degrees to facilitate the measurements of the positions of the fixed stars in the equatorial system, that is, in Right Ascension and Declination, which are essentially tropical coordinates. But it was left to Poseidonius, c. 80 BC, and Geminus, c. 70 BC, to systematize Hipparchus’ new fiducial--Aries 0 degrees--into the modern version of the tropical zodiac.” (Origins, p. 11 )

The Tropical Zodiac (also called Moving) keeps its 0 Aries linked with the calendric Spring Equinox. In basing its signs in the solar year, tropical astrology, therefore, disconnects the signs from the constellations from which they were derived. The consequences of that cleavage did not occur overnight. It occurred slowly, accruing over centuries. Now, about 2000 years later, each tropical sign is almost one whole sign ahead of its own constellation, but they have stayed linked with certain dates. In 1702, tropical 0° Aries occurred at 9:11:40 p.m. EST on March 20. In 2002, tropical 0° Aries occurred on March 20 at 3:15:13 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. The date is the same. (The time varies for a number of reasons.)

Below is a table for dates 0° Aries occurred (or will occur) in each zodiac:

Notice the jump--in both--between 1502 and 1602. During that time our calendar must have undergone a non-standard change. After 1602 tropical 0 Aries occurs only around March 20.

As stated above, the current difference between the two zodiacs is now about 25°. At 12:01 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on January 1, 2002 the tropical sun was at 10 Capricorn 35’ 50” while the sidereal sun was at 15 Sagittarius 50’ 01”. This is the same sun we all see. It is just regarded as in different places by the two zodiacs. The sidereal sun--speaking in terms of the order of the signs from Aries to Taurus to...Pisces--is almost a whole sign behind the tropical one.

Disagreement--not great--exists about exactly when the tropical and sidereal zodiacs coincided. It sponsored two main, slightly different conversion factors for going from tropical to sidereal positions and vice versa. The one I use is named the Fagan-Bradley, and also the Fagan-Allen, SVP (Sinetic Vernal Point).

Since separation between zodiacs occurred in small increments over a long period of time, consequences of their divergence has been subtle. If an astrologer lived to age 70, additional separation between the zodiacs during his lifetime was only about 58 minutes and 20 seconds--not even a whole degree. People cannot perceive such a slight difference with their senses.

Why It Is Difficult to Evaluate the Difference Between Zodiacs
Tradition and habit--inertia in both systems--however, are not the only reasons impartial examination of tropical versus sidereal astrology has not occurred. Another, major reason exists.

Astrology everywhere appears to produce three main types of astrologers. One type consistently bases his astrology on principles of planets, houses, and signs. I suspect he is more left- than right-brained, and is more scientific. A second type is psychic, and might be considered more right- than left-brained. Looking at the chart he gets, from somewhere, information about the individual. The third type is intuitive, and closer to right- and left-brained. He works with astrology as mandala, as pattern, but his inferences from it are based on astrological principles.

Of course, it is not that simple. Any individual astrologer may represent two or more types.

Among these three types exists another which could almost be considered a “fourth type.” The main fact about this last type as a type is his chart sets up his success. His methods vary. He may be psychic. He may be intuitive. He may be using astrological principles. He may believe he is using astrological principles. He may also not be using them. He may or may not be able to make intelligible--that is, truly acceptable--to other astrologers the reasons he stated “this” and “this” and not “that,” thereby producing a reading, and eventually a career, that is successful.

One more fact about the fourth “type.” He exists in both systems, sidereal and tropical-- indeed, he exists in all categories of fortunetelling.

This fact, that it is possible to be a successful, even a very successful, practicing astrologer using either system is the suspicious fact. Any scientist would consider it an odd fact, embarrassing and requiring investigation. And any astrologer who interacts with his astrology in terms of classes of conditions and events and in terms of measuring these for statistical significance, should also find it, if not embarrassing, at least troubling.

As the saying goes, however, “one cannot argue with success,” so astrologers, essentially in two camps, go on about their business. They have been doing it for centuries. Because each system generates success for individual astrologers, those on each side are naturally led to infer, “Mine must be the right zodiac.” Astrologers, however, are also often aware of the success of astrologers using the other system. I do not know how sidereal astrologers in sidereal countries respond about tropical astrology, but tropical astrologers of the West, when confronted with the existence of both zodiacs, almost always have the same response. In a tone indicating their liberal-mindedness, and more rarely their condescension, they say, “Both zodiacs work.” And that is the end of the matter.

Both zodiacs produce all four types of astrologers (probably in fairly equal representation relative to cultural acceptance), so how can their results be an index of their zodiac’s superiority?

What they mean, of course, is “both zodiacs work” when astrology is countenanced as an art.

A simple story--not a criticism--will have to serve as my minor example of this phenomenon. Astrologers rarely criticize other astrologers in print. Several years ago one successful astrologer stated in print she could not see the 3rd marriage of a media celebrity foreseen in the celebrity’s chart by a second, also successful, astrologer. The third marriage, indeed, occurred. It wasn’t “in” the client’s chart. It was “in” the astrologer’s chart, that is, the universe, acting according to universal astrological principles, guaranteed the second astrologer would be right because of her chart, not because of her reasons.

Neither zodiac, however, produces useful research that is statistically significant. At least, very little. How do I know that? Some astrologers--just like people in other careers and avocations--are connected to prominent individuals in the sciences. If they--the astrologers--had important, statistically significant results, astrology would already be an integral part of the sciences. It is not.

Neither tropical nor sidereal astrology has authored an astrology of classes of conditions and events so that other astrologers, duplicating their method, could diagnose with it. Neither has produced an astrology with which any practitioner could, for example, tell parents (or their health representative--we do not want to sponsor illness) their child is prone to schizoprhenia. Prone not because the astrologer predicted it, but because it was an objective possibility for that child. Neither has had its results, its findings, its understanding of the nature of the cosmos and the place of man in it correlated with and used by the exploding sciences of mind, behavior, medicine, criminology, and all the other human sciences.

That is a shame, because astrology has a lot to contribute to all of them.

Sign Corruption
Rulers have an important part to play in astrology, so let’s play with them for a minute. If I remove the actual name of each sign, and in its place put its ruler, we’d have 30° segments which look as follows:

Ignoring for the moment the difference between day and night rulers (footnote 8), we would have 60° ruled by mars, 60° ruled by venus, 60° ruled by mercury, and 30° each ruled by sun, moon, jupiter, saturn, uranus, and neptune. Instead of saying, for instance, “mars is in Taurus,” it could be stated “mars is in venus,” that is, mars is in a venus-ruled sign. “Sun in Gemini” would translate to “sun in mercury.” “Jupiter in Pisces” would come out “jupiter in neptune.” It is a bit awkward, but a better astrology would result from it than one using no, or confused, rulers. So, even for this scheme to work, each 30° of sign would have to be where it should be.

Now that the two zodiacs are 25° apart, one of them--assuming again at least one of them is correct--is in trouble concerning rulers. The 30° segment tropical astrology views as the 30° of Aries, ruled by mars, coincides with 25° (out of 30°) which sidereal astrology views as Piscean, ruled by neptune. 30° of tropical Taurus, ruled by venus, is viewed as 25° of sidereal Aries, ruled by mars. If signs and rulers have meaning and real value in astrology--I think they do--one of these zodiacs is assigning the wrong ruler to most of its signs. Moreover, it is not even getting most of its signs right. Put in a table, the overlap looks as follows:

Currently approximately the last 5 degrees of tropical astrology and the first 5 degrees of sidereal astrology share the same sign. So, they share only five degrees associated with the same constellation and ruler. Some one born in the past 100 years with sun tropically at 27 Taurus, then, would have his sun at 2 Taurus sidereally. The signs are the same, just the degree differs. But what about those other 25°?

Really, should both zodiacs work? How are you feeling about being both a Cancer and a Gemini?

Tropical Astrology and the Results of Sign Corruption
Over the nearly 2000 years since the inception of the tropical zodiac, tropical astrologers--gradually but definitely--began passing sign descriptions from generation to generation as a description. In this way, in time, tropical astrologers stopped thinking of the sign’s ruler as the referent for the sign’s description. By failing to retain the ruler as the referent, each tropical sign became more and more corrupted by descriptions using two different rulers (from the two differing signs their one sign was now covering) . Why? Well, astrologers are observers. In observing individuals, they noticed, for instance, that their Taurean man was stubborn (or bull-headed, from Taurus the bull). They thought about bulls they had seen in bull fights, or in pictures, or even just heard about, so they thought, “well, stubborn, that is a bullish quality.” Mules are stubborn; bulls can be dangerous. Anyway, tropical astrologers added stubbornness--a trait that belongs to Aries (sidereal sign, mars-ruled, afflicted mars quality) to their sign description of Taurus (tropical sign, venus-ruled, venus is appeasing, not stubborn). Repeat that process for their Taurean man who, though usually placid (venus), was to be feared when he finally did get angry (mars). They were using two rulers to describe one sign.

This addition of qualities of rulers not associated with that sign had to happen only several times before sign descriptions were corrupted. Two thousand years--or say, one thousand, when it was half-and-half--allows a lot of time for such variations.

When the difference between zodiacs was small--only 5 or 10 degrees, tropical astrologers were still 90-95% correct in their sign descriptions. That’s pretty good. Besides, planets, houses, and Angle emphasis helped counterbalance the confusion caused by sign corruption. Later, however, as the two zodiacs were split by fifteen degrees and more, they became less correct. They became fifty per cent (or more) incorrect about signs and rulers.

It does not make that much difference that corrupted sign descriptions are used in tropical readings. After all, their sign descriptions are corrupted in the right direction, that is, based on adding in valid non-ruler descriptions. What difference, really, does it make if it is moon in Scorpio or moon in Sagittarius which may sponsor savagery as long as it is one (the non-corrupted for sidereal astrologers) or the other (the corrupted for tropical astrologers)? Sign names are just words. Even if they are different, if their implications are dependable, then whatever name the astrologer uses is of little consequence.

But the consequences of sign corruption do not stop with sign descriptions containing mixed rulers. These mixed rulers are sometimes actually antagonistic, so the description containing them is not only erroneous, it is sometimes absurd. Below are some more examples:

he (the astrologer) has noticed individuals with Cancer suns and moons are writers! I assume in making that statement he is putting emphasis on the alleged Cancerian love of home. Writers often write at home. Hmmm...so, that means love of home equates with being a writer. In fact, those Cancer suns and moons are sidereally (at least 25° of them) in Gemini. Gemini is ruled by mercury, which is correlated with the 3rd house, both correlated with speaking, writing, and communication.

...that Libra is the sign of love and war. Libra is the sign naturally associated with the 7th house, the house representing partnerships like marriage. Perhaps the tropical astrologer thinks, “well, fighting certainly occurs in marriage, so that makes sense--Libra rules love and war.” Libra, however, is ruled by venus. Unafflicted venus demonstrates generosity, affection, magnetism, tenderness, appeasement, and aesthetic (harmony) appreciation. Afflicted, it exhibits traits involving distortion of those qualities, like stinginess, coldness, hard-heartedness, and jealousy. Fighting occurs in all kinds of relationships; Libra should not be made to bear the brunt of it. Of course, jealousy can lead to “war.” War, however, is not carried out by venus, it is carried out by mars. We had some venusian "wars" in the 1960s. They were called love-ins.

But, says the tropical astrologer, look at all those generals with sun in Libra (see footnote 8). Mars in Libra does lead to fighting (mars) in close relationships (Libra). I am not sure all those generals do have their tropical suns in Libra. A (tropical) astrology teacher stated it to be true. If generals really have more suns in Libra than in other signs, might it not be because generals are sidereal Virgos, a mercury-ruled sign? What, you might ask, has mercury to do with war? Well, generals usually come out of academies of higher learning, like West Point. Virgo--and mercury--is involved in the capacity to analyze, to be a tactician. Even if we look at Virgo as the sign correlated with “service,” Virgo fits generals. They may be lords over their men, but they are at the absolute command and service of their president. They are tacticians in war because of their angular mars (or mars-ruled Angle). If it is Angular, they must use it or get used by it. Being interested in fighting and war--a general--is one way to use Angular mars.

Scorpios are very fair-minded (venus) and vindictive (mars). Or, he will say, “when made angry, watch out for Scorpios (who are usually nice guys).” (Notice the similarity between Taurus/Aries and Scorpio/Libra in combining passive, receptive venusian qualities in the same sign with active, assertive mars qualities?) Their tropical Scorpio is mostly a sidereal Libra. Libra is venus-ruled--a peacemaker if not an out-and-out appeaser--hence the fairness attributed to “Scorpio.” Libra (venus), in fact, not only inclines to fairness, that is, balance, it has trouble with true Scorpios (or Leos, or Pisces, or...) for whom fairness is not a main consideration in life. Libras are always equalizing others and not all individuals are obligingly equalized.

Because, for instance, Leo is a fire sign, a fiery temper is often attributed to its natives, that is, those with sun in that sign. “Don’t mess with her, she’s a Leo.” One woman I know--a tropical Leo, sidereal Cancer--fought a lot. But, she had moon opposition mars across the horizon. What she was fighting about was the schooling of her children in a parent-run school. Individuals with unafflicted sidereal sun in Leo are not so fiery as they are dignified. Their dignity is based on their powerful experience of the value of their own identity.

I would like to go on, but cannot for several reasons. First, I seldom hear tropical speech any more. I do not read tropical astrology, but might if I could even find an astrology magazine these days. These two deficiencies have impoverished my inventory of selections on which to comment. Second, most of the tropical astrology articles (from journals) I have read in the past decade have been ones highlighting planets, not signs. Planets have not been corrupted. Third, once past the sign of Scorpio, planets rule one sign only, and furthermore, except for jupiter and Sagittarius, are outer planets. It is trickier seeing sign corruption in signs ruled by outer planets than in those ruled by planets of personality. Based on statements made by tropical astrologers in the past, however, I have a few questions and comments about them:

Citing explorers: Are they explorers because they are Capricorns and--like the goat--need something to pit their physical skills against? Do they require hardship, that is, going against their saturns (Capricorn’s ruler)? Or, are they explorers because they are Sagittarian, ruled by jupiter, and their growth (jupiter, the greater benefic) in life requires they expand somewhere, why not the arctic? Is exploring a 9th house (jupiter-affiliated) or 10th house (saturn-affiliated) matter? Exploring often involves hardship and danger. It always involves leaving behind the mundane. And, do explorers have some other quality mixed in with their special interest in nether regions, like mars/uranus, which sponsors daring? Without both would they otherwise become involved in one of the other 9th-house interests, like law, philosophy or religion?

Is the Capricorn really interested in power, or does he acquire it because he is a better organizer? Is it power, or control, that is Capricornian?. Both? Which is correlated with saturn? What do we know about saturn besides “he” gives us some of life’s hardest (and best-learned) lessons? We know that at saturn, coming into incarnation, life becomes limited, taking on boundaries. It takes on a definite form. So, there is some relationship between Capricorn and form. Well, if one has to have a form, it makes sense that controlling it would be better than being out of control. The same would apply to organizational forms. Controlling them--properly, optimally--would certainly lead to better organizations. That, in turn, could lead to a sense of power. So, Capricorn likely has some relationship to both control and power. Its negative, its mis-use, is over-control in one area to compensate for being out-of-control in another.

Aquarians and Pisceans are equally non-personal and ungraspable to individuals with suns in earlier signs. So, what difference does it make whether they are ruled by uranus or neptune?

I agree with what has been written by others: it is difficult to justify uranus’ individualism with Aquarius’ conformity. Uranus is individualistic, but it is also affiliated with Aquarius and the 11th house--groups and the conformity they often sponsor. Individualism and confromity appear contradictory. What we get, however, when we combine them is oddball (uranus) groups (11th house), that is, special interest groups, which is what almost all groups are. They allow the safety of belonging while sponsoring the daring of differences. They also allow individuals to experience cooperation (for a purpose) and the value of other identities while retaining most of their own. The 11th house--groups--be it Alcoholics Anonymous, bird watchers, astrologers, or UFO enthusiasts--enable that. Even with that, however, the old attribution of both saturn and uranus as rulers of Aquarius has a lot of appeal.

Uranus at its highest sponsors intuition, not psychic phenomenon. So, uranus (but maybe not Aquarius) should be prominent in the charts of inventors, “free-thinkers,” revolutionaries and reactionaries. Neptune sponsors psychic phenomena and mind flexibility. So neptune (and Pisces) should be prominent in the charts of psychics, creative individuals, weird or off-beat people, and psychotics.

I covered some of my observations about Pisces and neptune in the paper about psychics.

This process of the mixing up of signs and rulers occurred in tropical astrology for all the signs. There was nothing wrong with astrologers’ observations. It was their premise--that they were talking about qualities of one sign--which was arguably incorrect.

The above is the case for individual astrologers and individual readings. When, however, it comes to research on groups sharing the same sign or its ruler--writers, for instance--sign corruption makes an impressive difference. It means that even if tropical astrology did research which found, for instance, a lot of people with mercury-influenced Angles and 3rd houses are writers, thinkers, and public speakers, it would fail to find the other indicator of those groups--prominence of Gemini lights. Its Geminis have become Cancers. One or the other, that is, Gemini lights or forefront mercury, and sometimes both, should be prominent in the charts of individuals who think-write-speak for a living or beloved avocation.

The same failed correlation would occur for all the signs and the planets ruling them.

Some Illustrations
It would be useful to illustrate with some partial charts from this method, which reconnects signs and their rulers. In illustrating from this system, do I believe it the only useful system? I believe that about as much as I believe this paper will convince tropical astrologers to (re)turn to sidereal astrology.

First, a few words about this type of example.

In the partial charts shown below, birth planets and their harmonics are inside the circle. Conception planets and their harmonics are outside the circle. Color coding also identifies planets and houses. For an explanation of the whole system, go to “About This System” listed among other papers on the Home Page. For those who do not want to do that, a reminder: this system uses only conjunctions, applying and separating squares, and oppositions. Planets satisfying those relationships with each other are called “in a set together.” Orbs for sets when they include lights is 5°. When they do not include lights, about 2.5°. Birth planets rule birth, not conception houses. Likewise, conception planets rule conception, not birth houses.

I add, traditional astrology achieves with its aspects what this system achieves with harmonics. Harmonics are the more thorough of the two since they pick up relationships not recognized as aspects by traditional astrology. Here is a simple example: C.E.O. Carter once wrote that he suspected that every 10° was an aspect. In the 7th chart it is--every 10° generates a square between the two original planets. In a method like this, in which--after the generation of the harmonics--only 90° relationships are considered, then, Carter’s statement becomes true.

The following show partial charts of astrologers, but a few non-astrologers are included. Emphasis is on displaying Gemini and Virgo lights and/or forefront mercury. Pisces and neptune, sponsors of psychic abilities, and possibly even right-brainedness, are haphazardly represented. Benefics, sponsors of success, are usually omitted. The 7th chart is used because it contains the most social information about the individual. It would have been nice to include everything interesting in each chart, but that would have been far too visually confusing. I did it too often as is.

There are 35 charts. One more comment: birth and conception Angles are shown in all charts independent of their importance in terms of aspects. Some times they are important, and sometimes not. They are included for orientation and easy spotting of their signs and rulers. House cusps are listed just below the chart.

In his 10th chart Arroyo has the same b moon in Capricorn square b venus in Scorpio plus : c10 venus at 29 Aries 27, c10 jupiter at 29 Aries 53, and c10 moon at 26 Aries 35. Once again, none rule Angles, but c10 venus rules c 2nd house. He has b10 venus at 12 Taurus 29 square b10 jupiter at 11 Leo 06, without light. B10 jupiter rules B MC, and b10 venus co-rules b 2nd house.

A partial chart showing the Gemini influence of comedian Robin Williams is in the paper on compulsive talkers.

Doane’s B MC is conjunct moon and neptune--she is perceived a “psychic,” (and probably is) a condition confirmed by her birth sun in Pisces on the cusp of b 3rd house. Jupiter rules B Asc in the conjunction of moon and jupiter in Aquarius.

Her 10th chart contains the following: b10 jupiter at 3 Aquarius 37, c10 venus at 0 Leo 55, and b10 mercury at 5 Leo 05. These are aspecting C Asc at 2 Scorpio 32.

Even though Fagan’s chart was classified “AA,” (from Arthur Blackwell), other times, including one from him, were so different I reluctantly omitted his chart.

Two conditions in his 3rd chart on June 19,1999 when he was struck by a car while walking along the side of the road near his home:(1) pb sun 24 Libra 43, b saturn 24 Cancer 07, pb1 mars 24 Capricorn, and pb1 saturn 24 Capricorn 36. His sun rules his b 3rd house. (2) pc1 mars (ruler of C MC) at 2 Gemini 20, pc1 saturn 3 Sagittarius 00, to b sun (ruler of b 3rd house) at 3 Virgo 23. Transiting saturn was at 18 Aries 25 and NN at 19 Cancer 16, aspecting his C Asc at 17 Cancer 31.

(a) B Asc conjunct b7 neptune in b 3rd house plus

(b) C Asc sun is in a set with mercury/mars/node with mercury ruling C Asc, giving her mars influence to an Angle and a 3rd house (to mercury). Her b sun in Pisces rules her B Asc in c 3rd house.

Although she is the only multiple personality char I have, I believe “multiple” capacity comes from her Gemini influences. C Asc in Gemini is conjunct NN and sun, which co-rules c 3rd house (20 of 27°). It favors (NN) mental (mercury) invention. C7 moon in Gemini rules c 3rd house. Does the NN conjunct pluto in Gemini represent a desire (NN) this incarnation to explore extremes (pluto) of Gemini?

The help she received from a dedicated and capable therapist is represented by her c jupiter on the cusp of b 7th house, and is part of indications she will recover (venus and jupiter on Angles). B3 sun (ruler of B Asc in c 3rd house) conjunct saturn in Libra square saturn/pluto in Capricorn impeded her ability to observe and reason because it gave her some autistic tendencies.

Conclusion
In this paper I have sketched my understanding of the difference between the tropical and sidereal zodiacs, their inception, and, especially, their implications.

In discussing signs and their rulers, I have tried to remind others they have, and should have, a vital, unbroken connection.

In the 35 sample partial charts, I showed that the signs Gemini and Virgo, and their ruler, mercury, are predominant and forefront in the charts of individuals such as writers, editors, publishers, public speakers, some types of comedians, and others involved in communication and analysis--all the purview of mercury. Within those examples it appears that the mercury that rules Virgo has more of a mercury/mars/saturn quality than the one that rules Gemini, which appears more like moon/mercury.

Often, the strong presence of lights in Aquarius, and Aquarian Angles was also shown. I remember once counting them, however, in the 120 charts of astrologers I used to have. They did not occur as often as they seemed to. Nonetheless, some of these examples indicate Aquarian emphasis for astrologers (lights, mercury, Angles, benefics) seems a potential part of their signature. Moreover, Aquarius of old, that is, ruled by both saturn and uranus, appears correlated with indications that if not Aquarius, then light (or mercury)/saturn/uranus influencing 3rds and Angles is part of the astrologer’s signature. Of course, both can occur. And also of course, in cultures without astrologers, they have to be representing some other interest or talent.

Aquarius also has some group implications, but Mankind consists of all kinds of groups for which Aquarius is likely not the signature. Aquarius as the complementary opposite of Leo probably holds more promise for its group meaning.

The development of signatures for any condition is necessarily an ongoing process with an unknown endpoint. An earlier study showed a very high incidence (footnote 9) of mercury/neptune influencing Angles and 3rd houses in the 1st chart of astrologers, which I took tentatively as “right-brainedness,” or at least that capacity if not its predominance. It may be that its presence in 1st or 7th chart is equally valid as part of the astrologer’s signature.

One more comment: Individuals not used to so many planets could easily believe almost anything is possible with these charts. Even now I sometimes experience that. Even now, after so many years, I doubt this method. (It would not be all bad to discover I had been deluded for the past 19 years.) I can make it disappear by pulling out a file especially for the same event, like auto or aviation accidents. Events are often more planet- and ruler- than sign-oriented. It has taken longer to have confidence in signs (including harmonic ones). Conditions--such as being a professional astrologer--are taking the longest of all. The signature for both events and conditions of necessity starts out partial, so they both start out incomplete. Conditions, however, usually include signs as well as planets and ruler influence, and may include more charts than do events. Their signature could be incomplete for years and one would not know it. Only by stumbling upon some one supposed to share a condition who does not does the signature show up as incomplete.

Discussion
Western astrology has accomplished a great deal in the past fifty years. Data collecting has been transformed into an international cooperative effort. Important standards concerning its accuracy have been established. I understand a project to translate no longer extant astrology texts has transpired. Research with more traditional astrology, which I would know nothing about, has likely been ongoing. For me, however, it is the data which is most important. With it, research--including my own--has become possible that was impossible fifty years ago.

This paper, however, is about the co-existence of two zodiacs--roughly Eastern and Western--and the common assertion they “both work.” I have tried to illustrate why that has appeared to be the case but is not in my opinion, which I re-iterate:

In the above context, it makes no sense to announce, following some contest, that tropical astrology won out over sidereal astrology (or vice versa). Neither astrology in their traditional form adequately measures effectiveness of either system.

The difference between the sidereal and solar year was inconvenient and messy. Therefore, in essence, those early tropical astrologers eliminated the sidereal year. In doing so they made certain calculations easier.

Nature, though usually immensely regular and often beautiful in form, is not one hundred per cent regular. Some cycles do not--though it seems they should--fit into other cycles. Another example different from the two “years” is: twelve lunar cycles do not fit neatly into either year.

Ages, and evolution itself perhaps, depend on not-circles, on some things not fitting exactly into some other things. Such irregularities, then, would be foresights. More than foresights, they might not even be irregularities in higher dimensions. So, the solar and sidereal year might differ for good reason. If that is the case, an astrology which simply eliminated the sidereal year likely generated consequences that were not readily apparent.

Footnotes
(1) Some astrologers do primarily planetary astrology. That is, they have de-emphasized signs and houses. Some have even eliminated houses, focusing on planets on Angles. But they are not the majority. Their existence, however, may be one indication of how unreliable some tropical astrologers have found signs.

(2) I have read that more than one sidereal zodiac exists in places like India. Since the constellations do not consist of 30° sections, nothing about zodiacs is entirely surprising, unless it is that ancient people saw fit to define constellations in the first place. Here I am only concerned with what I suppose to be the most-used sidereal zodiac.

(3) If you don’t like “rulers,” think of them as earthly ambassadors for the constellations. My point is that signs (not constellations) have rulers, and signs and rulers yield important astrological information.

(4) Confusing the sign with the constellation with which it shares the same glyph was the first part of that error. The second was reading tropical book descriptions for the previous sign (say, Cancer instead of Leo) when switching from tropical to sidereal astrology. It cannot be meaningfully done.

(5) Since the separation of the two zodiacs occurs at about 50 seconds per year, a little mathematics shows when Fagan-Bradley believed the two zodiacs coincided. The total number of seconds difference between the two zodiacs on January 1, 2002 was 89,149. Using a 12-month year and a 30-day month, 89,149 divided by 50” per year = 1782 years, 11 months, and 23 days. From January 1, 2002, that puts their coincidence at January 9, 219 AD, which gets us fairly close to 221 AD, the date Fagan suggested.

(6) In writing about the zodiacs, I write as if only two--sprung full-blown from the head of some stellar Zeus--existed. It is rarely that simple. The constellations are projections (already an artifact of sorts) based on a certain reality. The zodiacs are out-and-out inventions based on those projections. For one thing, “constellations” are not 30° wide, but signs named after them are. Inventions may be musical, mechanical, psychological, religious, mathematical, or artistic. At the time of their inception, others see them as ridiculous. In time, however, others add to them. Inventions that succeed become commonplace. After they become commonplace, they acquire a history which makes their genesis appear monolithic. Their actual history often shows that is not the case. Their truth was not obvious, and their usefulness did not become apparent overnight. If they do become commonplace, their truth remains just about as unquestioned by the majority as it was when they were considered ridiculous. Their actual history is replete with ascents and plunges, false starts, being favored and ignored.

(7) This attribution of day and night to the planets mercury, venus, and mars, is Fagan’s, who starts his “day” with Libra, not Aries. I start mine with Aries, and prefer the reverse assignment.

(8) Rommel had sun in sidereal Libra. He was known for his fairness toward his men, never asking them to do anything he was not doing. He was hard on them, but no more than on himself. His C Ascendant conjunct mars in Virgo and square mercury (Sag) was excellent for martial (mars) tactical (mercury and Virgo) skills. Mars ruled his MC and 3rd house. So, he had an abiding interest (3rd house) in analyzed (Virgo) action (mars). His c sun in Capricorn furthered his role as commander as well as his structural analysis. Rommel--like boxers, athletes and dancers--had a lot of mars in aspect to saturn within his chart, one indication such individuals live physically arduous lives.

Rommel’s tropical sun in Scorpio conjunct his B MC and south node makes sense for some one known as fearless. Leaving it at that, however, is the same as accepting the statement, “Rommel committed suicide.” He took the cyanide capsule, but only because he had to. In considering Rommel it is also necessary to account for his fame and tactical abilities. His tropical chart makes his Scorpio sun on the MC do all of it.

(9) I used charts of 100 astrologers and harmonic and non-harmonic planets. Results, stated in terms of per cent were: using an orb of no more than 4°, a total of 79% of the astrologers had a mercury/neptune set; using an orb of 2° or less, 70%. Of the latter, 48% had influence through rulership to interior 3rd houses.

Bibliography
Fagan, Cyril, Astrological Origins. St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn Publications, 1971.

Data Acknowledgments

Tracy Abbott (A)
Birth: 12/09/1957, 12:41 p.m. PST, Los Angeles, CA. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. Rodden quotes her by phone, 11/91
Conception: 2/26/1957, 1:13:36 a.m. PST, Los Angeles, CA

Albert Aboucassem (A)
Birth: 7/30/1930, 10:30 p.m. EET, Alexandria, Egypt. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. IBAS 3/58; same in Church of Light file.
Conception: 10/20/1929, 9:12:54p.m. EET, Alexandria, Egypt.

Helio Amorim (A)
Birth: 12/06/1923, 9:50 a.m. BZT, Itapeva, Brazil. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. Marcello Borges quotes him.
Conception: 2/22/1923, 9:18:04 p.m. BZT, Itapeva, Brazil.

Stephen Arroyo (AA)
Birth: 10/06/1946, 5:35 p.m. CST, Kansas City, MO. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. Birth certificate in hand, Steinbrecher.
Conception: 12/24/1945, 11:57:06 p.m. CST, Kansas City, MO. CA

Jane Austen (A)
Birth: 12/16/1775, 11:45 p.m. LMT, Steveston, England. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. Eshelman quotes “Pioneer to Poet, a letter from her father announced birth as “before midnight.”
Conception: 3/5/1775, 3:48:53p.m. LMT, Steveston, England.

Dr. Douglas M. Baker (B)
Birth: 12/31/1922, 1155 p.m. GMT, London, England. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. David Fisher quotes his book, Esoteric Astrology, Part I.
Conception: 3/20/1922, 10:44:31 p.m. GMT, London, England.

Hans Baumgartner (A)
Birth: 6/07/1906, 5:00 p.m. MET, Reichenberg, Germany. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. Taeger Archives, a colleague.
Conception: 8/306/1905, 1:24:52 a.m. MET, Reichenberg, Germany.

Faith Baldwin (A)
Birth: 10/01/1893, 8:00 a.m. EST, New Rochelle, NY. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. Church of Light quotes Blanca Holmes, 1943.
Conception: 12/19/1892, 5:06:30 p.m. EST, New Rochelle, NY.

Elbert Benjamine (A)
Birth: 12/12/1882, 5:55 a.m. LMT, Des Moines, IA. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. Church of Light quotes him. Same in Sabian Symbols.
Conception: 2/28/1882, 7:38:46 p.m. LMT, Des Moines, IA.

Arnold Bennett (AA)
Birth: 5/27/1867, 10:30 a.m. GMT, Hanley, England. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. Paul Wright quotes Reginald Pound, Arnold Bennett, 1952, family bible.
Conception: 8/18/1866, 8:54:32 p.m. GMT, Hanley, England.

Tom Boardman, Jr. (AA)
Birth: 12/20/1930, 9:00 a.m. EST, Bronxville, NY. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. Steinbrecher quotes birth certificate.
Conception: 3/09/1930, 1:25:33 a.m. EST, Bronxville, NY.

Nick Campion (A)
Birth: 3/04/1953, 12:10 a.m. GMT, Bristol, England. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. LMR quotes his letter, 4/1993.
Conception: 5/24/1952, 8:49:52 a.m. GMT, Bristol, England.

Johnny Carson (AA)
Birth: 10/23/1925, 7:15 a.m. CST, Corning, IA. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. .
Conception: 1/10/1925, 2:21:57 a.m. CST, Corning, IA.

C.E.O. Carter (A)
Birth: 1/31/1887, 11:01 p.m. GMT, Parkstone, England. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. Given by him in Symbolic Directions in Medical Astrology.
Conception: 4/22/1886, 12:48:21 a.m. GMT, Parkstone, England.

Paul Clancy (C)
Birth: 6/29/1897, 8:45 a.m. EST, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. LMR quotes his wife, Joanne, time rectified by him.
Conception: 9/20/1896, 6:47:24 a.m. EST, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Geoffrey Dean (AA)
Birth: 12/30/1935, 4:30 p.m. GMT, Etham, England. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. Birth certificate in hand from Charles Harvey.
Conception: 3/19/1935, 2:15:35 p.m. GMT, Etham, England.

Guy De Maupassant (A)
Birth: 8/05/1850, 8:00 a.m. LMT, Dieppe, France. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. Gauquelin 558, Vol. 6.
Conception: 10/25/1849, 11:38:44 p.m. LMT, Dieppe, France.

Doris Chase Doane (AA)
Birth: 4/04/1913, 1:57 a.m. EST, Mansfield, MA. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. LMR quotes her, 1964.
Conception: 6/25/1912, 4:18:44 p.m. EST, Mansfield, MA.

Charles Emerson (A)
Birth: 7/26/1923, 9:19 a.m. CST, Omaha, NE. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. NCGR newsletter quotes him.
Conception: 10/16/1922, 12:04:36 p.m. CST, Omaha, NE. CA

Cyril Fagan ( )
Birth: 7/26/1923, 9:19 a.m. CST, Omaha, NE. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. NCGR newsletter quotes him.
Conception: 10/16/1922, 12:04:36 p.m. CST, Omaha, NE. CA

Ken Gillman (A)
Birth: 6/07/1937, 7:57 a.m. GDT, Leigh-on-Sea, England. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. David Fisher quotes him (from memory) to the Astrological Association.
Conception: 8/29/1936, 4:33:39 p.m. BST, Leigh-on-Sea, England.

Robert Hand (A)
Birth: 12/05/1942, 7:30 p.m. EWT, Plainfield, NJ. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. From him in book, Planets in Transit.
Conception: 2/22/1942, 7:01:57 a.m. EWT, Plainfield, NJ.

Axel Harvey (A)
Birth: 2/06/1940, 2:33 p.m. EST, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. LMR quotes him, 2/1987, in Montreal, rectified by him from 3:00 p.m. in his Baby Book.
Conception: 4/27/1940, 8:04:01 p.m. EST, Montreal, Quebec, Cananda.

Charles Jayne(A)
Birth: 10/09/1911, 10:39 a.m. EST, Jenkintown, PA. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. Church of Light quotes his own personal rectification of his own chart. SS has 10:43 p.m.
Conception: 12/27/1910, 2:55:12 p.m. EST, Jenkintown, PA.

Stephen King (A)
Birth: 9/21/1947, 1:30:10 a.m. EDT, Portland, MN. From Considerations Vol. IX, No. 3, edited by Ken Gillman. Rectified by Gillman from 1:30 a.m.--from him.
Conception: 12/09/1946, 8:14:50 p.m. EST, Portland, MN.

Alan Leo (B)
Birth: 8/07/1860, 5:49 a.m. GMT, Westminster, England. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. Data from his book, Esoteric Astrology.
Conception: 10/28/1859, 7:23:21 p.m. GMT, Westminster, England.

Al Morrison (A)
Birth: 7/08/1916, 12:15 a.m. CST, North Little Rock, AR. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. LMR quotes him. Debbie Kempton-Smith quotes him for 12:17:29 a.m. CST.
Conception: 9/29/1915, 5:17:47 p.m. CST, North Little Rock, AR.

Ira Progoff (A)
Birth: 8/2/1921, 10:00 a.m. EET, New York, NY. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. Dobyns: from him to Jackie Morris.
Conception: 10/23/1920, 5:44:17 a.m. EDT, New York, NY.

Ramanujan (B)
Birth: 12/22/1887, 6:20 p.m. IST, Erode, India. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. LMR quotes Robert Kanigel, The Man Who Knew Infinitiy, page 11, “just after sunset.”
Conception: 3/11/1887, 12:20:16 p.m. IST, Erode, India.

Vivian Robson (A)
Birth: 5/26/1890, 12:04 p.m. GMT, Birmingham, England. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. Fagan quotes Robson’s own chart rectified by him from 12:00 p.m., American Astrology, 11/1963.
Conception: 8/17/1889, 10:34:12 p.m. GMT, Birmingham, England.

Dane Rudhyar (A)
Birth: 3/23/1895, 12:42 a.m. LMT, Paris, France. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. Rectified by him from “midnight to 1:00 a.m.. Leyla Rael quotes him. Also SS #810.
Conception: 6/13/1894, 5:03:40 a.m. LMT, Paris, France.

Lois Rodden (C)
Birth: 5/22/1928, 12:27 a.m. MST, Lang, Canada. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. From LMR, rectified from Mom’s “after midnight.”
Conception: 8/14/1936, 10:59:36 a.m. MST, Lang, Canada.

Chris Costner Sizemore (AA)
Birth: 4/04/1927, 3:00 p.m. EST, Colliers, SC. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. LMR quotes her by letter, 4/3/1978, from her birth certificate.
Conception: 6/26/1926, 5:14:15 a.m. EST, Colliers, SC.

Edwin Steinbrecher (AA)
Birth: 4/04/1930, 10:55 p.m. CST, Chicago, IL. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. LMR quotes him 1983, birth certificate. Rectified by him to 10:54:30 p.m. CST.
Conception: 6/26/1929, 1:36:43 p.m. CST, Chicago, IL.

Batya Stark (A)
Birth: 10/16/1939, 8:55 p.m. MST, Denver, CO. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. LMR quotes her, 1980.
Conception: 1/03/1939, 8:19:21 p.m. MST, Denver, CO.

Nicholas Tesla (B)
Birth: 7/10/1856, 12:00 a.m. LMT, Smiljan, Yugoslavia. From Astrodatabank by Lois Rodden and Mark McDonough. “Stroke of midnight” in biography, The Prodigal Genius, by J.J. O’Neill (1944).
Conception: 10/01/1855, 2:41:37 p.m. LMT, Smiljan, Yugoslavia




About This Method
Chart Rules
Return to Home Page