Dame Astrology
October, 2002

Return to Home Page, Links to More Papers

The Tropical (Western) and Sidereal (Eastern) Zodiacs
A Discussion
by Sandra Weidner
Unless they are astrologers, not many people know that two (at least, I know nothing about the zodiac used by, e.g., the Chinese) “different“ zodiacs are the basis of the two major forms of astrology being practiced in the world today. One, called the sidereal zodiac, is used, in general, in eastern countries, like India. Herein it is referred to as “Eastern” astrology. Hindu or Vedic astrology use the sidereal zodiac. As I understand it, older, “ancient” astrologies--Chaldean, Egyptian--were also sidereal.

The other, called the tropical zodiac, is practiced in the Americas, Europe, Australia, and parts of Africa. Herein it is referred to as “Western” astrology.

They are using the same constellations to locate their signs. The most obvious difference between them today is that the tropical zodiac is about 25° 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, 25° earlier.

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 (assuming houses used are the same).

With both approaches the planets themselves retain the same aspects, that is, their relationship to each other remains the same.

So, if a Western astrologer decided to switch to using the sidereal zodiac, the planets would stay in the same houses retaining their same relationship to each other. They would just change signs. A small percentage of Western astrologers regularly do just that. And thirty-five years ago (as of 2018) I became one of those Western astrologers.

Considering that signs play a prominent part in astrology (see footnote 1, at bottom), this situation deserves more reflection. How did I justify switching to a zodiac which "moves" the planets backwards by about 25 degrees? How did the West end up with this different interpretation of the place of the planets than the East? Is their difference one only of sign, or is more involved? What implications does the co-existence of two different zodiacal approaches have on astrology as a whole? Is astrology so flexible that both are equally valid?

The contemporary, official position of the astrology of the West is just that--both are equally valid. At least, that is what you will see in print.

Are you so flexible you can be a Cancer in the West and a Gemini in the East?

And if astrology is that flexible, how valid can it be?

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, using the zodiac of the East. 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 of its constellations differently from ours, giving it, in that sense, a different zodiac. But tropical and sidereal use the same constellations, they just approach them 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 way its planetary ruler functions astrologically. So, for instance, we in the West state that venus "rules" the sign Taurus. Both, in turn, are correlated with the constellation from which the sign took its origin (footnote 3). Established qualities of each ruling planet were fundamentally involved in generating descriptions of the signs they ruled. So, again for instance, astrology has long known that mercury forefront--that is, on or ruling an Angle--often 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. Of course, there have been some radical differences because East and West approach their astrology differently based on cultural differences. But here we want to ignore that and concentrate only on the fact that their two adjacent signs share the same 25° which have different rulers. And perhaps I am incorrect about Eastern practices, but in the West, when a tropical astrologer tries to examine sidereal astrology, he continues without compunction to apply tropical descriptions to his sidereal signs. Then he concludes they "don't work." That is what we are trying to look at here.

Signs have rulers. And, unless astrologers are willing to say signs do not have rulers, when the second, tropical zodiac was created--especially as separation between same signs of each zodiac became greater--it was through signs and rulers that one of the two forms of astrology suffered the consequences.

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 educated about their subject. Preferring what they started with does not mean they have to be biased. It just raises the suspicion they might be.

And experience has taught me that Western tropical astrologers tend to dismiss outright as irrelevant discussions comparing the two zodiacs. Therefore seeing and learning is constantly being finessed in favor of what already is, tradition. Nothing moves. Examination of the fundamentals of astrology such as signs, with multiple examples, is not irrelevant. It is highly instructive.

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 forty-five years, however, has been both intensive and extensive, and has yielded impressive results. For the last thirty-five 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 practical differences.

I became interested in sidereal astrology after some one loaned me his collection of Cyril Fagan’s sidereal articles, written over a period of twenty-some years, 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 of 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. And here I have to mention, without making it the theme of this paper, that the "chart" I work with results from combining sidereal birth, conception and their harmonics. It thoroughly re-establishes that lost correlation. But discussing just tropical vs. sidereal birth chart is a sufficient beginning.

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 these 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?

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 (50”), 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)

To put the 50 second (50”) difference in perspective, we need to know that each degree is comprised of 60 minutes (60’) and that each minute is comprised of 60 seconds (60”). So every degree is made up of 60 minutes x 60 seconds = 3600 seconds. 50 seconds is 50/3600 of a degree, or 0.01388 of a degree (about 1% ). So, the rate of change between the two zodiacs from the inception of the tropical zodiac when they were the same, has been about 0.01388 degrees per year.

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 in the West our calendars are not linked to the sidereal year; they are adjusted to the solar one. By linking our calendar to the solar year, our first days of spring and autumn occur nearly the same day annually “forever.” So 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.” Of course, people using the tropical zodiac should not speak in terms of Ages since their zodiac eliminated the precession that creates them. But they do.

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. 0° Aries is an easy point for comparison. Sidereal Aries 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 of dates for when 0° Aries occurred (or will occur) in each zodiac:

SiderealApril 16April 14April 10April 9March 29March 28March 25
TropicalMarch 20March 20 March 20March 20March 11March 12March 14

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.

2015: A fellow siderealist sent this link which explains the above jump in time: The Julian and Gregorian Calendars. How interesting and funny! Here, too, is the link to her site: Amber.

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 have 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 his reasons for the interpretations which, over time, led to his successful career as an astrologer.

This little fact, that it is our astrology which ultimately sponsors our success, does not just apply to astrologers. It applies to every one. But it is not possible to know that is true until you have an astrological method which "exposes" that fact. This one does, without exception, and there are many examples in papers throughout this site. Traditional astrology--birth charts using either Eastern or Western zodiacs--does not. The conception chart has to be added to the birth (see Method and Home Page, links at bottom.)

One more fact about the fourth “type” of astrologer. He exists in both systems, sidereal and tropical. Indeed, his type is represented in all categories of fortune-telling (as well as all areas of success).

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 at least hoping to arrive at measuring classes of conditions and events such that they produce 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, most 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 this age sponsoring stress on political correctness, they say, “Both zodiacs work.” And for them that is the end of the matter.

Each tradition has gifted astrologers. Each has brilliant ones. Both have produced all four types of astrologers (probably in fairly equal representation relative to cultural acceptance) with varying degrees of success (also probably in fairly equal percentages), so how can either of 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.

All astrologers’ results--individual readings and the success or failure which follows from them--are, in fact, tainted by their own charts. Think about it. If astrology "works" (and it does, but you have to find that out for yourself), then astrologers themselves cannot be an exception to the rule. So, whatever produces success (or lack of it) in any other field--assuming there are specific significators for same (there are)--must also produce it for each astrologer. Therefore, individual results from both sides are exquisite examples of the observer (the astrologer’s own chart) being an unnoticed part of the experiment, that is, influencing his results. In fact, if the astrologer’s chart contains the proper signature for success, he can be using any number of differing, contradictory, and even senseless astrological “principles” on which he bases his predictions, and he will still be successful. Our corner of the universe is set up always to honor the astrology of success.

A simple story will have to serve as my minor example of this phenomenon. Astrologers rarely comment on other astrologer's results in print. Several years ago one successful astrologer stated in print she could not see the third marriage of a media celebrity foreseen in the celebrity’s chart by a second, also successful, astrologer. Using astrological principles, the former simply could not figure out how the latter had been successful in predicting that third marriage. Well, the third marriage, indeed, occurred. It wasn’t “in” the client’s chart in terms of sound astrological significators. (By sound I mean that they would be such that almost all astrologers would agree that when they occur they imply a marriage or close relationship.) The astrologer who was successful in predicting the marriage was successful not because of the soundness of her astrology, but because of the “soundness” of the significators in her chart for her success as an astrologer. Whatever her reasoning, she was bound to come up with the right prediction (as long as her own chart was not temporarily afflicted at the time). One way to put this is that her astrology represents a "union card" from the universe for just such success.

This has nothing to do with work. Throughout history both successful and unsuccessful individuals have been known to work hard all their lives. In general, success also involves many more social obligations ("work") than does failure, so it is silly to take a position that any one is successful only because of his astrology.

Using only the birth chart and tropical astrology, now deceased French astrologer Michel Gauquelin did a study looking for correlation of people's profession with planets "on"--I believe only--the Midheaven. (I have not actually read his published results, but seen references to them in astrology articles). His results were unprecedented, but they hardly made a dent in astrology's potential. Neither zodiac has produced useful research that is statistically significant. At least, very little. How do I know that? Just like people in other careers and avocations, some astrologers are connected to prominent individuals in the sciences. Or actually are prominent scientists. If the astrologers had important, statistically significant results, astrology would 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 schizophrenia. 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.

To go any further in our understanding of the difference between tropical and sidereal zodiacs, we need to take a more comprehensive and practical look at signs and their rulers, especially since ruler descriptions are correlated with sign descriptions.

Corruption of the Signs
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:

Remove Sign NamedReplace with Ruler for Sign
AriesNight (footnote 7) Mars
TaurusNight Venus
GeminiNight Mercury
VirgoDay Mercury
LibraDay Venus
ScorpioDay Mars*
*Some astrologers consider pluto rules Scorpio. Perhaps both mars and pluto do.

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. But 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:

30° TropicalRuled By=25° SiderealRuled By

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°?

Stated first in terms of the 5° they do share, of the 360 degrees of the zodiac, comprised of twelve 30-degree signs, tropical and sidereal astrology assign the same ruler to 5° (in each sign that still coincides) x12 (signs) = 60°. That is 1/6 of the entire 360° wheel! What about those 25° they don’t share? They disagree over rulers for the other 5/6 (83%) of the 360 positions of the zodiac, or 300°!

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 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. My first and only tropical astrology teacher (Charles Jayne) said that was the case. If generals really have more suns in Libra than in other signs, might it not be because those general's suns are sidereally in Virgo, 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 scrappy (afflicted fire sign) 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 ruling 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 (tropically) 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 (sidereally) 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, which is a Sagittarian, 9th house matter. And, fair question do explorers have some other quality mixed in with their special interest in nether regions. I think so, like forefront mars/uranus, the planetary combination which sponsors courage and 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 just interested in power, or is his power a by-product of something else? 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, locating one uniquely in time and space and particularity. 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 it being out of control. The same would apply to organizations. Controlling them--properly, optimally--would certainly lead to better outcomes. And better experiences. Those, in turn, could lead to a sense of power. So, Capricorn likely has some relationship to both control and power. But Capricorn's negative potential (the control freak) comes from its less than optimal use. It comes from emphasis on over-control, usually to compensate for being out-of-control in some other area of life.
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 (also tropical astrologers): it is difficult to justify uranus’ individualism with Aquarius’ conformity. Aquarius is naturally associated with the 11th house of groups. While some groups may subscribe to far-out ideas, usually the members within them are highly conforming to their group's principle ideas. Uranus is individualistic, but it is seen as the ruler of Aquarius. Individualism and conformity 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 more appeal than just uranus.
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, and it is. Neptune sponsors psychic phenomena, fantasy, and mind flexibility. So neptune (and Pisces) should be prominent in the charts of psychics, movie stars, creative individuals, weird or off-beat people, and psychotics. And it is.
I covered some of my observations about Pisces and neptune in the paper about psychics. Here is a link to that paper: Paper on 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.

And, unfortunately, because both zodiacs produce the whole gradient from brilliant, very successful astrologers to those who are merely aspiring to be astrologers, both sides have acquired an ingrained, nearly unconscious belief that the traditional chart--sidereal or tropical, birth only, without harmonics--should be able to produce the science of astrology. For them, from generation to generation it has been a matter of finding the "right" parameters to measure the trait or event in question. Somehow they have never really arrived at questioning the very tool--the standard tropical or sidereal chart--they have been working with.

Some Illustrations
It would be useful to illustrate with some partial charts from this method which reconnects signs and their rulers. Of course this is not the only useful astrological approach. Astrology is a very big discipline, with incredibly creative practitioners. Right now, however, we are exploring the virtues of this particular method and that little thing called "reproducible results." So, the examples...

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 this whole approach, go to “About This Method,” link just below. Empirically-derived rules for reading those same charts also has a link below. For those who do not want to read them, there is this reminder: this method 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, 2°. Birth planets and their harmonics rule only birth houses. Likewise, conception planets and their harmonics rule only conception houses.

The following links expand on the principles and procedures of this method: About This Method, and Empirically-derived Rules for Reading Charts. And, of course, the Home Page contains the discussion outlining the suitability for research of this method. Here is that link: Home Page.

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: astrologer C.E.O. Carter once wrote that he suspected that every 10° was an aspect. In the 7th chart (using the 9th harmonic) it is. With the 9th harmonic, a difference of 10° between two (non-harmonic) planets generates a square with their harmonics. The next 10° (20°) generates an opposition (two squares added). The next 10° (30°), the other side of the square, 270°. And then it starts all over again, always generating squares. In a method like this, in which only 90° (or its multiples) relationships of planets to each other are considered, Carter’s statement becomes true--in the 7th chart.

Here is another, smaller example using a less regular aspect from traditional tropical astrology. Using either tropical or sidereal astrology, I have a semi-quintile (36°) between birth sun and neptune. The 10th harmonic (used to generate the 8th chart), yields their conjunction. The conjunction is recognized as valid by this method; the semi-quintile is not. So this method does "recognize" a semi-quintile, but only in the 8th chart.

I wouldn't wax prolific over sun conjunct neptune inside a chart unless it was on or ruled an Angle. But if some one's astrology started with (non-harmonic) venus and jupiter in a (close) semi-quintile aspect, their harmonics would be conjunct. If that conjunction also fell on an Angle (MC or Asc), it would make a powerful statement for that individual of good fortune (conjunction of the greater and lesser benefics) for matters related to the 8th chart.

We have come to the examples. 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. Mercury is forefront either when on an Angle, or when lighted and with a planet that rules an Angle. We are also interested in whether or not these influence 3rd houses, either through actual rulers, or through mercury in its affiliation with the 3rd house. Part of the signature, for instance, for a poet, is a set in the 7th chart which includes light/mercury/venus which must influence an Angle and a 3rd house. To influence an Angle, the planet can either be on an Angle, or in the same set (aspect) with a light and influencing an Angle through a ruler. Except for the sun, moon, and nodes, and mercury when it rules an Angle, planets not lighted and not on Angles fall into the background of a chart. "Background" implies little expression of that planet until it is brought forefront by progressions. When a progressed Angle hits that planet, it "lights it up" and brings it into expression. Lights themselves express regardless of whether or not they are on Angles or even influencing Angles.

Also below, Pisces and neptune, sponsors of psychic abilities, are haphazardly represented. (Many astrologers have psychic abilities, we are just not tallying them here.) Benefics, sponsors of success, are usually omitted. The 7th chart is used because, along with the 10th chart, 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 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 to the point being made, and sometimes not. They are included for orientation and easy spotting of their signs and rulers. House cusps are listed just below each chart.

Tracy Abbott
Astrologer and Writer
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--2Lib, c12--26Lib, c2--20Sag, c3--26Cap b11--29Sag, b12--27Cap, b2--15Ari, b3--13Tau
Comments: Abbott has moon conjunct NN and both harmonic suns in Gemini. (Not shown:B7 mercury, at 7 Sagittarius 11, aspects B MC and B Asc. C mercury at 25 Capricorn 55 conjunct c7 uranus, closely squares harmonic saturn and neptune in Aries, and closely squares b mars in Libra, with c mercury ruling C MC and c7 saturn ruling c 3rd.) The sun/venus/jupiter conjunction in Aquarius in c 3rd/b 12th houses is interesting. It is not that I think lights in Aquarius represent astrology--they might have more to do with groups (11th), or humanitarian interest (Aquarius), or free-thinking (uranus). Their occurrence in key positions in astrologer’s charts makes them worthy of reflection, especially if we consider Aquarius co-ruled by saturn and uranus, one of the other conditions seen often in astrologers’ charts. Abbott has both.

Albert Aboucassem
Astrologer, Writer, and Lecturer
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--26Pis, c12--4Tau, c2--0Can, c3--24Can b11--15Cap, b12--17Aqu, b2--2Tau, b3--27Tau
Comments: c7 mercury in his moon/mercury/pluto conjunction in Virgo (square B MC) rules C Asc in b 3rd house Note there are two lights there because c mercury, as ruler of C Asc, also acts like a light. Lights energize sets. More lights means more energized.

Helio Amorim
Astrologer, Teacher, Author
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--19Can, c12--21Leo, c2--2Sco, c3--28Sco b11--21Sco, b12--23Sag, b2--16Aqu, b3--14Pis
Comments:C mercury in the set b7moon/B MC/b7 mars/c7 moon rules C Angles (and therefore also acts like a light). C7 mercury is conjunct NN in Leo and also rules C Angles. His c sun is at 9 Aquarius 42 conjunct b SN.

Stephen Arroyo
Astrologer, Possibly Best-Selling Astrology Author of all Time
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--8Can, c12--8Leo, c2--1Lib, c3--1Sco b11--2Cap, b12--0Aqu, b2--22Arim b3--18Tau
Comments: B Asc is conjunct mercury. C MC in Gemini is conjunct NN in Gemini. C mercury in Scorpio is conjunct SN and rules C Angles (and also a light), but especially C MC in b 3rd house. C7 mercury conjunct moon rules C Angles. These all show emphasis on communicating. The two b moons conjunct jupiter in Capricorn and square b venus do not rule an Angle, but b venus rules b 3rd house and co-rules b 2nd (18 of 26°). In this set I failed to show b7 NN at 28 Libra 24 and c7 venus at 29 Cancer 35. The latter rules c 2nd house.

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. All of the venus/jupiter sets are either about success, or they are based on the assumption that in order to be "best-selling," one must have the astrology that is favorable for making money, which demands a correlation of the benefics venus and jupiter and the 2nd house. They are strongest if they influence an Angle. Arroyo's do not, but he has a number of them. They become angular through various progressions and returns.

Jane Austen
One of the First Published Women
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--0Gem, c12--5Can, c2--23Leo, c3--18 Vir b11--7Can, b12--8 Leo, b2--26Vir, b3--25Lib
Comments: b7 mercury, a light, in Pisces (ruler of B Angles) is conjunct c mercury (ruler of c 3rd house) in Pisces. C7 mercury in Aquarius conjunct SN square b mercury--same influences. NN in Gemini.

Dr. Douglas M. Baker
Astrologer and Prolific Writer of Books Based on Alice Bailey
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--14Vir, c12--7Lib, c2--25Sco, c3--3Cap b11--20Can, b12--19Leo, b2--7Lib, b3--7Sco
Comments: b7 mercury, a light, in that out-of-sign conjunction of mercury/mercury/mars/neptune/NN rules B Angles. B moon conjunction SN and also part of that set, co-rules b 10th house (20 of 36°). C mercury is in c 3rd house in Aquarius.

Hans Baumgartner
Astrologer, Editor, Author, Publisher
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--14Ari, c12--27Tau, c2--18Can, c3--8Leo b11--7Vir, b12--1Lib, b2--18Sco, b3--25Sag
Comments: The set including sun/mercury/jupiter in Taurus: b mercury (a light) rules B MC and b jupiter rules b 3rd house. The set in Leo in b10th/c3rd includes sun/mercury/mercury/mars/saturn/jupiter, where b7 saturn co-rules b 3rd house (30 of 40°) and c sun rules c 3rd house. Note b7 moon in Virgo also in 3rd/10th.

Faith Baldwin
First Novel Age 6; Novels, Serials, Short Stories, Radio & Movie Scripts
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--28Pis, c12--8Tau, c2--4Can, c3--26Can b11--19Leo, b12--17Vir, b2--8Sco, b3--11Sag
Comments: her b moon in Gemini is conjunct SN opposite mercury conjunct NN, with b moon ruling B MC. In her Scorpio set, c mercury (a light) rules C Asc, c neptune co-rules c 10th (28 of 36°), and b7 saturn co-rules b 3rd (16 of 35°). She has b7 NN in Gemini, and a 3rd/10th house overlap.

Elbert Benjamine
Author “Brotherhood of Light” Books
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--14Can, c12--14Leo, c2--6Lib, c3--6Sco b11--26Vir, b12--20Lib, b2--11Sag, b3--19Cap
Comments: B7 mercury is in Gemini conjunct MC/mars/pluto. C mercury (in b 3rd in Aquarius and also a light) rules C Angles. C7 mercury (a light) in Pisces conjunct jupiter also rules C Angles. B sun in his Scorpio conjunction with mercury and mars rules B MC in c 12th house. He has an 8th/10th house overlap.

Arnold Bennett
Novelist, Journalist, Screenwriter
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--3Cap, c12--1Aqu, c2--7Tau, c3--28Tau b11--29Tau, b12--5Can, b2--21Leo, b3--16Vir
Comments: B mercury is part of the set in Leo (conjunct B Asc) in c 6th house and includes the Scorpio planets and the ones in Taurus--two mercuries and two moons. B7 mercury is square b7 nodes. C mercury co-rules c 3rd house (15 of 17°). Leo part--drama.

Tom Boardman, Jr.
Editor, Publisher, Anthologist
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--13Lib, c12--5Sco, c2--30Sag, c3--10Aqu b11--16Sco, b12--6Sag, b2--14Aqu, b3--24Pis
Comments: C moon is in Gemini. C MC opposes c7 mercury conjunct c uranus, ruler of c 3rd house. B7 mercury in Pisces is in a set with b moon, c moon, c7 sun and b7 jupiter, with jupiter ruling B Asc.

Nick Campion
Astrologer, Author, Elected President of British Astrological Association, 1994
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--28Ari, c12--9Gem, c2--28Can, c3--19Leo b11--16Vir, b12--9Lib, b2--27Sco, b3--6Cap
Comments: B MC is opposed by a conjunction involving sun, c7 mercury, and jupiter in Aquarius. (Not shown: b mercury in Pisces is in a set with moon and mars. C mercury, conjunct mars and jupiter in Aries, co-rules c 3rd house (19 of 30°). C7 mercury co-rules c 3rd house (19 of 30°). B and c7 moons are both in Virgo.

Johnny Carson
Comedian, 30-Year Host of the “Tonight Show”
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--27Leo, c12--24Vir, c2--15Sco, c3--18Sag b11--22Leo, b12--20Vir, b2--11Sco, b3--14Sag
Comments: C moon, ruler of C MC, is in Gemini conjunct SN/mercury in Gemini. C7 moon, also ruler of C MC, is in Libra conjunct C Asc/mercury/saturn/uranus. B7 saturn in that co-rules b 3rd house (19 of 35°). C venus, ruler of C Asc, is in a set with two mercuries. B moon, ruler of B MC is conjunct jupiter. B7 moon, also ruler of B MC, is in a set with venus/node/neptune. His harmonic suns are in Pisces--likely sponsors of some of his marvelous goofiness.

A partial chart showing the Gemini influence in the 7th chart of comedian Robin Williams is in the paper on compulsive talkers.

C.E.O. Carter
Astrologer, Writer
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--9Sco, c12--27Sco, c2--4Aqu, c3--20Pis b11--4Leo, b12--2Vir, b2--20Lib, b3--22Sco
Comments: B7 mercury (a light) which is conjunct saturn and uranus, is ruler of B Angles. Also in that set are b7 moon in Sagittarius, and the conjunction of jupiter and saturn in Gemini, with jupiter ruling C Asc in b 3rd house.

Paul Clancy
Publisher, Chief Editor, “American Astrology”
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--17Can, c12--17Leo, c2--8Lib, c3--9Sco b11--0Gem, b12--3Can, b2--24Leo, b3--21Vir
Comments:Clancy has 3 suns and one moon in Gemini conjunct his C MC. His c sun is in Virgo. B7 mercury is conjunct neptune in Capricorn, with mercury ruling b 3rd house. B Asc includes a set comprised of nodes/c7 mercury/venus/mars/saturn/uranus, and maybe jupiter. C7 mercury (a light) rules C Angles. B venus co-rules b 3rd house (24 of 33°).

Geoffrey Dean
Astrologer, Sci-Fi Writer, Analytic Chemist
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--18Tau, c12--25Gem, c2--12Leo, c3--6Vir b11--27Pis, b12--13Tau, b2--8Can, b3--26Can
Comments: Dean wrote Recent Advances in Natal Astrology: A Critical Review 1900-1976., but I included his chart because of his career as an analytic chemist. His c mars, ruler of C MC, is in Virgo in c 3rd house. C7 mars, also ruler of C MC, is in Capricorn. B Asc is in a set also involving NN in Gemini/mercury in Pisces/uranus. I thought the set in Aries conjunct C MC representative of, among other things, the data comment he is a “personable and charming speaker” (Angular moon/mercury/venus).

Guy De Maupassant
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--17Tau, c12--24Gem, c2--12Leo, c3--6Vir b11--29Gem, b12--30Can, b2--18Vir, b3--17Lib
Comments: B7 moon is in Gemini conjunct neptune. B moon is in Gemini conjunct b7 mercury and c mars. All of these are in b 10th house, with c mars ruling C MC. C MC is opposed by sun conjunct mercury, mercury ruling c 3rd house. C Asc is conjunct mercury and venus and square neptune. C7 mercury is conjunct uranus, and rules c 3rd house.

Doris Chase Doane
Astrologer, School Founder & Teacher, Much-Published Author
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--18Vir, c12--13Lib, c2--4Sag, c3--10Cap font color=blue>b11--16Sco, b12--6Sag, b2--15Aqu, b3--25Pis
Comments: C sun is in Gemini conjunct venus and square node/mercury/jupiter (comprising a golden benefic), with c sun ruling C MC and c7 jupiter ruling c 2nd house. C mercury in Gemini is in a set with b sun/c7 saturn in Gemini, with saturn ruling c 3rd house. Not shown: C Asc is in a set including sun/mercury/mars/saturn, with saturn ruling c 3rd house. Mercury aspected by mars and saturn--as shows up in the charts of many editors--appears to impel the individual to mental and verbal work.

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.

Charles Emerson
Founding Father NCGR; Editor, Astrologer
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--23Lib, c12--14Sco, c2--12Cap, c3--24Aqu b11--28Gem, b12--29Can, b2--21Vir, b3--21Lib
Comments: C Asc is in a set with b7 mercury/uranus/neptune (and progressed node). C MC is in a set with sun/c mercury/venus/venus/mars/uranus, in which both venuses rule b 3rd, c7 uranus rules c 3rd, and c mercury rules C MC and c 7th. He has a SN/b mercury/mars conjunction in Cancer square jupiter/saturn. In his set comprised of SN/moon/uranus conjunct in Aquarius, c uranus rules c 3rd.

Cyril Fagan
Astrologer, Author, Egyptologist

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.

Ken Gillman
Astrologer, Author, Statistician, Editor of Considerations
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--2Sco, c12--19Sco, c2--21Cap, c3--8Pis b11--15Ari, b12--29Tau, b2--19Can, b3--9Leo
Comments: He has c7 moon in Gemini conjunct SN in a set with B MC/c mercury/saturn/pluto. Its presence in c 7th house likely means as much about his contact with others--that is, it describes them--as it does about himself. The set with both b moons/b mercury/mars/saturn has b moons ruling B Asc, and mercury’s presence gives it a 3rd house quality. C7 neptune is in a set with sun/Nodes/jupiter, in which c7 neptune rules c 3rd and b sun rules b 3. He has a 3rd/10th house overlap.

Robert Hand
Astrologer, Author
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--2Sag, c12--24Sag, c2--10Pis, c3--16Ari b11--3Ari, b12--13Tau, b2--8Can, b3--30Can
Comments: The set with C Asc includes moon/c mercury/mars/saturn, and both harmonic suns. C mars rules c 3rd, c saturn rules C Asc, and b sun co-rules b 3rd (28 of 29°). B mercury is in the set with venus and uranus, with b mercury (a light) ruling B Asc in Gemini. His other ruler of B Asc, b7 mercury at 18 Taurus 02 is in a set with c7 moon at 15 Taurus 34 and c jupiter at 17 Taurus 56. B saturn, at 14 Taurus 34, is also part of this set, but it is progressing away from his moon. These oppose his b sun (4th ruler) at 19 Scorpio 16 which is square c SN at 19 Aquarius 32. The Taurus planets are in c 4th house.

Axel Harvey
Astrologer, Past Co-editor of Considereations
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--13Vir, c12--8Lib, c2--27Sco, c3--4Cap b11--8Ari, b12--20Tau, b2--13Can, b3--4Leo
Comments: B Asc is in Gemini conjunct b7 moon in Gemini. His b mercury (a light), ruler of B Asc, in Capricorn is in a set with c moon and b uranus. His set with c7 mercury in Pisces includes mars/saturn/SN and progressed neptune, with c saturn ruling c 3rd house. He has an interesting conjunction of B MC with venus conjunct jupiter conjunct uranus in Aquarius--all opposite neptune.

Charles Jayne
Astrologer, Innovator, Author
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--17Can, c12--17Leo, c2--8Lib, c3--9Sco b11--0Gem, b12--3Can, b2--24Leo, b3--21Vir
Comments: c mercury is in a set with uranus, mars, and neptune, with uranus co-ruling b 3rd (30 of 36°) and mars ruling B Asc. He has a 3rd/10th house overlap.

Stephen King
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--12Tau, c12--18Gem, c2--8Leo, c3--3Vir b11--26Ari, b12--4Gem, b2--25Can, b3--18Leo
Comments: C moon in Gemini rules C Asc. His harmonic suns are in Gemini. His c sun is in Virgo. His b7 mercury, co-ruler of b 3rd (19 of 31°) is conjunct SN. C mercury, ruler of c 3rd, is in conjunction with SN/mars in Scorpio, with mars co-ruling b 10th (26of 45°). His c7 mercury, ruler of c 3rd, is in a set with sun and moon in Scorpio, with moon ruling B Asc.

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 (near environment). (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.

Alan Leo
Astrologer, Author
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--4Pis, c12--21Ari, c2--24Gem, c3--11Can b11--2Gem, b12--7Can, b2--24Leo, b3--19Vir
Comments:B MC is in a set including node/node/b mercury/c mercury/venus in which b mercury rules b 3rd and c mercury ( a light) rules C Asc in Gemini. C7 moon is in a set with mercury/mars in which c7 moon rules c 3rd, b7 mars rules B MC, and b7 mercury rules b 3rd. He has a conjunction of moon/jupiter/neptune in Scorpio, with moon ruling c 3rd house.

Al Morrison
Astrologer, Author, Researcher
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--24Sag, c12--21Cap, c2--9Ari, c3--8Tau b11--17Cap, b12--19Aqu, b2--6Tau, b3--0Gem
Comments: B sun is conjunct saturn in Gemini and opposite B MC. C MC is opposite b mercury in Gemini. His b7 mercury in Aquarius rules b 3rd. In his set with c mercury is node/mars/jupiter/neptune in which jupiter rules B MC and mars rules B Asc. Moon and saturn in Virgo can be added to the latter, with moon conjunct venus in Virgo, ruler of c 3rd house. C Asc is conjunct jupiter in Aquarius.

Ira Progoff
Jungian Psychologist Specializing in Journal System
Harmonic Chart for His 7th House
Placidus: c11--22Can, c12--22Leo, c2--14Lib, c3--15 Sco b11--7Can, b12--17Leo, b2--30Vir, b3--30Lib
Comments: Progoff has c7 moon in Gemini conjunct B MC/venus and square B Asc. B mercury (a light) is in Gemini conjunct b moon--mercury rules B Angles. B7 mercury in Libra conjunct sun square mars/nodes: mercury rules B Angles and mars co-rules b 3rd house (30 of 34°). His two c mercuries (both lights) in Libra are conjunct mars, and rule C Angles, while mars rules c 3rd. Jungian (?=neptunian?): both harmonic suns are in Pisces (conjunct SN) and b sun is conjunct neptune.

Mathematical Genius
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--28Pis, c12--1Tau, c2--27Gem, c3--25Can b11--11Ari, b12--13Tau, b2--8Can, b3--7Leo
Comments: LMR came up with this time from the given of “just after sunset.” What I mainly wanted to show in his chart is his set with both b mercuries which includes jupiter/jupiter/neptune/saturn/saturn in which the mercuries (which are acting like lights) rule B Asc in Gemini and his c mercury (also a light), ruler of B Asc, is conjunct SN in Pisces and square B Asc. In an earlier paper I wrote mathematical ability appears to be correlated (among other things so far) with mercury in Capricorn--to which, perhaps, mercury/saturn can be added. His mercury in Pisces probably helped him mathematically but not practically since it is intuitive. Einstein had the conjunction of mercury to saturn in Pisces, a main reason he appeared so dumb early in life. It takes a while to grow into the dimensions (or dimensionlessness) represented by mercury in Pisces when the individual is not, in fact, mentally deficient.

Vivian Robson
Astrologer, Mathematician, Curator
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--2Aqu, c12--12Pis, c2--3Gem, c3--20Gem b11--20Gem, b12--22Can, b2--9Vir, b3--7Lib
Comments:B MC and C Asc (conjunct) are in a set with c mercury/neptune/pluto/moon/saturn/node. In it c mercury rules c 3rd and c7 saturn rules C MC. B Asc is in a set with sun/b mercury/c7 mercury in which c7 mercury rules c 3rd and b mercury co-rules b 10th (20 of 39°). C MC is in a set with moon/b7 mercury in which mercury co-rules b 10th house (20 of 39°).

Lois Rodden
Astrologer, Author, International Data Collector and Disburser
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--16Leo, c12--13Vir, c2--0Sco, c3--4Sag b11--3Sag, b12--22Sag, b2--18Pis, b3--23Ari
Comments: Both b moons are in Gemini, one conjunct pluto. C MC is conjunct c mercury. C7 NN in Aquarius conjunct uranus is in a set with b saturn and b mercury, with b saturn ruling B Asc. C Asc is in a set with sun/b7 mercury/jupiter. C moon in Aquarius rules C MC. Sidereal placements throw her b sun into Taurus. Tropically it was in Gemini and likely considered sponsor of her involvement in data collecting, writing, and a lot of communication with others.

Dane Rudhyar
Astrologer, Author
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--16Pis, c12--2Tau, c2--0Can, c3--19Can b11--14Lib, b12--4Sco, b2--28Sag, b3--12Aqu
Comments: C MC in Aquarius is conjunct moon/moon/b mercury and square b7 mercury and opposition c7 mercury, with c7 mercury (a light) ruling C Asc and c moon ruling c 3rd house. C7 moon is in an out-of-sign conjunction with saturn and uranus in b 10th, with c moon ruler c 3rd and b7 uranus ruling b 3rd.

Chris Costner Sizemore
Recovered Multiple Personality
Harmonic Chart for the 3rd House
Placidus: c11--25Pis, c12--3Tau, c2--30Gem, c3--23Can b11--2Gem, b12--4Can, b2--27Leo, b3--26Vir
Comments: her (3rd chart part of her) schizophrenia is shown by

(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 hers is the only multiple personality chart I have, I believe her “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.

Edwin Steinbrecher
Astrologer, Metaphysician, Editor & Contributor, Aquarian Changes
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--8Leo, c12--7Vir, c2--28Lib, c3--)Sag b11--4Lib, b12--26Lib, b2--19Sag, b3--28Cap
Comments: B moon and c sun are in Gemini. B7 mercury (a light), also in Gemini, rules B MC. Both c moons are in Aquarius in b 3rd house and ruling C MC. Looking at this, I became more interested in his Pisces/3rd/9th influences (metaphysician): b7 moon in Pisces rules b 9th. B sun in Pisces co-rules b 9th (30of 38°). Its harmonic, b7 sun, co-rules b 9th, and is in a set with jupiter and neptune. B uranus, in Pisces and co-ruling b 3rd house is conjunct b sun and c7 venus, ruler of C Asc.

Batya Stark
Astrologer, Humorist, Great After-Dinner Speaker
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--1Gem, c12--4Can, c2--25Leo, c3--23Vir b11--17Pis, b12--28Ari, b2--26Gem, b3--17Can
Comments: B7 moon in Gemini rules b 3rd (and is in c 11th). B7 mercury in Gemini rules B Asc (still in c 11th). C7 mercury in Gemini rules c 3rd house (still in the 11th house). For 8th sign influence, c mercury, ruler of c 3rd, and b moon, ruler of b 3rd house, are conjunct in Scorpio. Harmonic suns, in Capricorn, are square uranus/node/neptune and rule C Asc in b 3rd house. Her C MC is conjunct uranus and neptune.

Nikola Tesla
Genius, Innovator
Harmonic Chart for the 7th House
Placidus: c11--21 Scr, c12--10Sag, c2--2Aqu, c3--3Ari b11--17Cap, b12--19Aqu, b2--12Tau, b3--4Gem
Comments: His harmonic chart for his 3rd house is interesting, too.

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, such as the generalization, "Leo is essentially egocentric, while Aquarius is essentialy other-centric."

The development of signatures for conditions 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, but who lacks it signature, can a signature reveal its lack of completion.

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, in my opinion, is not. I re-iterate:

  • Both zodiacs do not work, but their divergence was so gradual that corruption of signs in tropical astrology was difficult to see.
  • As long as astrology remains an art involved in individual counseling and prediction, it makes almost no difference--unless he is a stickler for “correct” signs--whether the astrologer is using sidereal or tropical astrology. One would think it would make more of a difference, but the sympathetic presence, intuition, and good counsel of the astrologer is probably more important than mere signs.
  • Individual astrologers in both camps have achieved great success. Their success, however, has less to do with their choice of zodiac, or, for that matter their method, than it does their own charts.
  • If astrology ever expands from an art to include science--and that “if “includes the questions, should it?--it must find a method which exposes the success bias in charts of individual astrologers. As long as it equates individual success with truth it is in trouble scientifically.
    Even as a science--that is, a system comprised of methods that produce consistent, reproducible results and better alignment of data--recognition of individual astrologers and the science as a whole will still not be free from the success (and failure) factor in their own charts. As a science, however, it will be able to correct itself better than it does as an art.
    This is true in all fields, including all the other sciences. After all, Einstein was not only right about something, he had a chart with non-harmonic venus and (slow, secondary progressed) jupiter on Angles facilitating his general life success. There is nothing better than venus and jupiter on Angles for doing that. His work, however, was tested by others for more than his personal success, and was thereafter admitted to the body of science.
  • If astrology ever makes the transition from art to an art-and-science, it must encourage research results from systems other than traditional ones. In theory that is the case, but in actuality it is not.
  • If astrology ever makes that transition, it must espouse the zodiac and methods which, among other things, re-unite signs and their rulers so that one or the other, or both, appear prominent in charts they clearly should be prominent in.
  • In the above context, it makes no sense to announce (as has happened--probably more than once), following some contest, that tropical astrology has proven itself superior to 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 with respect to their astrology. In doing so, apparently, certain calculations were made 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 perhaps evolution itself, depend on not-circles, on some things not fitting exactly into some other things, or on repeating irregularities, such as 1 divided by 7. Such irregularities, then, would not be "mistakes"," or meaningless inconveniences, but--in some dimension--foresights.

    (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.

    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

    About The Author

    Contact the author at: sleeweidner@yahoo.com