Ed. N.: This paper is being published in "Correlation", (vol. 22(2), 2004), the research journal of The Astrological Association (UK).
 

The debate continues about possible fraud in the Gauquelins' work, currently with Geoffrey Dean's hypothesis of parental tampering (Dean 2002) and Suitbert Ertel's counter-arguments (Ertel 2001). By contrast the development of the research itself seems to have stalled. It may be time for a fresh look at the way the Gauquelin data was analysed.

Although doubts have been raised about the validity of the Character Traits Hypothesis (CTH), and the heredity data were not successfully replicated the statistical significance of the planetary correlations with professional eminence have survived all the assaults of the skeptics. An important advance also came with Ertel's discovery of correlations between the strength of the effect and eminence ranking (Ertel 1989, 1993). On the other hand it remains difficult to explain a planetary influence on birth times in terms of normal scientific theory. Hence we have the "stubborn block rolled on the road of science" according to Arno Müller (1992).

Faced with this situation I believe there are three ways forward. The first is to re-examine the arguments that were used by the Gauquelins to develop their theory. The second is to develop new hypotheses which they did not consider. Any allegations of manipulation of the data by the Gauquelins to fit their own theories then become irrelevant. And finally there is the important task of collecting new birth data, although hampered by the prevalence of artificial induction of labour since 1950. In this article I will concentrate on the first two approaches.

In Michel Gauquelin's books he makes extensive reference to the work of Frank Brown, who discovered that many varieties of plant and animal behaviour are timed by both the solar and lunar days (Brown 1975, Gauquelin 1973). He goes on to refer to other work indicating an influence of the moon in the timing of the onset of labour, Gauquelin (1973: 154), and in the following chapter describes the Gauquelins' discovery that the planetary heredity effect was correlated with changes in the geomagnetic field. At this point he again refers to Brown's work, which had established clear correlations with geomagnetism.

Reading this with detachment, I was struck by the way his argument shifts, apparently by analogy, to the idea that it is the planets now, instead of the sun and moon, that are responsible for the patterns which we can call the Gauquelin Effect (GE). While the moon is apparently subsumed into the group of 5 'planets' that have significant correlations with professional eminence Brown's findings on the solar day seem to have been quietly forgotten in his Midwife Planets Hypothesis. Of course the Gauquelins used the daily variation of birth rates among the normal population (known as the nycthemeral curve), and the known astronomical correlations of the planets with the sun as a means of calculating expected birth frequencies for the planets. What they don't seem to have done is to examine their solar data for possible deviations from this curve among eminent professionals. This is even more surprising because Brown's work uncovered diurnal effects showing 2, 3 or 4 cycles in a day, which are closer to the typical GE of 4 'petals' in the planetary days; by contrast the nycthemeral curve is typically a single wave.

Percy Seymour (1997) has provided a theory of the Gauquelin Effect, based on the established fact of soli-lunar tides in the earth's atmosphere, but it does not address the 4-petal form of the planetary effect, although he too draws on the work of Frank Brown (1975).

The long debate with skeptics of the Gauquelin Effect also focused on the importance of controlling for both astronomical and demographic factors in the birth data (Ertel and Irving (1996). While the skeptics' claims have been shown to be insufficient to account for the results (Ertel (2000, 2004a)), the importance of Brown's work has been neglected by everyone. A preliminary study presented below suggests that such effects do occur in the birth data of eminent professionals. Hence if a nycthemeral curve based only on a large population of ordinary subjects is used as a control, the solar pattern needs to be examined for deviations along with those of the moon and planets. I will now turn to the question of developing new hypotheses.

In a recent paper in CURA and Correlation (Douglas 2001-02), I put forward some ideas which sought to solve the problem of how the Gauquelin Effect might have come to confer survival value, using the concept in evolution theory of inclusive fitness, and some ideas on birth order and family ecology derived from Sulloway (1980). Sulloway showed that birth order has an important influence on adult personality by requiring children to adapt to specific interpersonal dynamics. For example, the firstborn child is usually more closely identified with parental authority and often their favourite; laterborns will tend to compete with the firstborn and the resulting conflict tends to confirm the firstborn as a defender of authority and the laterborns as rebels in the broader contexts of adult life. I thus suggested that families, rather than individuals are an important new source of data. Survival value is thus linked with interpersonal dynamics and I now suggest that these may be influenced by mood changes in time with soli-lunar cycles. There is no need to attribute any value to a supposed sensitivity to planetary motion.

Work in progress has provided evidence of the reality of the prediction in my earlier paper that SA will have a stronger Gauquelin effect in firstborns, a result that disappears after 1950, as expected due to the increasing use of induction in hospital births. This will be examined in the light of the soli-lunar hypothesis and the conclusions published separately.

Maintaining the position I developed in the previous article, I do not regard either the heredity effect or CTH as closed issues (see Douglas (2002) for discussion): on the contrary I believe they may turn out to be the cornerstones of a theory of the testable part of astrology.

By introducing 2 new factors; a lunation cycle link to personality, and a deviation from the nycthemeral curve with successive children I hope to suggest how the Gauquelin Effect might have arisen from the kind of soli-lunar effects  [1] that Brown observed, without any direct planetary influence. I suggest that lunar effects are not confined to writers and politicians, but should be viewed as occurring with a phase shift in all eminent groups, and likewise a solar variation. There are other recent suggestions that birth order is a neglected variable in astrological research (Brady (2002), Castille (2004)), and if they are confirmed the Gauquelin Effect will have been opened up to a new scrutiny.

Thus the tasks of looking for new theories and re-examining the old ones have been brought together. As always the proof is in the data analysis: even if the effects are confirmed it would need to be demonstrated that they are large enough to account for the Gauquelin Effect. A crucial question remains: are the soli-lunar variations a minor new phenomenon, or are they the root cause of the GE ?
 

A Significant Observation

I will start with what I regard as a key observation in the Gauquelin data, whose significance has so far been missed, the absence of competition between planetary effects.

I raised this question many years ago in an article that was published in Astro-Psychological Problems, and followed by Françoise Gauquelin's rejection of it. It was later reprinted in Al Morrison's journal CAO Times, but researchers have generally ignored it. At the time, I was puzzled by the absence of such a phenomenon, because it seemed to offer a logical extension of the Gauquelin theory, but I didn't take the implications of its absence seriously enough, thinking that it would materialize one day. I now see that its absence is far more telling than its presence would have been, since it means that there is no direct planetary effect on birth phenomena on earth.
 

Why Interactions ?

My basic reasoning was simple enough: we know that there are opposing semantic relations between planets in some professions, so the strength of the planetary effect should vary according to the conjunction cycles of these planets. For example: we know that famous actors and politicians tend to have Jupiter in the plus-zones, and that they tend to have Saturn in minus-zones. Likewise the Moon and Venus tend to show a similar antagonism to Mars in other professions.

Given this, I argued that there should be times when more famous actors and politicians should be born, which would be when the phase of the JU-SA cycle was such that if JU was in a plus-zone then SA could not be. Without considering variations due to latitude, this occurs when the phase angle is about 45 ^° , 135 ^°, 225 ^°, or 315 ^°. On the other hand when the angle is close to 0, 90, 180 or 270 ^° then one planet cannot be in a plus-zone without the other also being in the same or another plus-zone, thus weakening the effect of each of them.

In Françoise Gauquelin's rebuttal she does not take the absence of such an effect as one requiring explanation, but simply states that when there are 2 planets in a plus-zone "only one will be expressed" and offers no rationale for which one it comes to be on any particular occasion.

Suitbert Ertel has kindly confirmed that there is no such antagonistic relationship of JU-SA as judged by an absence of cyclic variations, although there may be other interactions (Ertel 2004b).

In order to assess the significance of this observation we need to keep in mind that it does not in any way call into question the existence of the Gauquelin Effect, whatever its nature turns out to be.

For an interaction to take place the two influences (say JU and SA) have to be brought together at the moment of a birth, so, superficially we can say the reason there is no interaction is that there are very few people who are eminent in 2 different fields (such as acting and science) and the effects therefore happen to different samples of people. And an effect occurring in one sample cannot be used to discuss its absence in a different sample. This of course begs the question of how the samples are selecting themselves at birth.

However a reasonable model of any planetary effect seems to require that the effect during conjunctions does not operate selectively on those newborns who will subsequently become eminent in only one particular field: today an SA effect, but tomorrow all children will be subject only to JU effects. Such behaviour would defy explanation, and I am not therefore considering it.

A rational model still has to explain the fact that there are no fewer births of say famous actors in years when there is a JU-SA conjunction, or perhaps more precisely, that a graph of G% for JU in actors or scientists does not show a decline when the conjunction is close. To my knowledge these exact experiments have yet to be carried out, but the observation that having 2 antagonistic planets in a plus-zone leads to the arbitrary expression of just one seems sufficient grounds for asserting that there is no planetary competition, in this case at least.

There are almost certainly planetary effects on the sun which in turn affect conditions on earth. However, it seems clear that these cannot be influencing the patterns of variations of births if they do not manifest in terms of the JU-SA cycle phase, because the heliocentric elongation between 2 planets has no correlation with the planetary day on earth.

Since I am suggesting that soli-lunar effects are real, I predict that interaction will be found between SO and MO.
 

The Meaning of Interaction

To understand the significance of the observation that there is no JU-SA interaction we need to define what we mean by interaction, in terms of probability.

We can suppose that the placing of a particular planet in a plus-zone favours a birth of a person who will later become eminent in a field characterized as specific to that planet, however this is mediated (by heredity or not). Then we can write the following relation for the probability of finding famous actors (say) in a normal population:

P(Actor) = k*G%(JU) * (100 - G%(SA)) + Other non-astrological factors, where k is a constant.

This merely states that the probability will increase as JU is found in plus-zones , and as SA is not in these zones. It does not imply any interaction between probabilities. Thus the presence of SA in a plus-zone reduces the probability of that birth being of an eminent actor, it does not reduce the probability of finding JU in a plus-zone. For this to happen, either there would be an astronomical correlation of timings in the diurnal circle, which is not the case, or the birth would be affected by a second-order requirement involving a relation between the positions of the 2 planets. Such things may be possible; I am not considering them here however. For the sake of clear terminology, I will use the word 'competition' to describe this effect when there is no interaction between probabilities.

The data we observe consist of samples of people who are all eminent in one field or another, so the G% figures do not represent probabilities of being eminent in that field. Even the difference between G% observed and the expected value (about 22%) does not represent this, because we have to take into account the number of eminent people as a fraction of the general population. Although this emphasizes how small the Gauquelin effect is, we can still expect a visible difference at conjunctions, because among the same sample the pattern of SA placings in diurnal zones is clearly out of phase with those of JU in the same group. The proposed effect of JU-SA conjunctions does not require any interaction of probabilities. Just the presence of the 2 antagonistic planets in the same sector during a conjunction should be enough to reduce the G% of JU among famous actors.

The fact that we are examining a subsample that is all eminent means the predicted effects need to be considered carefully. First we can see that during a conjunction the G%(JU) will be less different from the % in minus-zones at that time, compared to the times when the planets are in different sector types. Also we would predict an effect on eminence graphs, so that the level of eminence would be expected to be lower among those born during a conjunction phase, although this is not simple to predict, due to the curvilinear nature of the eminence phenomenon (Ertel 1993). What is needed, in order to be precise, is a calibration graph, showing how the eminence level achieved varies with Gauquelin Sectors.
 

A Toolkit of Results and Hypotheses

In keeping with the spirit of this inquiry, I begin by listing the data; and also the hypotheses which are the minimum we can require without going beyond the bounds of accepted theory.

The phenomena we seek to explain are characterized by:

• an eminence requirement.
• a natural birth requirement: implying a strong nycthemeral curve favouring births between 10pm and 10 am especially from midnight to 04.00.
• a selective evolutionary advantage requirement.
• An absence of planetary competition, and hence as argued here, no evidence for a direct planetary effect on Gauquelin sector patterns.
• The fact that the magnitude of the Gauquelin effect for JU and SA is less than it is for MO, VE, MA (Dean 1977: 392). The effects of ME, and the outer planets are almost zero.
• A 4-petal pattern in the diurnal circle for all professions.
• some undisputed correlation with disturbances in the geomagnetic field, which includes long-term correlations in artistic and scientific activity with sunspot activity (Ertel 1991).
• Observation on normal people by Didier Castille (2004) that age of parents at birth of first child is highly peaked. E.g 80% of fathers in France in 2001 are aged 25 –32 at birth of first child. Further observations by same author that normal children tend to be born more often (1.7% above chance) within 60 days of one or both parents.

An Old Explanation Revived

Faced with this situation, now that we can see it clearly, there is one known phenomenon which does show the typical four-fold pattern, and which is not only extremely well attested in both plants and animals, but for which a very plausible explanation exists. It is not new to the field of astrological research, as it has been discussed by Michel Gauquelin (1973) and was highlighted by John Addey, when he redrew the normal linear presentation of data on water uptake in lettuce in a circular form (Addey 1986). I refer to the variation of plant growth and animal activity which Frank Brown discovered was synchronised to both the Solar and Lunar days, and was altered by imposing external magnetic field variations (Brown 1975). Interest in the involvement of the geomagnetic field was encouraged by the first of the Gauquelins' studies of births and inheritance (Gauquelin M. and F. 1973), but later waned when subsequent experiments showed smaller or zero effects.

I am therefore proposing that we re-examine these phenomena, not to explain the planetary effect, but to explain its absence.
 
 

HYPOTHESES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Brown's observations suggest an obvious starting point to account for the four-petal pattern, but it has not been considered in detail before. The most likely reason for this was the absence of a plausible planetary magnetic influence on births on earth. The subsequent failure by the Gauquelins to replicate magnetic correlations with heredity then seemed to close off this line of theorizing, despite Seymour's later attempt to reconstruct it. We can also suppose that neither astrologers nor researchers have been keen to move in a direction which apparently crops away a large part of the richness of astrological data.

But if we discard the possibility of any direct planetary influence on births the way is opened to reconsider the more plausible theory that the only real effect is one related to the Solar and Lunar days, the Lunation cycle and corresponding cycles in the geomagnetic field. The problem then shifts to accounting for the planetary correlations as artefacts of a true Soli-Lunar effect, and I do not claim to have achieved this completely in what follows. But I do hope that what I say will provide a new avenue of investigation, and I am now planning to extend my own research with families, which has already yielded some suggestive results relating to birth order.

Before examining how Soli-Lunar effects might account for the Gauquelin data, it is useful to consider how such a process could implement the earlier hypothesis of family fitness.
 

Synchrony of Rhythms

In my previous article I suggested a possible basis for eminence in families in which children, born naturally, may (via the mechanism of planetary influence on time of birth) have personalities fitted for their particular position in birth order in the family.

I supposed that a more functional family would be more viable (evolutionary fitness requirement), and the children would therefore be more likely to achieve success or eminence as adults. Children always tend to grow up with personalities coloured by family dynamics, as described by Sulloway, (see Douglas 2001-02). But if those born naturally, and without family planning, tend to have personalities which fit their respective ecological niche in the family birth order, then they will be less in conflict with the demands which the family ecology imposes on them. This would therefore produce a more functional family, and provide a foundation for the children to achieve their full potential, free from the chains of unresolved family conflict.

We can also note Freud's observation that eminent males had unusually good relationships with their mothers. This probably has been extended by more recent research, and presumably includes female children and both parents, but I have been unable to confirm this.

I am now extending this hypothesis by proposing that this fitting of empathic relationships to the requirements of family ecology be achieved by children being born in the correct phase of a soli-lunar diurnal cycle. Family ecology is partially determined by the number of children, so family dynamics, including normal conflicts and Oedipal phenomena are all to be correlated with the phasing of mood cycles. The exact form of relationship is unimportant, empathy (and conflict) through synchrony or phasing of mood cycles is the key.
 

The Application of Brown's Work to Astrological Theory

A: Sun and Moon.

The observation by Brown of cyclic phenomena up to the 4th harmonic of solar and lunar days in plant and animal behaviour bears a resemblance to the Gauquelin sector pattern, and is influenced by magnetic fields: I propose they are expressions of the same influence.

The diurnal position of the Sun has to be biased towards the nycthemeral curve, but this could only produce 1 petal by itself. However, we need to recall that the Gauquelin effect with VE near the MC would not be possible if the nycthemeral curve was strictly followed, because its maximum elongation from the Sun is only 48 degrees. We therefore expect that some deviations from the nycthemeral curve may occur, perhaps more so in eminent families. I will return to this point.

The Moon is a better candidate for creating the 4-petal pattern, since this is observed in Brown's data, and in the Gauquelin data itself of course. If the Moon is responsible, then we also require a mechanism by which its pattern can be transferred to the other planets to create the artefact of 4 petals in each of them. I suggest this could occur if we suppose that the Moon is also constrained to one zodiac degree (approximately), for the purpose of synchronising family rhythms. And that it seeks either a plus or a minus zone on the day of birth for the same reason. Given these features the whole pattern of planets on the day of birth will be rotated with the Moon as it waits for one of only 4 orientations (plus or minus zones), in order to time the moment of birth. This is a variation of the Gauquelins' Midwife Planet hypothesis, but here only the Moon plays a part.

This cannot explain the Gauquelin data by itself since families are all different, so they if they require a particular Moon zodiac position it will be unique to each family. Two further links are required to create a statistically visible effect, and I suggest that one is between personality and the phase of the Soli-Lunar cycle.

So, I propose that the lunation phase expresses personality and ties it to the rhythms of others in the family. If the first born child typically has a particular phase relation of MO to SO then there will be a statistical correlation between the Sun and Moon positions, and by extension, a different set of soli-lunar phase preferences for later-born children, consistent with Sulloway's findings. And, since firstborn children tend to have the typical SA character traits (Douglas, 2002), this would really correlate with the lunation phase involved, without needing any influence from the position of SA. We might think of the Lunation cycle as containing 4 phases with characters rather like the 4 Elements.

A further implication of this model is the possibility that Lunar diurnal positions may be repeated in children: in other words a heredity effect.

The age factors discovered by Castille (2004), may perhaps be more prominent in eminent children, and could also play a part in creating correlations with parental planetary placings.

For the sake of clarity I will now give a hypothetical example. Let us suppose that firstborn children fit their family niche best when they have the Moon in a last-quarter phase, and occupying a Plus-zone. Further let us suppose that in a particular family a Moon in Aries will give the best relation of soli-lunar phases with the parental mood cycles. This will require that the child be conceived so that it will be born with the Sun in Cancer.

As the day of birth approaches near the last quarter of the Moon the most likely times for birth are those at which the Moon will either be in the 9^th, 12^th or 3^rd House (Gauquelin sectors 4, 1 or 10 respectively). The 12^th. will be most likely and the 6^th least likely because of the requirement of the nycthemeral curve.

A different family will require the Moon in a different zodiac position, and this in turn will require the Sun to be in a different sign to preserve the required phase for a firstborn child, and birth will still occur when the Moon is in a plus-zone.
 

B: The Planets

I am thus supposing that all astropersonality effects (which are not the only personality effects) can be accounted for by the phase of these soli-lunar cycles. And as the second link in the chain to explain the Gauquelin pattern, I propose that planetary effects are illusions created by apparent motion. If there are independent cycles in the solar day the effects will be strengthened.

As with the Moon, so the planets may be restricted to just 4 diurnal placings at each birth, but these will all be expected to average out in a large sample. In line with our basic assumption, there is no reason to suppose that there is any difference between the plus and minus zones for the planets because they have no direct influence on births.

How can the planets become involved as an artefact ? I suggest a possible mechanism might be based on the apparent motion of the planets. Typically MA is more often close to conjunction than to opposition with SO, and JU and SA will show similar but smaller effects. We can note here a particularly important feature: the effect of a planetary conjunction. When there is a conjunction of two planets their apparent motions will be very similar, so if this is all that underlies the Gauquelin Effect then there is no competition of planetary 'influences', and no effect on eminence or birth rates would be expected. On the other hand we still have to account for the fact that different planets do have different correlations with different professional groups.

It remains to be tested whether the proposed effects could explain the Gauquelin patterns for other planets. But if the existence of a real correlation with MO and SO is established it will mean that corrections will have to be introduced for the longitudinal correlations of the planets in the Gauquelin data. Previously it has been possible to pay less attention to these efffects as long as a direct influence of the planets in the diurnal circle was the only effect in play (NCGR ref. undated: The Mars Dawn Effect). In this context it is interesting that Dean (1977: 392), pointed out long ago that the strongest Gauquelin effects occur with MO, VE and MA, less with JU and SA, and of course very little at all for ME, and the outer planets. This is also the pattern to be expected if the Moon is the main real factor, and the apparent motions of the planets are relevant.

Given the strong astronomical correlation of SO and MA, the trait-word antagonism between MA and MO may simply be an extension of that due to the SO-MO polarity in the magnetic field cycles. The similar semantic opposition between MA and VE may relate to the inferior and superior conjunctions of VE, if they are differently correlated with MA. However, it may be difficult to explain the trait-word antagonism which is observed for the pair JU and SA. We may suppose that ME is not known to have a Gauquelin effect because it is never sufficiently far from the Sun in Longitude, while the outer planets have too little apparent motion to create correlations.

As mentioned above, the VE effect in the Gauquelin data requires a deviation from the nycthemeral curve due to the restricted elongation of VE from SO. In my earlier paper I predicted that later-born children will be more likely to have VE in a plus-zone, so it might be worth looking for deviations from the nycthemeral curve especially among later born children. Following this train of thought we might derive a tendency for birth order to correlate with different planets in plus-zones.
 

An origin for the Astrological Artefact ?

I begin by supposing that ME is so restricted in its elongation as to be indistinguishable from the Sun, and as just discussed, that VE can only show the full 4-petal pattern if the Sun is deviating from the nycthemeral curve. Now, following the planets in order away from the Sun, the general tendency is for there to be less correlation with the Sun, so that MA is only about twice as likely to be close to solar conjunction as to opposition. If there was also a progressive tendency for later-born children to deviate from the nycthemeral curve then it is reasonable that plus-zone VE will correlate increasingly with laterborns, as the MC area becomes accessible to it. And by the same token, that SA, which has the least correlation with the Sun, will be able to occupy any diurnal position without SO deviating from a strict nycthemeral curve.

If this is the case then there will be no absolute correlation of SA with firstborns, but since VE would correlate less with them (the nycthemeral curve prevents the 9^th house being occupied by VE) there will be a relative correlation. It is particularly interesting that the only clear personality division between first- and later-borns, is in terms of the traits typical of SA and VE, respectively (Douglas 2001-02).

I suggest that this might be the beginning of an explanation of the Gauquelin effect as an artefact. For example, let us assume that each profession has unique Character Traits, and link this to the strong correlation between personality birth order. Thus laterborn children will typically grow up with VE type traits, without any planetary VE effect, and we presume more of them will become eminent musicians and painters. Now, if there are increasing deviations from the nycthemeral curve with successive children, then it will only be the laterborns who will be able to have a full 4-petal pattern for VE. Certainly no-one with VE near the MC was born within the nycthemeral curve.

The strength of the Gauquelin Effect decreases as we move away from the sun, but this only refers to the overall effect. When it is analysed according to birth order it may turn out that the order changes progressively for each child, and correlates with parallel shifts in the nycthemeral curve. This is the core of my conjecture.

If SA traits are typical of firstborns, and VE of laterborns, it is tempting to fill in the gaps with JU and MA in order away from the Sun: or in terms of their elemental qualities: Earth, Air, Fire, Water.

If the ancients had noticed this then they might have expressed the parallel with the soli-lunar variation of personality as a system of planetary rulership. If personality is viewed as simply 1 or 2-dimensional and in one system there are characters (the gods , planets, the human family) and the other is a cycle, naturally divided into 30 days it could be an easy step to say that the gods lived in the 30 houses.

Thus, given a correlation of personality with birth order as described by Sulloway, there might thus be a surprising basis for understanding how the whole story of astrology came about, as a strange mixture of correlations and artefacts. It also fits another astrological tradition: that the order of the planets correlates with personality, and that the ancient Gods are projections of the typical human family, yet without any real physical planetary influence operating. This would fit very well into the tradition of Durkheimian anthropology.

If what I have suggested is supported by evidence then astrology will have been proved both right and wrong: the correlation of planets to personality will be real but only as an accidental indicator of birth order in unplanned and naturally born families: it will not be the result of any physical influence.
 

What are we left with ?

Centrally we are left with the Sun, the Moon, the Lunation cycle phases, the Angles and 8 Houses. [2] But the Lunation cycle provides a basis for also dividing the year into 12 sectors, although these are anchored to the New Moon, not to the zodiac. As for the planets, their placing in Plus-zones will remain an indicator of personality in a statistical sense, but it is only secondary to the knowledge of birth order, and is only valid for natural births. This is the most radical change in thinking that is required if this theory is true. The aspects have not been dealt with here, and they may have a place, especially in heliocentric coordinates. There may even be a place for transits and progressions, but this is beyond the scope of the present article.

There are 3 things that remain to be tested:

• A soli-lunar correlation with personality, perhaps just in the diurnal circle.
• the feasibility of the mechanism of apparent motion.
• variations of the nycthemeral curve with birth order.

Some Implications for Research

If this path of investigation is taken up it will introduce a new focus in our research. We will need to study families rather than individuals, and besides individual eminence we will be interested in the functionality and otherwise of families. This will have potential therapeutic implications.

Birth order is a new parameter in astrological research, and it is worth noting that there have been other recent findings that suggest it is relevant, (Brady (2002), Castille (2004).

Even if it turns out that planetary effects in the diurnal circle are artefacts or at best minimal, if we are able to work with the Sun and Moon and the Angles we will still have a precise map of individual psychology, which will be better grounded in established data and rational hypotheses. From a humanistic viewpoint it will also provide a theory which is grounded in evolutionary and family systemic theory. Personally I feel much more comfortable with a psychology which allows cosmobiological aspects of human experience to be discussed and closes the gap between traditional and modern language.

The map of 4 petals has 8 sectors or houses, and in order to attach meaning (as chart interpretation requires) to them all we can note the role of harmonics. In order for each sector to be semiotically distinct it needs to be part of a binary system in which 3 levels are required (because 2³ = 8 and we have 8 sectors in the diurnal circle). This can be provided by 3 waves: a fundamental of frequency f, and its 2^nd and 4^th harmonics, 2f, and 4f. Without these 3 levels the 8 sectors (houses ?) of the Gauquelin map can only be distinguished as positive or negative. Eventually Addey's project of assigning meanings to the diurnal harmonics may come to be resumed.

It may now be possible to talk about a boundary between the domains of Natural and Judicial Astrology. Thus the physically observable effects may be those involving Sun, Moon and the Angles, together with the long-term variations in social phenomena such as artistic and scientific creativity and civil war, which Ertel has studied. All the rest may be the province of divinatory and judicial astrology. Astrological research today is divided between those who assert that all astrology is divination (Cornelius (2002), and those who still hope to prove or disprove its claims in terms of physical influences (Seymour (1986)). The hypotheses I am presenting may eventually allow us to render each camp their dues in a transparent way.

It would be an interesting irony if, after years of rejecting sun-sign astrology, research was to become focused mainly on the simplest astrological factors. But, for the first time researchers might begin a real dialogue with astrologers , on the best way to approach research.

The separation between natural and judicial astrology marks a boundary between different research methods as well, and opens up the opportunity for a fresh discussion of what constitutes appropriate research. This has always been one of the areas of interest for historians of science, but instead of disputing which approach is suitable for astrology as a single field the debate may move to more productive discussions of the methods appropriate to each of the two separate fields.

A particularly interesting topic for both historians and anthropologists is causality. So while the study of natural astrology concerns itself with the influence of geomagnetism and the solar wind, a very different approach will be of interest to the causality of divination. At first sight even the word causality may seem inappropriate, so it is important to consider what modern interpretation can be given to divination as a process. As a starting point I suggest that divination be viewed as the management of change. This emphasizes the very practical context of divination, as well as linking it conceptually with therapy, counselling and coaching. I suggest that a very fertile point of contact for research of this kind is via the practical work which has been done in the field of NLP, where links are established between magic, therapy, system theory and linguistics.
 

Some Preliminary Test results

In line with the theory outlined above I began by examining the Sun-Moon angle for Sports Champions, but in the course of doing so I noticed that there were interesting deviations in the hour-of- birth frequencies. The figures are shown in the table below. Only in the case of Military Men is there anything resembling a smooth nycthemeral curve. In all other cases there are at least 4 distinct peaks superimposed on the expected curve. Since the Gauquelins used a simple curve based on normal people as their control this must raise questions about the true source of the planetary patterns they discovered. Until these effects are shown to be insufficient to account for the planetary deviations the possibility remains that the Gauquelin Effect is essentially a soli-lunar one.

More than this, there are parallels between the graphs for Sports Champions (MA) and Actors (JU), while Scientists (SA) and Artists (VE) have peaks that tend to fall between those of the first pair. The pattern is not perfect, so interpretation is premature, but one possibility is that a 2X2 table of soli-lunar influences could explain the 4 main professional groups:
 

Sun \ Moon	+	-
+	JU	MA
-	VE	SA

The easiest way of proceeding is by a simulation: working with each Gauquelin data set, the birth times may be shuffled in such a way as to maintain the observed nycthemeral distribution without changing the birth dates. If this removes the planetary patterns then the mechanism suggested here can be excluded: if not, then further investigations need to be made.
 
 

Prof.	0 –2	2 –4	4 –6	6 –8	8-10	10-12	12-14	14-16	16-18	18-20	20-22	22-24	Total
Art.	303	251	250	220	250	230	199	208	202	186	221	198	2722
Sprt.	224	242	268	209	203	231	186	196	210	160	210	184	2523
Sci.	352	353	362	331	344	307	257	289	267	279	275	230	3647
Mil.	274	282	303	294	299	262	240	226	218	211	226	212	3042
Wri.	176	213	197	197	160	176	143	159	172	144	134	153	2027
Act.	121	122	144	122	112	125	116	97	115	101	121	112	1408

Table 1. Frequencies of Birth according to Solar Hour for Gauquelin Professions.

Key: Art = Painters and Musicians; Sprt = Sports Champions; Sci. = Men of Science; Mil. = Military Men; Wri. = Writers and Journalists; Act. = Actors. Note: births listed at 2.00, 4.00, 6.00 etc. are here counted in the class beginning at that time.

An interesting feature to note is that the positions of the peaks in the solar curve for sportsmen is centred in the angular houses, unlike the Mars positions.

Further studies of 973 sportsmen and 658 actors reveal that, as predicted, the frequency of birth varies with the phase of the Lunation cycle, and the two groups are mostly out of phase, unlike the solar day graphs in Table 1.

Sportsmen

	0	30	60	90	120	150	180	210	240	270	300	330	Tot.
SO	81	87	72	94	69	87	91	86	63	91	80	72	973
MA	56	59	55	56	60	55	49	64	55	52	59	58	673

Actors

	0	30	60	90	120	150	180	210	240	270	300	330	Tot.
SO	62	50	52	62	55	59	52	42	64	56	47	51	658
MA	53	53	38	66	58	53	64	58	50	59	47	62	658

Table 2. Elongations of the Moon with respect to Sun and Mars for Actors and Sportsmen.

Each column contains births within a range of 15^° on each side of the number at the top. All data points are calculated by hand from a 1900 –2000 ephemeris; hence the totals are simply the number of points completed at the time of writing. Further work will be undertaken by computer and reported later.

Comparing the Sun and Mars data, it is clear that the latter generally show smaller deviations, suggesting that it is the SO – MO phase which is responsible for the variations. It is also clear that the Moon phase graphs for sportsmen and actors are out of step, as predicted, except for the peaks at first quarter. There is a peak at the conjunction phase for actors and not for sportsmen, also as expected. The opposition phase is the centre of a peak for sportsmen, while for actors it is below the mean.

Graphs of birth frquencies according to the SO – MA phase were also plotted, and they are very similar for both actors and sportsmen, and also similar to those obtained by Michel Gauquelin using the difference in sector positions, published in the NCGR journal (undated).
 

[1]  The term 'soli-lunar' is used here as a shorthand for effects which vary with both the solar and lunar days, and by the interference of these two waves also vary according to the lunation cycle. « Text

[2]  Note P. G.: I use as astrologer and advocate as researcher such a four-fold pattern for 20 years: see for instance Guinard, 1987, "Le Dominion, ou système des Maisons", Lyon: Astralis, 21 ; Guinard, 1993, L'astrologie : Fondements, Logique et Perspectives, Doctoral Thesis, University Paris I - Sorbonne ; and Guinard, "The System of 8 Houses", CURA, 1999. « Text
 

I am grateful to Suitbert Ertel for some helpful comments. This does not mean that he is in agreement with all the assertions contained here.
 

References

Addey, John (1986). Harmonics in Astrology. London: Urania Trust.

Brady, Bernadette (2002). The Australian Parent-Child Astrological Research Project. Correlation 20(2) 4-37.

Brown, Frank, Jr. (1975). Evidence for External Timing of Biological Clocks. Chapter 7 in (J.D.Palmer ed.): An Introduction to Biological Rhythms. New York: Academic Press.

Castille, Didier (2004). Correlation in Press, and personal communication.

Cornelius, Geoffrey (2002). The Moment of Astrology. London: 2^nd Edn.

Dean, Geoffrey (1977). Recent Advances in Natal Astrology. London and Subiaco, Australia: Interlogic Press.

--------------------(2000). Special Issue of Astrologie in Onderzoek: 73-84. In English.

Douglas, Graham (2001-02). Cosmic Influences: A New Proposal. CURA, 14 ; and Correlation, 20(1): 56-64.

----------------------(1989). A Theoretical Prediction from the Gauquelin Findings. CAO Times.

Ertel, Suitbert (1989). Purifying Gauquelin's Grain of Gold: Planetary Effects Defy Physical Interpretation. Correlation 9(1): 5–24.

------------------(1991). Patterns of Scientific Evolution: Short term cycles and secular waves. In H.Best, E.Mochmann and M.Thaller (Eds.), Computers in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Achievements for the 1980's, Prospects for the 1990's (pp. 109 – 117). Munchen : K.G.Saur.

------------------(1993). Puzzling Eminence Effects Might Make Good Sense. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 7(2): 145-154.

------------------ (2000). Mars Effect is Hard to Hide: Comments on Dommanget's Critique. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 14(3): 431-466.

-------------------(2001). Tampering Birth Dates should Occur more often among Rural than Urban People. Correlation 19(2): 37-44.

------------------(2004a). Hopeful Findings, unduly neglected, on stars and human affairs. Correlation, in press.

------------------(2004b). Personal Communication.

Ertel, Suitbert. and Irving, Kenneth (1996). The Tenacious Mars Effect. London: Urania Trust.

Gauquelin, Michel (1980). The Cosmic Clocks. London: Paladin.

Müller, Arno (1992). 612 Famous Men. Waldmohr: Müller Verlag.

Seymour, Percy (1997). The Scientific Basis of Astrology. London: Foulsham.

Sulloway, Frank (1980). Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics and Creative Lives. London: Little Brown.

ACCUEIL

PORTADA