I have recently added to the small collection of data I reported in my earlier publication (Douglas 2001), with 159 firstborns of Rodden Rating A or better, from the Astrodatabank collection, and although the numbers are still small they are sufficient to demonstrate a replication of the Gauquelin Effect for Saturn. The salient features of this finding are that:
1. whereas there are significant excesses of SA in key sectors for firstborns, there is none at all for the laterborns in the same sample, and
2. these samples are made up of a heterogeneous group of minor and major celebrities, royalty, politicians and a very small number of eminent scientists. Thus as a whole, they are not expected to display a SA effect based on known eminence correlations. They show a small excess of JU in key sectors, (see below) and no excess of SA. This is consistent with the presence of a large number of celebrities in the sample.

Book review:

Collections of papers presented at conferences are not always the most interesting of books. They have their uses, of course, enabling those who were unable to attend the conference to read what was said, and as archive material for later researchers to refer to, but the editors of collections of papers rarely set their sights any higher than aiming to provide a record.
This book, however, is different. The editors and conference organisers realised that with the inaugural conference of a totally new academic centre, specialising in a discipline which is itself new, the book would not only have to provide a record of what was presented, but would also become the benchmark for the centre itself, and to some extent for the whole area of study, defining the field for those who would follow. The book amply demonstrates that their vision has been fully realised. The speakers and contributors, too, appear to have been aware of the significance of the occasion, and have each given of their very best, papers which are not only excellent in themselves but which also open the way to further research and debate.
There are fifteen papers here, plus introductory pieces by Patrick Curry, and Nicholas Campion, who is head of the Sophia Centre The papers are wide-ranging in both content and approach: some are straightforward historical studies, spanning eras from the classical world through the Renaissance to early Modern England, while others approach the subject from a more scientific view, and one is a statistical study. Several debate how cultural astronomy and astrology could or should be studied in an academic environment, and a couple comment on how doing so would inevitably create intellectual tensions and divisions, to the detriment of the subject itself.
There are, of course, tensions and divisions within the astrological community, and several of these papers carry with them the political message of their authors. This is unavoidable. Yet these undercurrents are very much a part of the state of astrology in the present day, and a fit subject for study. The astrologer and his prejudices and preoccupations are part of what gives astrology its vitality, and should therefore be viewed as part of the whole phenomenon. Some readers may find it strange that two of the papers in this collection care concerned with the interpretation of horoscopes corresponding to the dates of the conference – yet it would be stranger still to exclude them, for the horoscope and its symbols are the specific language of astrology, and it is this language and its contribution to our wider culture that the Sophia Centre aims to study.
It is interesting, too, to note the subtle differences between papers written by those who are ‘inside’ the practice of astrology, and those who stand outside. Prudence Jones’ ‘Aspects of Deity’ is carefully researched and clearly presented, without a hint of that over-enthusiasm or tendency to leap to unsupportable conclusions to which other ‘insiders’ are sometimes prone, yet it is equally clear that her standpoint is firmly within the practice, speaking from experience rather than standing outside looking in. Her closing sentences are almost a mission statement for the whole Sophia enterprise when she says that ‘…astrological knowledge can help historical research. …It allows us to find our way easily around the structure of ancient cosmology and to unpick ambiguous definitions. …Without insider knowledge we are lost when dealing with the astrological worldview of Hellenistic (and much earlier) philosophy. With it we can begin to make sense of otherwise baffling imagery.’
It is particularly pleasing to note that as well as offering a wide historical and philosophical range, this collection also offers a wide geographical range in that it contains contributions from scholars in France, Spain, Finland, Poland, Brazil and the US. Such genuinely worldwide participation can only be applauded and, it is hoped, continued in the future.
The fact that fifteen papers of such widely different topics and viewpoints can sit side-by-side with each other and be taken together as valid approaches to a multifaceted subject is due in no small measure to the wonderfully broad and accommodating envelope laid out by Campion’s introduction. His overview of the history of the study and the strands within it gives everything its due place and makes sense of a difficult subject. For once, the introduction really does introduce what follows, helping the reader place the papers in context.
The book makes no secret of the fact that it is intended to be an advertisement for the Sophia Centre and its work, but it does it in the best possible way, by showing what excellent work has already been done and inviting the reader to join in and continue what has been started. For anyone interested in history, cosmology, philosophy, anthropology, or symbology; or for anyone who recognises that an interdisciplinary approach works wonders in refreshing tired or worn-out modes of thought, this book is worth reading. It manages to be more than just a record of a conference, and more, too, than a manifesto: in terms of the relationship between astrological and academic thinking, it is a window on the past, a snapshot of the present, and a blueprint for the future, all in one.
Bernard Eccles

Book Review

If astrology has been a source of reflection for thousands of years, it has also been from time immemorial, and indeed it still is, a victim of those practitioners whose venal considerations outweigh their intellectual rigour, and this has contributed to the discredit of the subject with the public at large.
In an exercise of rehabilitation of the subject, this book by S. Fuzeau-Braesch takes a new, popularised approach and its great originality is that it is based on scientific experiment. The disconcerting results quoted in the work are rendered credible by the tests to which the data have been subjected.
For more than thirty years S. Fuzeau-Braesch has combined her knowledge of the stars with the scientific rigour which has governed her professional career (she is a Doctor of Science = D.Sc, and honorary director of research at the CNRS the French National Scientific Research Centre, and directed a university laboratory of biology for more than 20 years).
The stringency of the experimental protocols suggested and the statistical exploitation of the results obtained provides solid evidence to reinforce a certain confidence that one can nowadays have in astrology. It is this methodical approach that is resurrecting astrology as an accepted discipline likely to find its place one day as an academic subject worthy of university study. Amongst the cases investigated, the astrology of dogs clearly demonstrates the obvious objectivity of possible astrological analyses.
Of all the works which have established the existence of a link between the astrological sky at the birth of the individual and human potentialities, this book is distinguished by the fact that the author demonstrates, and does not merely assert, that astrology is reliable and capable of revealing the ego and the aptitudes of an individual, and furthermore, to establish a chronology of the significant dates of a lifetime (without prejudice to the positive or negative aspects of the associated events).
A dominant theme of the book is the need to take into account only those simple elements from amongst the astrological tools which have been verified experimentally. This is obviously a significant point. Interviews with ten well known personalities in France familiarise the reader with astrological analysis in a lively manner, full of interest.
Like any other modern field of human knowledge, astrology must be associated with other disciplines. Here it is notably molecular neurobiology and psychology which, to reveal the inner reality of the individual; sensitivity, talents, charisma, sexuality and social influence while allowing a certain attention to be paid to fateful dates.
To include man thus in a molecular equation involving astral dependence is a modern concept which can surprise or shock. Is one to deny the role of neurotransmitters and hormones in human behaviour? The author, convinced that causality in astrological phenomena exists, concludes with a chapter devoted to hypotheses compatible with current scientific opinion.
Fuzeau-Braesch’s book – a true event in France – is remarkable for its didacticism but also for its generosity in that it makes so much accessible to the layman. It is sure to stimulate interest and perhaps even to motivate young scientists to tackle this subject of research though, it must be admitted, they would do so at their risk and peril given the Cartesian views prevailing in French universities. The questions raised are of great interest in our time, not because they are new in themselves, but because of the kind of investigation to which they can nowadays be subjected.
The style of this work is deliberately clear, stripped down and accessible to everyone and it includes instructions which will allow readers to interpret for themselves the sky under which they were born and to analyse simply and quickly the astral influences prevailing at their time of birth.
Jean Dietrich, Physiologist
Maître de conférence des Universités

Astrology is often referred to as a symbolic language. Does this make it different from an ‘ordinary’ language, and what are the implications of describing it as such? In short, what makes one form of language more ‘real’ than another? The talk will introduce Wittgenstein’s concept of ‘language games’ to explore how language can be used in various ways to describe our experience of the world. This will address many confusions regarding concepts of ‘causes’, ‘principles’, and ‘underlying laws’ which are often used to bolster the scientific, as well as the astrological paradigm, which is itself an increasing victim of psychologism. Also drawing on other ideas from the philosophy of language we shall place the language of astrology within a wider frame. This will raise the question as to the extent that astrology itself can usefully contribute to the debate that dominates much current philosophical thinking on the nature and experience of language.

This paper will look at a topic hitherto equally neglected by classicists and medieval historians: the manner in which medieval scholars (including many churchmen) found a way of fitting the classical pagan deities back into Christianity through the medium of planetary magic. This enterprise lasted from the twelfth to the eighteenth century, and is one of the lost themes of the history of European religion

The Triple Moon Goddess of contemporary New Age thought has much deeper roots than is commonly believed. This paper demonstrates how Akkadian astrological tradition appears to have been incorporated in the development of a triple Moon goddess during the Hellenistic era. It offers an example of the way that astrological knowledge can be important in the practice of historical research.

The paper will briefly outline the manner in which the authority of the ancient Egyptians is invoked in several surviving astrological works of antiquity, with the focus on the second century works of Vettius Valens and Claudius Ptolemy, representatives of two vastly differing approaches toward the astrological lore. Consequently, the argument shall involve the question of Valens’ alleged Egyptian travels and the stance he assumes with respect to Nechepso and Petosiris, to end with the discussion of Ptolemy’s way of dealing with the inherited tradition. It will be shown that while sharing in some general tendencies and, moreover, facing the same tension between the contrasting urges of tradition vs. innovativeness, the two astrologers choose separate ways to extricate themselves from the dilemma.

. This paper addresses the question of the kind of knowledge which informed the astrological practice of Marsilio Ficino, and in so doing distinguishes between two modes of understanding the human relationship to the cosmos, the natural scientific and the magical. I will seek to show that Ficino’s critique of his contemporary astrologers derived from their lack of symbolic understanding, and I shall attempt to explore the nature of this understanding which for Ficino was fully revealed in the Platonic and Hermetic traditions. Finally I shall suggest that in his system of natural magic Ficino re-defined astrology as a unitive tool for healing, founded on both ‘scientific’ investigation into cosmic law and divinatory experience.

The reasons for astrology’s long exile from the academy have been as much psychological as intellectual and political, for it represents the shadow of the scientific, professional and technical value-system of the contemporary academic culture. The reintroduction of astrology as a serious topic of university studies produces an inevitable collision between the norms of intellectual objectivity (the stance of the modern scholar who stands apart from the material being studied) and the reality of what C.G. Jung called the objective psyche, or collective unconscious, from which we can never fully separate our conscious standpoint. For astrology systematically reveals the unconscious, archetypal factors underlying conscious experience and collapses the subject-object dichotomy fundamental to the modern psyche and the modern intellect, thus undermining the assumptions and identity of the modern scholar. To reintegrate astrology into academic life requires bringing more objectivity into astrology but also bringing the implications of the objective psyche fully into the academy. This requires a historical perspective on astrology’s psychological position since the Enlightenment and a capacity to do personal and intellectual ‘shadow work’ in academe – a slow and costly alchemical process, but a necessary one if astrology’s full contribution is to be realized.

When was it that someone first gazed up at the Summer Milky Way and recognized the Cross among the stars of Cygnus? After the Big Dipper and the Seven Sisters of the Pleiades, the Northern Cross is among the most familiar of asterisms, for Westerners at least. Turn to almost any modern handbook on the constellations and we find under Cygnus that the Swan often goes by this well known alias. Little explanation is required; the Cross being simply a matter of common knowledge. But when did it become so? One such popular guide, by the late veteran interpreter of the stars, Julius Staal, ventures only that it was ‘early Christians’ who recognized the cruciform shape of Cygnus.1 It is certainly a reasonable guess; but, which early Christians recognized the Cross where others in their day would have imagined a great swan flying along the river of milk flowing from Hera’s breast? Although it seems little more than an odd bit of trivia, attempting to answer the question of the asterism’s antiquity touches on some interesting aspects of our cultural history. I hope to show how light from this admittedly peculiar angle may illuminate ways that astral imagery played upon the early Christian imagination, particularly as related to aspects of the history of Constantine the Great, the first Christian emperor of Rome.