Different Approaches to Astrological Research by Charles Harvey

Astrology as Divination, Four Steps to Insight by Geoffrey Cornelius

Astrology History and Culture by Nick Campion

Astrology and the Academy: How should we Judge which work to Support? Patrick Curry, Ph.D

The Taeger Archives Hans-Hinrich Taeger

At the Kepler Day in London on 12 November 1994, I presented an astrologer's eye view of the current situation in astrology, together with some ideas on different approaches to astrological research which I hope may stimulate some fresh thinking and be of some practical value to those engaged in this intellectually and methodologically challenging area.

To start with, I think we need to face the fact that there is a kind of schizophrenia in the way we think about astrology within the research community. What it amounts to is that there have been two distinct categories of astrological development going on in astrology over the past 75 years, one which is discussed in research circles, the other which is ignored, indeed often ridiculed by some academic researchers. Category One is that less formal research undertaken by astrologers to help clarify and enhance our understanding and application of astrology. Category Two is that formal research conducted by astrologers and non-astrologers to find evidence for astrology which would be acceptable by contemporary science and justify astrologers' claims.

Whilst Category Two astrological research seems to have reached something of an impasse, Category One developments are in a Golden Age. This century, and especially the second half, has seen at least seven or eight major conceptual breakthroughs in the development in astrological thinking which have transformed our understanding of astrology and the way in which it is applied (see below). Indeed astrology has perhaps never before been so alive, with highly intelligent students engaged in vigorous debate and intellectual exploration.

So we have to ask ourselves why there is such a huge discrepancy between the vitality of astrology as taught and practised and the relatively blocked state of scientific studies? At least part of this paradox can, I believe, be explained by the nature of astrology and the kinds of thinking used by astrologers compared to the kinds of thinking used by most contemporary scientists exploring the area. In short, I believe it comes down to the temperament of those involved in these two categories of approach to exploring astrology. As the scholastics put it: the thing known is in the knower according to the mode of the knower. In other words, how we look at the world and what we see there is a function of our psychology and background assumptions. The optimist sees the glass as half full, the pessimist sees the same glass as half empty. The musician may hear the glass as a potential source of music. The painter sees it as an aesthetic object. The industrial chemist sees it as a product of certain processes. The paranoid teenager sees it as a potential weapon.

And so on. Each is right in their own terms.

There are parallels with the different approaches to the study of astrology. Astrology itself identifies many ways of approaching, experiencing and knowing about the world: the signs, the triplicities and quadruplicities, the planets, and so on. In considering different approaches to astrological research, it would seem appropriate that we use one of astrology's own classifications: the four elements' types: Fire, Earth, Air and Water. These elements have close, if not precise, parallels with Jung's four functions. If we lay these elements out on a four-armed cross in line with Jung's functions we get the following distribution. At the top of the vertical axis we place Fire (Intuition), opposite Sensation (Earth) at the bottom. On the horizontal axis to the left we place Water (Feeling) opposite Air (Thinking) to the right.

Approaches to astrology mapped in terms of the four elements and Jung's four functions. Locations given for different approaches are suggestions only. Ideally, astrology should be viewed and practised from the middle.

One of the most important messages of this diagram is the recognition, pointed out by Jung, that opposites repel and tend to deny each other's values. Fire-Earth is the mystic-natural scientist polarity. The strongly Fire-Intuitive type, who is essentially concerned with wholeness of truth and the larger, transcendent perspective, finds the physical, factual preoccupations of the Earth-Sensation type to be dull, boring and irrelevant. Likewise the Doubting Thomas sensation, measurement centred Earth type finds Fire's enthusiasm for intangible, unproven visions of truth bewildering and pointless. The Water-Feeling type who knows through the heart and is concerned with the values of things finds the rational, thinking qualities of Air insensitive and far too abstract. The logic-centred Air type cannot think what the emotional Water-feeling type is on about and wants it to "be reason-able". We can all recognize these polarities in the on-going astrology debate. Good astrological research is only likely to emerge when all four approaches are honoured.

We can use this cross to describe one spectrum of different possible approaches to research.

In addition to the four pure element types of approach there will also be those approaches which lie between adjacent types. Ideally, a working astrologer would be located towards the centre of this cross where they can draw upon all four approaches. In practice, we all tend to have our own preferred approach, which will tend to be off-centre. Currently, the only research approach and method of analysis that is generally considered to be of value by science is the type that centres around the bottom right Earth/Air (Sensation/Thinking) quadrant of the diagram, which focuses on quantifiable measurement (Earth) and analysis (Air). By and large, all other approaches to knowledge are either ignored, or, if used, are asked to justify themselves by re-expressing themselves in Air/Earth terms of measurements and analysis.

The argument for this domination of the Air/Earth approach is that Fire's intuition may be correct, Water's feelings may be on to something, Earth's pragmatic experience may be true, but only controlled experiment (Earth/Air) can tell us objectively whether these things are "really" true. This is equivalent to the industrial chemist insisting that the perceptions of the optimist and the pessimist and the musician and the artist and the paranoid teenager be looked at and measured in terms of biochemical reactions before he will give their perceptions any credibility.

A measure of just now much of astrology is excluded from consideration by this Earth/Air approach can be gained if we look at eight of the major advances in astrological thought and practice during this century.

1) The development during the 1920s and onward of the concept of symmetry and midpoints by Witte, Ebertin et al has greatly enriched our understanding of how astrology works and our capacity to penetrate more deeply into the underlying dynamics of any chart. These insights were garnered by many practitioners through sensitive observation of individuals probably drawing on all four approaches: intuition, feeling, reflective thought, and practical observation.

2) The development from 1930s onwards of our understanding of the importance of cycles and a cyclical approach to the interpretation of chart factors as emphasized by Dane Rudhyar and later developed in their different ways by Ruperti, Addey, Barbault, et al. This is in many respects an Air-theoretical development which has proved itself in practical experience.

3) The development in the mid 1950s of harmonics and the reintroduction of the importance of Pythagorean Number symbolism into astrological thinking and the attendant re-invigoration of a Neo-Platonic perspective through the work of John Addey et al. An Air-Fire innovation which has been developed through practical application and observation.

4) The alignment of astrology with depth psychology and in particular with the work of Jung as initiated by Dane Rudhyar in 1935 and subsequently elaborated by Liz Greene, Richard Idemon, Howard Sasportas, et al. Mainly a Fire-Air, Fire-Water development illustrating the power of analogical and metaphorical thinking for grappling with the archetypal principles which underlie astrology.

5) As a direct extension of 4), the re-emergence of mythology as a key factor in obtaining a deeper understanding of astrological principles as archetypal processes as exemplified by the work of Liz Greene, Richard Idemon, Jane Malcolmson, Melanie Reinhardt, et al. As 4), this is a Fire-Air and Fire-Water symbolic, analogical and metaphorical approach to truth which can in many respects be considered the "natural" mode of thought for astrologers.

6) The development of Astro*Carto*Graphy in the 1970s by the late lamented Jim Lewis, which illustrates the fact that in some way each birth chart is at one with the Earth as a whole rather than anchored on one locality. A profound insight developed pragmatically through observation.

7) The development of the concept of composite charts by Robert Hand et al and the growing recognition that the birth patterns of separate entities can interact to produce a separate entity which is descriptive of their group interaction. A Fire-Air intuitive insight which has been developed through practical observation.

8) The re-emergence of the Platonic concept of the anima mundi in various forms, as in the reinvigoration of mundane astrology by Baigent, Campion and Harvey and the Primal Zodiac of Michael Harding. A Fire-Air, intuitive-theoretical development.

In addition to the above there have been developments of a Fire-Water approach which explore the expression of astrological archetypes through artistic and non-verbal forms such as in Astro-Drama (Friedel Roggenbuck) and in the area of literary studies (Paul Wright), which trace the metaphorical expression of astrological ideas through the creative preoccupations of writers. The development of a divinatory approach to astrology also probably belongs especially to this approach, though ideally it would need to come from the centre of all approaches. The Earth-Water, practical feeling approach has probably mainly made itself felt in astrology through such areas as counselling, sand play and art therapy as exemplified by the work of Jung's daughter, Frau Grete Bauman Jung and others.

Of course, such major developments in astrology, with all their profound philosophical implications, are discounted or dismissed by most Category Two type researchers as "unproven", "illusory" or as post hoc rationalizations to explain why any chart fits the fact. This is not helpful.

The questions to which we have to address ourselves are: Is there an unbridgeable gap between "Category One" and "Category Two" ways of approaching truth? Are they really mutually incompatible or should they not rather be working hand in hand and complementing each other?

The simple answer is that, of course, for astrologers within astrology theses different approaches are constantly complementing each other. Most Category One type investigations are done on a case-study basis in which observations in a particular instance are then clarified by the examination of additional cases. The key to such case-study work is a sensitive awareness of and insight into astrological archetypes and their possible expressions. The development of our understanding of midpoint and of harmonic charts has been based on such detailed studies of individual examples. The problem comes when one tries to quantify such insights. The astrologer knows that the same combination can express itself in a whole range of ways. For example, Uranus in hard aspect with the midpoint of Sun and Moon may produce a Napoleon or a Hitler, but equally it may produce a Margaret Thatcher, a Spike Milligan, a Martin Luther or a particular astrologer such as Dr Zip Dobyns. To a Category Two researcher, this range of different expressions of Uranus with Sun/Moon simply demonstrates that this combination is incapable of providing consistent results. To a Category One student, who is used to thinking in terms of archetypes, the results do reveal an underlying consistency. Each of these cases is a fairly clear example of the autocratic, independent and revolutionary qualities associated with the Uranian archetype. However, attempting to quantify such archetypal qualities in a way which will satisfy Category Two workers in not easy.

A pioneering piece of research which does successfully manage to bridge both approaches is the set of Eureka experiments by science historian Nick Kollerstrom and computer scientist Mike O'Neill (The Eureka Effect, Urania Trust, Spring 1995). By choosing to study inspired, Eureka-type scientists to test the observations of John Addey about the qualities of the fifth and seventh harmonic series of aspects, Kollerstrom and O'Neill focus on a very specific and clearly definable category of people with distinct psychological qualities which expressed themselves in a particular way at a particular time. In astrological terms, such an approach, which emphasizes vivid qualities, is likely to increase greatly the chance of separating out signal from noise.

Another example of different approaches mutually supporting each other can be seen in the modification of the traditional view of Jupiter. Originally seen as the Greater Benefic, in the past decades there has been a much greater emphasis placed on the negative aspects of this planetary archetype and its tendency to "play God". These changes have come about in large measure because of the intuitive Fire-Air approach of astrologers like Dane Rudhyar, Liz Greene, Richard Idemon, Jane Malcomson et al. Such astrologers have underlined the great importance of the study of mythology and the symbolic, analogical-intuitive thinking which is needed in really obtaining an understanding of the planetary archetypes. These mythological, client-based insights have been supported by the quantitative Earth/Air approach of the Gauquelins, working with biographical character traits, which equally reveals Jupiter's tendency to fascism, inflatus and grandiosity. We should note, however, that these intuitive-Fire insights are not dependent on such an Earth/Air approach. They can and do stand in their own right.

Likewise, Richard Tarnas' work on enlarging our understanding of Uranus-Prometheus (see his Prometheus the Awakener, Auriel Press 1993) is a classic piece of Fire-symbolic-intuitive insight backed up by case-by-case studies. Such an approach combines an intuitive understanding of mythology with psychological insight and empirical analysis of the charts of famous individuals. No amount of number crunching alone could yield such qualitative insights.

But it is in the area of evaluating psychological astrology that we have the biggest discrepancies occurring between the methods of thinking and language used by astrologers and that used by most researchers to date. Most astrologers paint portraits of their clients in rich, symbolic, analogical language which focus on the psychological dynamics of the individual and their sub-personalities, and the likely outcome of the particular mix of planetary archetypes in terms of personality, career, life events, etc. It is clearly inappropriate to attempt to evaluate such psychodynamic insights with the results of psychometric tests which attempt to measure abstracted dimensions of personality.

Like needs to be compared to like. For example, Bill Clinton and one of his aides might well have identical scores on a personality test, yet their personal psycho-dynamics and mix of sub-personalities as experienced by friends and described by those with psychological insight would be likely to be very different. An astrologer would expect to be able to produce a human profile recognizable to close friends, but would be unlikely to have much to say about the likely personality scores.

Here it might be fruitful to try comparing individually prepared astrological portraits of people with the kind of rich psychological profile produced by, for example, a depth psychologist or a psychologically-aware novelist or journalist who is used to summing up character and motivation in clear, vivid language. Or to have a psychologist, who knows individuals intimately, evaluate an astrologer's reports about those same people. Obviously such a type of research is, like life, not neat and tidy. It is dependent on personal judgment and so very much more complex and demanding on the researcher. Whilst such methods cannot readily be reduced to Earth/Air's standardized questionnaires and number crunching methods, they would, in my view, be comparing like with like and therefore have a much greater chance of providing clear evidence of astrology's power to reveal important information about an individual's psychology.

The more those of us researching astrology start thinking in the kind of symbolic and metaphorical language used by astrology, the more likely we are to come up with experiments which will produce convincing and interesting results. In this respect, to end on a personal note, I would say that in writing Sun Sign, Moon Sign (a book dealing with the characteristic dynamics of Sun and Moon in the chart), my wife Suzi and I learned more about the Sun-Moon dynamic from the study of literary biography than from anything else. This bears out Paul Wright's findings in The Literary Zodiac: literature is an ideal mirror in which we can see written large the astrological dynamics of the individual. I hope more students will give themselves the pleasure of engaging in types of research where the vivid colours of the archetypal realities have an opportunity to shine through.

References

(1) For further discussion of this type of approach to the different attitudes, see the essays by Graham Douglas in Radical Astrology - A Set of Discussion Papers, Ed Martin Budd, Patrick Curry, Graham Douglas and Bernie Jay, published by The Radical Astrology Group, 1983, and also in Physics, Astrology and Semiotics, by Graham Douglas. Copies of both are available from Graham Douglas, Radical Astrology Group, Flat 5, 57 Brunswick Square, Hove, E Sussex, BN3 1EF, England.

The modern argument for astrology-as-divination has been around for some years, but its ramifications are not widely appreciated. This article outlines in a few steps this reinterpretation of a significant part of our astrology, while throwing into relief some of its more radical suggestions.

The issue is not at first easy to take on board. Different themes have to be harnessed, like horses in a team of four, before a consistent direction can be determined. It is not easy because the direction we are taking runs against the grain of our common way of thinking about things. More difficult still, it runs counter to the Saturnian spell of false objectivity and determinism which has for so long held astrology in its thrall. Step One: Judicial Astrology is Divination

Astrology covers a vast domain of theories and practices. The first step is to divide that domain, and to make clear that I am not trying to marshal the whole of astrology under the banner of divination. I follow a division already established in the late medieval tradition, between Natural and Judicial Astrology, and my concern is limited to the latter. Judicial astrology is the art of specific judgments and predictions. These judgments are commonly horoscope-based, and they are made for an individual, or for an individual entity such as a nation. All conventional forms of horoscope interpretation, whether natal, horary, electional, mundane etc., are part of judicial astrology. Natural astrology refers to a much broader perception of order in the cosmos, above the contingencies of life and chance which may be revealed in the individual horoscope. It includes the doctrine of signatures and the occult correspondences of the stars, for instance in metals and herbs. It moves towards science in the original (non-modern) sense of this word.

With judicial astrology we enter the realm of divination. This is not a whimsical modern notion. The epithet `divinatory astrology' was current in the Renaissance critique of astrology, for instance in the writings of Marsilio Ficino and Pico della Mirandola, particularly referring to the claims by astrologers of the power of judgment and prediction through the horoscope. Along similar lines I suggest that the interpretation of horoscopes is to be understood as divination. But what do we mean by `divination'? For this to say anything useful we must put to one side vague ideas of intuition, and recognise that divination involves the manifest and the concrete. The issue becomes explicit when we compare horoscopic astrology with other recognised divinatory practices. Whatever the differences in scale of reference, technical structure and symbolic content, we are invited to see that the casting and interpretation of the horoscope is in principle similar to laying out a Tarot spread, using three coins to consult the I Ching, or reading tea leaves.

This claim is provocative but on its own it does not get us very far, and it has trouble standing up unaided. There is a seemingly compelling counter-argument based on astrology's objectivity and its relation to Time, inseparably bound up with our real-life experience that astrology works. It is only when we take this on that the implications of the divinatory interpretation open up.

The counter-argument

The usual objection to the divinatory interpretation of horoscopic astrology goes something like this: "OK, astrology and Tarot and I Ching all use symbols but the comparison ends there. Perhaps some practices of astrology, for instance horary, may be like divination because the time of the horoscope depends on a decision by an individual to consult the stars. But the mainstream of horoscope interpretation, and above all natal astrology, isn't like divination at all. My horoscope is like me, it describes features of my personality, and the planets really were there at birth, a moment in time given by fate, the cosmos, or nature, independent of any act by the astrologer. I had my Saturn Return at age 29, and it was like the books say, and I would have had it even if nobody had ever told me about astrology. The same applies to transits - the planets are really there, and their positions are in the ephemeris whether I bother to interpret them or not. So although it is a big mystery how it works, there is some sort of objective pattern here which seems to govern or inform how my life unfolds, revealed in the horoscope at the moment of birth."

Convincing though this orthodox position appears at first, it nevertheless rests on assumptions that do not match the phenomena we encounter in practice. It takes for granted that the astrological effect is a universal and constant phenomenon (at-all-times, in-all-places, independent of any astrologer), with the heavens stamping out correspondences at the origin moments of all things. This locates astrology as a lawful phenomenon of Nature, and it connects the judgment of particulars of horoscopes with the universal realm of Natural Astrology. Here is the claim for the scientific foundation for the horoscope, first articulated by Ptolemy.

Step Two: Science Fails the Horoscope

The orthodox taken-for-granted justification for the horoscope has suffered a setback in the 20th century in our failure to empirically validate natal astrology. Against the expectations of astrological research, when the power of statistical analysis has been brought to bear on the hypothesis of the `universal and constant' indications in horoscopes, then almost nothing worth reporting has been found. We cannot even be rescued by the findings of Michel Gauquelin concerning the correlation of planetary placings in the diurnal circle with career, since these do not belong in the realm of horoscope interpretation. The small variations discovered, immensely significant over large samples though they are, have no direct connection with the way judgments are formed in any single horoscope. It is not just a question of lack of consistency with traditional methods, as if we simply need to tinker with a few rules here and there. I suggest that these large-scale traces of symbolism belong more to natural than to judicial astrology. These statistical variations are showings of the mass, not of the individual, they constitute a different order of astrology's phenomenon, and at no point can they secure a meaningful interpretation in the unique case. Gauquelin's results marvellously confirm traditional planetary symbolism, just as they point indirectly to the significance of the angles, and these are facts of cosmological consequence, not least for their exhilarating challenge to materialist science. Yet despite all this, as Gauquelin correctly observes, from this perspective `the horoscope falls down'. It is a misunderstanding to imagine that these findings validate natal horoscopy.

Step Three: the Unique Case of Interpretation

We learn something most important from the consistent failure of scientific research in astrology, for it points to the inaccessibility of divinatory/judicial astrology to empirical method. This in turn suggests that what we take to be simple fact-statements in our everyday astrology - Taurus is stubborn, Mars is anger and red - are not simple facts like tables, chairs and molecules. Although they spring to life as literal and objective interpretations in each one-off case of a horoscope analysis, they remain expressions of a universal symbolism that has generated them. Particular horoscope interpretations of universal symbols are true in so far as they are relevant in the one case under consideration, but never for a statistical population of cases. I have called this feature of the phenomenology of divination the unique case of interpretation. What it means for astrology is that we only ever meaningfully interpret one-off unique horoscopes for one-off, unique human situations, allowing the revelatory light of astrology's universal symbolism to illuminate the wholly individual contours of our encounter with human being.

Step Four: Assigned Time, not Clock Time

The counter-divination argument is at root bound up with the authority of the objective moment of time. The planets `really were there' on the day and at the time I was born, and really are there for my transits. Yet this simple assertion of astronomy disguises a profound problem. The case of wrong maps working is perhaps the best-known expression of the divinatory position. There are few professional astrologers who cannot tell a rueful tale about having the wrong time or even the totally wrong chart for a client and going on to give an unusually effective interpretation or prediction. We are not talking about generalised character readings, either - these wrong maps can work with high focus symbolism on exact timing and synastry to angles. I have had this experience - have you?

A variant of the same principle is the phenomenon of different rectifications of the same horoscope yielding independently useful results. In the same vein is the not uncommon phenomenon of the radical `stated time chart'. This occurs where the subject asserts the round hour time of their birth (say, 2 pm), which time then yields precise results when treated with close technique and minute of arc on angles for 2:00:00pm, as if it is a highly accurate birth time.

This it not to suggest that all wrong maps work - but then again it is far from clear that all `right' maps work. In any case, what we mean by a horoscope working cannot be said to be securely established. Neither does a divinatory approach suggest that `anything goes' and we can simply make up maps.

Let me at this point take on some observations that are usually held to contradict the approach adopted here, but in fact do no such thing. There is firstly the striking phenomenon of an astrologer feeling dubious about data, rectifying, and being proved correct from the discovery of a birth record. Then there are a few astrologers, Robert Hand notable amongst them, who insist that they have an intuitive sense of a map not being right. On a point both of practice and of logic, however, such possibilities do not answer the divinatory interpretation since there appears to be no way in which we could distinguish the difference in astrological method between successful interpretation of a right map, from successful interpretation of a `wrong' map. There is therefore no ground for ignoring `wrong maps working' other than the a priori denial based on the Ptolemaic tradition.

The challenge to objective temporality in astrology does not undermine the symbolic power of revelation of a truly crafted natal horoscope. What it does do is remove fake determinism and relocate the defining mystery of symbol back and behind its projection and clock-time objectification. I use the word `projection' advisedly, pointing to the rich seam of exploration along the lines of Jung's psychology. Seen in this light, the assigning of significance to an objective moment of time is part of the wider process by which archetypal contents are constellated in perceived reality.

Where now?

A common criticism of the divinatory approach is that if true, it pulls the rug out from any attempt to test or improve our tradition. This objection connects with the idea that divination is purely arbitrary and subjective, since any technique or manipulation of symbols can be chosen if this is `just' an act of imagination. The reply, in brief, is that it is a misperception to suppose that in the realm of divination `anything goes'. On the contrary, sophisticated and credible systems of divination are a rare breed. They also show the characteristics of shared language. It will pay us to study the functions of divination and the conditions under which symbol traditions hold their integrity over time and across cultures. As we enter the third millennium of our tradition, astrology's kinship with divination is amongst the most imperative questions that we are called on to address.

© Geoffrey Cornelius

Works Cited

Cornelius, Geoffrey: The Moment of Astrology. Arkana Contemporary Astrology Series. London: Penguin, 1994.
Cornelius, Geoffrey: "Is Astrology Divination - and Does It Matter?" The Mountain Astrologer October 1998, page 38.
Gauquelin, Michel: The Truth About Astrology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983.
Hand, Robert: Personal Communication 1999.
Hyde, Maggie: Jung and Astrology. London: Aquarian Press, 1992.

Keep in touch with the Company of Astrologers WEBSITE for news, links & discussions on Divinatory Astrology www.coa.hubcom.net/

We can study astrology, learning the art and craft of horoscope interpretation, but we can also study astrology as a phenomenon. This is what we do, of course, when we study its history, particularly its social and political aspects, or its relation with religion, art and literature. The study of history, including the history of astrology, is of profound importance for the present. For example, we may ask questions about astrology, in relation to both the past and the present, which can tell us about its contemporary nature. If we ask why people believe in astrology, an astrologer might answer "because it's true". But if we then ask why most students of astrology, perhaps eighty per cent, are women, we are forced to different conclusions. Are women much better at perceiving the truth than men? Or are they, as astrology's sceptical critics would have it, more gullible? Whatever the answer, we are reminded that astrology exists within a cultural context, and to ignore that is to close our minds to the study of who we are and what we believe.

The prospect of a journal on the history of astrology was first mooted back in 1984, the same year as both the conference on the history of astrology at London University’s Warburg Institute, and the first of the annual Astrological Lodge history of astrology seminars. The idea was revived in 1997 with the birth of a new journal, Culture and Cosmos, following discussions between myself and Patrick Curry. However, by then a number of scholars were beginning to look at the history of astronomy in its cultural context, a departure from the normal approach, which was to examine only its mathematical development. Astronomers were being encouraged to examine astronomy’s relationship with society, politics, art and religion. Summing up the new mood Michael Hoskin, editor of the Journal for the History of Astronomy posed the rhetorical question, "what astronomy is not an astronomy in a culture". It was in recognition of this changing climate that Culture and Cosmos was given the subtitle "a journal of the history of astrology and cultural astronomy" as an explicit recognition of the fact that astrology exists in a cultural framework and that many of its areas of interest, such as its relationship with religion, are shared with the history of astronomy.

There have been other significant developments in the history of astronomy over the past few decades. The publications of Gerald Hawkins on Stonehenge and Alexander Thom on megalithic astronomy in general in the 1950s and 1960s pretty well established the modern discipline of archaeoastronomy - the study of astronomical alignments or patterns in ancient monuments. Meanwhile anthropological research into Native American and non-European cosmologies led to the emergence of "ethnoastronomy"; the first international conference on ethnoastronomy was held in 1983, the year before the Warburg conference in London. In recent years two academic groups have been formed to bring students of these areas together - SEAC (the European Society for the Study of Astronomy in Culture) and ISAAC (the International Society for the Study of Archaeoastronomy and Astronomy in Culture). The periodical Archaeoastronomy, founded by John Carlson in 1978, has just become ISAAC's official journal, with the new subtitle "the Journal of Astronomy in Culture". Thus "cultural astronomy" is now a recognised discipline, one which includes many aspects of the history of astronomy which are directly relevant to astrology's history and development.

Other Addresses

Astrological Lodge, annual seminar in the history of astrology (see Calendar), write to the Astrological Lodge at 50 Gloucester Place, London W1H 4EA, UK.

Journal for the History of Astronomy, Science History Publications Ltd., 16 Rutherford Road, Cambridge, CB2 2HH, England.

The Centre for Archaeoastronomy, PO Box `X', College Park, MD 20741-3022, USA. tel: (301) 864-6637, FAX (301) 699-5337.
The Centre's newsletter also carries news of the International Society for Archaeoastronomy and Astronomy in Culture. http://www.wam.umd.edu/~tlaloc/archastro/ The journal Archaeoastronomy is available from University of Texas Press, Journals Division, Box 7819, TX 7813-7819, USA.

Archive for the Retrieval of Historical Astrological Texts (ARHAT), P.O. Box 2008, Reston, VA 21095, USA website: RobHand.com (translation and publication of classical and medieval astrological texts).

Project Hindsight, Golden Hind Press, 532 Washington Street, Cumberland, MD 21502, USA (translation and publication of classical and medieval astrological texts).

Many readers will already know of the Sophia Project, (see page 3 of this Yearbook) based on a generous gift of money to the Urania Trust to further the study of "real astrology in higher education" in Britain. At the Latimer House weekend in March 1999, representatives of leading astrological organisations and other members of the community engaged in intense debate about how best to proceed with this programme.

In April 1999, I was appointed by the Steering Committee of the Sophia Project, on behalf of the UT, to act as academic coordinator and advisor. One of the first tasks I was asked to undertake was to suggest criteria by which the SP could judge proposals that it received, or that it might want to make itself. (I was also asked to keep in mind the views expressed at the Latimer weekend.)

What follows, then, are the criteria that I came up with in my first report to the Trustees of the SP. They are, however, only suggestions, for which I alone remain responsible. I hope they will prove interesting, useful and fruitful.

THE CRITERIA

The first and fundamental criterion, I suggest, must be that proposals acknowledge, implicitly if not explicitly, that there is `something to' astrology that cannot be reduced to (ie entirely explained away by) any other kind or body of knowledge. In other words, it must respect the integrity of astrology, and its right to exist as such. This entails a view of the world in which astrology is indeed possible, even if it cannot be entirely understood or explained.

That `something' often takes the form of the experience, on the part of a practising astrologer and/or an enquirer, of astrology `working'. It is for that reason that such an experience is the principal target of its opponents (ie "actually, it is just judgement biases/ attribution error/ probability", etc). So by the same token, any invitation to participate in a discourse which is committed (implicitly or explicitly) to such a reductionist move should be rejected.

The reason is not because astrology needs protection and without it would cease to exist. The reason is that the kind of approach I have just described entails subscribing to a worldview in which not just the experience of astrologers but personal experience as such is permanently hostage to `scientific' explanation. Such a commitment is as much an act of `faith' as a worldview in which astrology is possible, since there are no meta-scientific grounds for supposing that our current theories are adequate, let alone true. More specifically, however, it is a worldview which makes it impossible to study astrology properly, since the latter does not (because it `cannot') really exist.

One way to ensure that this criterion is being fulfilled in practice might be to keep practising astrologers - as well as academics - involved, in some nontrivial way, at every stage of teaching and evaluation.

The second criterion concerns the nature of "real astrology in higher education" - and specifically whether this means an academic qualification (where astrology is the subject-matter) or a professional training (in astrological practice). This is a key question. I shall take each in turn.

A. On astrology as an academic subject. The desirability of this seems indisputable, and indeed there was little disputing it at the Latimer Mew conference, provided that the "real" is preserved through the active involvement of astrologers, as just mentioned - although here, the astrologers need to also be reasonably knowledgeable about the academic discipline involved: probably a rather small number, until the SP starts to bear fruit! There is actually a double goal involved here:
(1) to enable practising astrologers to study astrology academically, and
(2) to enable non-astrologers to study astrology academically in a way that also respects its integrity (see above).

It follows that we are not primarily interested (for example) in enabling non-astrologers to study `non-real' astrology academically; or in enabling astrologers to study other subjects.

More specifically, what discourses or disciplines are needed in order to study astrology in this way? I suggest that they should include at least the following:
* History - because self-understanding is unlikely without a grasp of how astrology as a discourse(1) has developed, changed and not changed over time, in both theory and practice - something that can also be related to the broader history of ideas; this, incidentally, also points to the importance of making available key astrological texts (something which the SP therefore might also wish to support); and
* Anthropology and sociology - because it is also unlikely without a grasp of how astrology is conceived and practised in space (so to speak): ie in different cultures (and sub-cultures) and societies, including our own.

Both these disciplines are well-used to `bracketing' questions pertaining to the scientific `truth-value' of their subject-matter, because they usually have to in order to study it properly (see above).

Also important are:

* Religious studies - because astrological experience also often contains - and/or simply resembles - an experience of the sacred/divine/ineffable;
* Philosophy - because astrological discourse clearly has a philosophical dimension which could be fruitfully explored; a difficulty here might be the hostility of much mainstream British philosophy to the kind of philosophy that doesn't fall foul of our first criterion (eg. hermeneutics, phenomenology, metaphysics, perhaps post-structuralism);
* Social &/or cognitive psychology - prima facie, because the mind is involved in astrology! but here the problems are even worse, on account of psychology's institutionalised physics envy (see Correlation for abundant evidence); and
* Astronomy and cosmology - a major dimension of astrology, but as part of and in relation to the above-mentioned disciplines, in order to keep sight of astrology as an essentially human experience.

This last point is actually implicit in all the others above, but could well bear being spelled out and emphasised. Astrology is above all a human experience and activity. Other examples in the same broad category would include religious experience, literature, art, music, humour . . . and science itself, which also can, and should, be studied in this way.

Since astrology unites or crosses so many of these disciplines, it also follows although its study need not be interdisciplinary, it could well benefit from such an approach. (The problem here is that disciplinary boundaries in British academic institutions tend to be rather rigid.)

B. On (a degree in) astrology as a professional training. This proved more contentious at the Latimer conference, but largely, I suspect, because there was "a unanimous consensus that there should not be a central registering body established that confers fellowships etc." Once this was eliminated from the agenda, there was general support for the idea that individual schools of astrology could build up their courses to BA level (with help from the SP, at least in principle) and then legitimately approach universities of their choice to seek academic accreditation. (If any overall mediation was necessary, it was felt that the APAE would be adequate.) It was also noted that with the establishment of university degrees in physiotherapy and psychotherapy, there was some precedent for doing so.

Once again, there is a clear case for retaining a substantial degree of control over the syllabus(es) by astrologers - in this case, astrologers who are also competent in the relevant astrological practice. (This degree of emphasis implies, I think, that the SP must in turn have the same degree of control over who counts as an astrologer in this context.)

There was also considerable concern voiced at Latimer at astrology being identified solely with astrological counselling. This would be largely resolved to the extent that academic developments (in line with A above) were also under way; on the other hand, if developments were restricted to those of type B then the wishes of the majority at Latimer - and arguably of the SP itself - would have been contravened.

Overall, then, I can see no reason why both paths cannot be pursued, provided that
* A is not neglected for B;
* astrologers, of the appropriate kind, are involved at every substantive level, and have `accredited' the astrological content of courses (in a way that balances out, so to speak, academic accreditation `the other way')
* time, energy and funds permit.

STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS

It should be kept in mind that a relationship between discourses - eg. astrology and the academy - always involve considerations of power; so the former cannot affect the latter without being, at least to some extent, changed by it. (Conversely, the price of purity is having negligible effects on the larger world. I am not saying this is necessarily wrong; that depends on what the goal is.) This amounts to no more than another reason to ask closely whether specific proposals fulfill the above criteria (assuming they are approved), in line with the wishes of the donor and the UT. What must be avoided is a relationship for which we pay a higher price (of whatever kind) than the benefits we obtain (of whatever kind).

There has also been some discussion about the significance of a `first showing', ie. the first academic connection. There is no need to become superstitious about this. However, there is a real possibility of an institutional arrangement unduly narrowing down and fixing the extremely rich and varied nature of astrology. In order to avoid such an impoverishment, I would suggest that any proposal which carries such a danger not be entered into if it is, and/or looks likely to be, the only one. Put more positively, the more and varied the arrangements (within reason) the better.

Finally, it seems to me that in principle, the above criteria could be fulfilled either by (1) encouraging agreed courses, modules and/or degrees (both academic and professional) at various universities and within various departments on an ad hoc basis; and/or (2) by establishing a Centre. In practice, however, limitations of time and energy may mean choosing between these two options. FINALLY

Since writing the above, I have come around to the view that the best way to proceed from here is to establish an independent Centre for Astrological Studies, under the aegis of the SP. (A chair in Astrological Studies at a British university is, at least for now, a non-starter; the customary procedure is to surrender not only all the funds but all control of the appointments to the university, who would then be quite free to appoint as professor someone deeply hostile to the subject.) It seems to me such a Centre would be the best way to help to encourage, coordinate and guide, and in some cases help to fund, undergraduate courses, postgraduate research, and research fellowships. And being independent of any particular faculty or department, it would be free to do so in a way that respected the vital pluralism of astrology, rather than committing the SP to one dominant model of astrology, or model of the kind of research that it could benefit from, and to which it could contribute.

(1) "Discourse" here means both theory and practice - both because the two are ultimately inseparable, and so I can avoid having to repeat "theory and practice".

INTRODUCTION

*A. On the merits and demerits of a horoscope
*B. Data Collections
*C. Reliability of Data
*D. The TAEGER-ARCHIVES

A. On the merits and demerits of a horoscope

From the outset, we wish to warn the beginner that it is not sufficient to merely have well researched birth data in order to find the definitive formula to the individual. A chart can only be seen as additional information about a thorough and well balanced biography. With experience, it can offer rough guidelines and explanation. If one eliminates the hidden but certainly meaningful pre-natal biography, then other important factors must also be considered: parents, social environment, spiritual stimulation or negligence, education, psychological traumata, sickness, time factors, personal moral guidelines, religion, cultural background etc. A horoscope can be just as misleading as the angelic mask behind which a devil lurks or the sinister face which conceals a good friend.

In addition, the birth chart itself, far from being a fixed matrix or straightjacket, is like a human being. It expresses itself, transforms, breathes and lives. It is in an ongoing renewal process which, in astrological terms, is caused by transits, solar returns, relocations, progressions, directions, other rhythms, etc. Beneath a horoscope full of squares, oppositions and other `conflicting' constellations you can find a friendly, balanced or highly developed mind. On the other hand, a harmonic chart full of trines, sextiles and promising conjunctions can conceal a boring or undeveloped character. This or similar considerations of a holistic nature, which allow for the intuition or refined instinctive judgement of the interpreter, led to the popular concept of astrology as an ART of interpretation. And so, it is not surprising that the main careers of some talented astrologers are artist, writer, musician or other professions related to art (THOMAS RING, DANE RUDHYAR, NOEL TYL). This shouldn't however exclude a more scientific way of thinking. Even experienced analysts should therefore avoid overhasty conclusions resulting from a brief glance at the horoscope. Not only can these conclusions lead to prejudice but also obstruct the way to one of the greatest mysteries - Humankind itself!

B. Data Collections

ALAN LEO's pioneering data collection `1001 Notable Nativities', published at the turn of the century, was used as a standard reference book by astrologers for many decades. It summarised all the important horoscope data back to the times of WILLIAM LILLY (London 1602-1681). Later works of M WEMYSS ('More Notable Nativities', 1983) or the American MARC E JONES (Appendix to `The Sabian Symbols', 1953) merely added minor data or corrections. These earlier data works were often lacking in exact sources and even the hours of birth showed great inaccuracy. At that time, the reputation or popularity of the publishing astrologer played an important part. Further critical research was not made (not even in the case of possible miscalculations). Unfortunately, this has led to the copying of distorted birth charts which has lasted up to the present day. Very often, complex interpretations (among well-known authors) were thoughtlessly built on rather shaky sources. Nevertheless, a start was made: astrologers carefully began publicising their archives. The importance of comparing data became apparent. Astrology lost more and more its reliance on belief and became part of the empirical sciences. In this respect, it is worth noting that up until the 70s it was considered imprudent in astrological circles to publish one's own data. It was as if the mysterious aura surrounding a person was being destroyed. Astrologers wrote under imaginary pseudonyms in order to make life difficult for data researchers, or to go beyond the influence of vulgar astrology and play their cards close to their chests. A bad practice which they shared with the eternally young theatre, screen, and opera stars, who consciously falsified their personal data in order to maintain their popularity.

Weary of this groping in the dark, the French research couple, FRANCOISE and MICHEL GAUQUELIN, undertook to gather registered birth data within the framework of a comprehensive study in the 50s. They aimed to meet statistical requirements and provide more accurate and reliable evidence. A layman cannot even begin to imagine the immense investment of time and energy which was required to collect authentic data of more than 20,000 people (listed according to groups such as actors, politicians, artists, scientists, authors, military men, psychopaths, sportsmen). In this, they collaborated not only with French but also German, Belgian, Italian and Dutch registeries. As far as European data is concerned, the Gauquelin Archives - the result of 30 years of data collection- are unsurpassed in precision and size. If there were a Nobel prize for astrology, they would have deserved it! The fact that they produced proof of the influence of astrology ("Gauquelin Effect" - emphasis of cardinal house cusps 1 and 10 by certain planets for various professional groups) highlights the need for careful data work. At this point, I would like to thank FRANCOISE GAUQUELIN-SCHNEIDER very warmly for her interested and generous cooperation in the development of the Taeger-Archives. She was consistent, patient and helpful in dealing with many specialised issues and proof readings. She shares these characteristics with various major research personalities, with whom I came in contact. Worthy of note are the astrologers A BARBAULT and P CHOISNARD who have also published greater collections of register-based horoscopes and belong to the early data pioneers.

In the middle of the 70s, approximately at the close of the psychedelic era, during which the popular interest of the then young and critically questioning public was awoken, a whole range of data books appeared on the American market. The first ones still had rather vague sources and had to be read carefully. For example JANSKY'S `Horoscopes Here And Now' (1975), MARC PENFIELD's `An Astrological Who's Who' (1972) or ERLEWINE's Circle Book of Charts' (1978). In answer to LEO's `1001 Notable Nativities' PENFIELD'S `2001: The Penfield Collection' appeared in 1979. Even if the data has been updated in more precisely researched times, one had to take this particular work more seriously because it contained more exact sources such as `via birth register', `via biography', via this or that data collection etc, so that one was able to develop a kind of reliability scale. PENFIELD was my first American data partner and I am extremely grateful to him for all the stimulation he gave me. Many thanks, Marc!

In the same year, 1979, the first data volume, `Profiles of Women', written by the American astrologer LOIS M RODDEN, was published. It contained 500 horoscopes and short biographies of famous women. In the meantime, this has become a classic among the horoscope works. This was followed intermittently by 4 further volumes (AstroData, II, III, IV, V). They all contained - and this was new - horoscope drawings, short biographies, exact data sources, sources of deviating birth times, (from Vol II onwards) an evaluation system developed by RODDEN herself. In this she distinguishes between A-SOURCES (= Accurate Data: via birth certificate, hospital record, personal statement or statement of a family member), B-SOURCES (= via biography or autobiography), C-SOURCES (= via magazines without source details, via biographies without naming the author or biographer or `approximate times') and DD-SOURCES (= Dirty Data: data with many conflicting times or speculative and rectified times without naming the author). This differentiation of sources has established itself in the meantime in America, and English-speaking countries, and must be seen as genuine progress. LOIS M RODDEN is one of the greatest experts not only in the USA but also in the international data world due to her reliable, responsible and detailed data research. In addition to her data books with over 7,000 data, she also edits a special data magazine ('DATA NEWS'). Furthermore, she has established a computer data bank `RID-DATA-ARCHIVES', which comprises 12,000 horoscopes (including anonymous data) categorised according to certain criteria, which can be publicly used for research purposes. Our lengthy correspondence and collaboration encouraged me, again and again, following her example, to continue my data work as precisely as possible and keep it up to date and so we became true friends in our shared passion for data collection. I'm eternally grateful for everything, Lois !

GRAZIA BORDONI is currently leading on the Italian data scene with 9 comprehensive data volumes. In contrast to PENFIELD and RODDEN she also publishes (on a smaller scale) mundane data. In addition to international data, her books are particularly valuable for Italian data which have been predominantly researched via register.

A particularly lucid and carefully compiled book, entitled `Circles' with horoscope drawings and short biographies, appeared in Holland in 1980 by JAN KAMPHERBEEK. Unfortunately, like BORDONI, he does not mention deviating times and comparative sources.

Also of great importance is the immense work by the Belgian astrologer, publisher and musician JACQUES DE LESCAUT, who published over 18,000 data in 17 volumes as the `Encyclopaedia of Birth Data' (1978-91) - certainly a most comprehensive data collection ranging between the Gauquelin Archives and the Rodden and Taeger-Archives. Regrettably, he omits horoscope drawings in the last volumes, doesn't make any biographical notes (apart from professional titles) and fails to provide deviating times, comparisons of sources and definite source information. Even though he distinguishes between `recorded' (via register), via `biography', and times without exact sources, he doesn't indicate from which sources he has taken the reference `via register', so that one should be careful when using his register statements.

Excellent work is also being done by many unpublished and private archives which belong to astrological associations. Worth mentioning are the data banks of the `AMERICAN FEDERATION OF ASTROLOGERS' (AFA) which always publishes a current data corner in its monthly bulletin, as well as data publications of the American magazine `MERCURY HOUR'. The data archives of the English `ASTROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION' led until 1990 by DAVID FISHER offers its members data including calculations (for a small fee), exact sources, diverging times and key words about the person. These archives contain a broad spectrum of international, individual and mundane data. Within the framework of the `DEUTSCHEN ASTROLOGEN VERBAND'/DAV, PETER NIEHENKE compiled a computer data bank with love and care (with over 30,000 data, most of which are reproductions of the Gauquelin data). This we were able to acquire as a whole and helped us particularly in dealing with some German data. Since a few years, also the German magazine MERIDIAN and the SWISS magazine ASTROLOGIE HEUTE make great efforts to provide accurate data to their readership.

The first data of the Taeger Archives were provided by REINHOLD EBERTIN (end of the 60s). TONY BONIN made copies of the Wemyss Collection (among other things) accessible to me, and SYLVIA TOBIAS (USA) provided her data collection `From the Pages of the Mercury Hour'. EDWIN STEINBRECHER (USA) provided the corrections of unclear material and many nameless friends gave me rare data from their collection or helped me with updating.

Private data collectors such as the Belgian LUC DE MARR or the English PAUL WRIGHT should not go unmentioned. The latter has recently made his archives available with over 1000 Scottish register data in the form of computer printouts.

One last word about the unbalanced data distribution for certain countries, ie the notable emphasis on French, Italian, Scottish, German, American, Belgian and Dutch data. The reason for this is the simple fact that in these countries register or hospital-entries are compulsory by law (in the USA only in some federal states) and therefore alleviate the data work considerably. This has been restricted, however, in the past few years through stricter data protection laws (with the exception of deceased persons). Astrologers, data collectors and interested parties in other countries - one need only think of Asian countries, Africa, Russia, England, Spain, etc - are in an extremely difficult position and are relying on the statements of parents (where available), entries in the family bible, rectifications and other research. Because this situation will not change in the near future, we must, regrettably, live with a deficiency in data from these countries.

C. Reliability of Data

In our work we put the main emphasis on comparing data sources and lexical studies, thereby doing everything possible to give the reader a reliable data work. Nevertheless, with the abundance of data material given, it is inevitable that inaccuracies have occurred. There is no such thing as a data collection without errors. We are very grateful to all users of the TAEGER-ARCHIVE on CD-ROM (German version) and the readers of the four data volumes of the INTERNATIONALES HOROSKOPE LEXIKON (IHL) for corrections, reports, additions and, above all, new data material. Please take notice that the CD-ROM version with 3000 updates is our main actual reference.

As an alternative to L M RODDEN'S data groupings we have summarised our data as follows: The data of GROUP 1 .(= via register, subdivided in 1, 1* and 1F) are certainly the most reliable (especially when they are in accordance with the parents' statements). But even here one should be careful. Through carelessness or in the excitement, the entry can be made incorrectly by the doctor, the hospital, the midwife or the parents. The registrar could have misunderstood the time - mistaken am for pm. Perhaps the data researcher has only a poor or illegible copy of the register statement and misinterprets the time. Often the registry information passes through many intermediary sources before finally arriving with the data collector. In all these instances, inaccuracies may occur. In addition, we must remember that most times are given to the nearest quarter of an hour (in some cases you find even greater deviations), so that one must allow for some scope when dealing with the ascendant and house system. Even birth times that are given to the nearest minute are no indication of 100 % certainty (because there is no clearly recognised rectification method). In short, even in the highest reliability group one must be flexible and work out one's own proof reading of birth times with the help of biographies, life events etc. This is particularly important when MC or ascendant falls on cusps of zodiac signs in the calculation - for example on the end of Aries or on the beginning of Taurus.

Fortunately, in recent decades, there has been increasing precision in the recording of birth times to the nearest minute. This is caused by an increasing worldwide awareness of astrology with parents timing the first cry of their baby. Future generations of astrologers will reap the benefits of this in their research. The data of GROUP 2 .(= parents' statements (2M,2F), personal statements, autobiographies (2P), biographies (2B), statements of relations, partners or friends (2R) are certainly to be examined more critically. In 50% of all these cases, which I was to investigate through a birth register, I found deviations (often to a considerable degree). When dealing with information from the parents they mostly confirmed the register time after some consideration. Particularly where there are several children, and with a time elapse of 20, 30 or 40 years, it is possible to get confused, whereas the birth register keeps the time `fresh'. It is clear, and unnecessary to explain, that the curve on the reliability scales slopes downwards from parents through personal statements to partner or friend.

The times of GROUP 3 (= without naming source) are the mysterious question marks of the data world. They may represent a register statement, a parental or personal statement or even speculation. In honour of the astrology world, it must be said that data from group 3 could be put into group 1 following later research. Only in the past few years has it become common practice to name data references in astrological studies. For decades, this aspect was neglected. For the most part, individual astrologers had their well protected archives and guaranteed the accuracy of data merely with their name, when publishing. To verify a source would have been the same as self-degradation to them. This attitude was also held by frivolous people, pendulum `artists' or charlatans. But one should not be overhasty in condemning the times given in group 3, but rather consider them as a real possibility.

The details in GROUP 4 are mostly data which are either accompanied by a jumble of diverging times (or even days and years) or labelled by the author as speculative. Here it is least probable (but not impossible) to find hidden data belonging to group 1 or 2. Sometimes there is good luck amid the speculations and a rare jewel might be found in the data maze. Good rectification often requires months or years of research with one particular person and his chart. And you do find talented astrologers who are in a position to work out sufficiently exact birth time reconstructions. Data of group 4 have therefore occasionally been put into the archives to give clues to the interpretation of internationally known personalities, who would otherwise remain unmentioned. We would advise the beginner who may be lacking in experience with the speculative time, to study the midday positions of the planets (without AS and MC) and their communication of aspects. By overemphasising precision one often forgets that much can be established about a person with such simple methods.

GROUP 6 (MUNDANE DATA) does not indicate any reliability criteria but rather events such as founding of states, inventions, wars, treaties, catastrophies etc.. This branch of astrology has received increasing attention in recent decades. To the same extent, the so-called `collective' planets: Chiron, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, have also been integrated into the individual interpretation. Just as the individual person is interpreted in interaction with the astrological whole, so also should there be interaction between the world as a whole, part, group, moment, etc and the planets and zodiac. IN THIS, EVERY MOMENT OF TIME IS A MOMENT OF BIRTH, so that one can easily deduce development and future from the data of treaties, foundations and inaugurations.

D. The TAEGERARCHIVES ©

The TAEGER-ARCHIVES © is the result of 23 years of collection (1968-91). The last 10 years (1981-91) have been highlighted by increasing publications of 4 major data collections (1991-98). It is led by HANS-HINRICH TAEGER and THOMAS SIEGFRIED and is part of the work of the `INSTITUTE FOR ASTROENERGETIC STUDIES' (IAS), which has its headquarters in Ireland since 1983.

The speciality of the TAEGER-ARCHIVES is its comparative data examination and data filing whith more than 160 international data archives with a total of over 100,000 data. In addition, there are the current data publications from over 40 periodicals, astrology books, private data exchange etc. The work of the TAEGER-ARCHIVES can be divided into three sections: data of so-called `famous people' (approx. 80 %), mundane data (approx 10%) and anonymous special data (approx 10%). In the last few years we have put some of our effort into backing up our data with copies of birth certificate records and other documents. 30 % of our data are now verified in this way. Another important aspect of our work is the comparison of our data research results with the collections of fellow data collectors, noting deviations, and grouping them according to our own reliability criteria (from group 1 = registary to group 4=speculative).

A data is only taken into the main TAEGERARCHIVES if we can find reliable and sufficient biographical information on the person involved. This is in contrast to a number of collectors who file data also without biographical backup. For the data-journalistic, biographical process we have access to over 60 encyclopaedias, reference books, specialised dictionaries etc. with a total of over 500 volumes. Not until we strike lucky and can set up a data comparison (and possibly take note of data deviations) will the person concerned, including biographical details, be filed in the TAEGER-ARCHIVES, in a computerised form as well as on the index cards. In this, we only transfer birth data and time from the actual source. We take time zones and coordinates for birth places from our own research or from highly specialised publications. Here, the corresponding deviations are noted and/or discussed in consultation with the author of the data publication. As a final check, every chart is calculated with a 2-page horoscope print-out from the computer. It is then compared with the data of the publication and filed.

Through this time-consuming sifting and checking, only 22,000 of the 100,000 data (some of which naturally appear twice or three times) have made an entry into the TAEGER-ARCHIVES. Of those a selection of 8,000 are published in the the 4 volumes of the INTERNATIONALES HOROSKOPE LEXIKON. The TAEGER-ARCHIVES on CD-ROM © (at present we just have a German version) will contain 9,000 data with 3000 biographical and data updates in comparison with the book edition.

Through our qualitative data selection we have succeeded in separating the wheat from the chaff. At the same time, we had to run the risk of overlooking some `insider' or local prominent person, who is not yet listed in any reference work. But what use is a name or even a professional title, if it does not give any information about the person concerned? This is best used for statistics concerning professions and for this we already have the existing Gauquelin-, Bordoni- or Lescaut-Archives or the CD-Version of the DAV databank. Important for the practical work with the TAEGER-ARCHIVES are thousands of additional data in the biographical section of the individual involved. In the CD-Version a simple mouse-click will bring a calculation for these sub-data on the screen, link to further information etc.

The CD-ROM version of the TAEGER-ARCHIVES with some 9,000 data, over 10,000 accessible sub-data in the text, short biographies and detailed data sources are unique at this stage and makes the TAEGER-ARCHIVES one of the best archives worldwide. For the CD-ROM version all texts and all the data have been expanded and updated to the data-know-how of January 1998. The CD contains the data of the 4-volume series of the INTERNATIONALES HOROSKOPE LEXIKON (IHL), as well as numerous additional sub-data. The electronic version is programmed by TOBIAS FERBER who put much emphasis into this important project.

With this time and work intensive CD-ROM publication we hope to have given a valuable contribution to the astrological community (for individual research projects as well as for statistical studies). We also hope that our example will inspire individual astrologers to aim for even more care in the handling of data and its documentation (data transparency). Many of our readers were astonished by the high numbers of inaccuracies in their older data collections that were often based on speculative or divined times, careless and poor referencing or wrong calculations. To eliminate gradually all these old `data devils' we appeal to our readers to help us by sending copies of birth certificates, written statements by the individual horoscope owners, authoritative biographical information (see also under research projects of IAS). Before important publications (books, articles), based on our archives we invite all authors to check with us recent data updates.

Updated July 99

This article is taken from the Taeger-Archives website http://www.iol.ie/~taeger.

 *********************************************************************************

Comments to webmaster