Part 1
by James A. Eshelman
(Originally published in Black Pearl, Vol. II, No. 1. Copyright College of Thelema, 2002, All Rights Reserved. Reproduced with permission of the author and College of Thelema.)
“I have yet to see a single piece of statistical work… which gives the slightest indication that the twelve signs, in either zodiac, are valid entities in the sense that they are normally thought of.” John Addey, 1961
“…observations again indicate the uselessness of the astrological zodiacal wheel.” Michel Gauquelin, 1973
“Numerous statistical and psychological studies show the signs as traditionally applied appear to have negligible validity.” Geoffrey Dean, 1977
Is there really a zodiac? For thousands of years the encircling band of familiar stars with their chimerical images has underlain the body of astrological practice. In modern times, from half to two-thirds of the populations of major Western countries read daily pre-packaged astrological forecasts based on no more astrology than the natal sign-placement of one celestial body. Despite a tendency among astrologers in the latter 20th Century to reconsider priorities in astrological interpretation, it is the rare and exceptional manual on practical horoscope delineation that does not lay substantial emphasis on the twelve zodiacal signs.“The method of science – the aim of religion.” Aleister Crowley, 1909
However, in the last half of the 20th Century, there arose a tumefying wave of doubt that these dozen ecliptical sectors actually exist as astrological verities. It began slowly, with signs playing an ever lesser role in the writings of certain key astrologers. From Germany came the Ebertin school which vastly underplayed signs. Certainly many astrologers had their confidence shaken when Cyril Fagan, “The Father of Sidereal Astrology,” began saying we were nearly a whole sign off in our zodiacal labels. A decade later, England’s John Addey was claiming that, while some ecliptical effects were measurable, these have nothing at all to do with neat 30° signs, but, rather, with rhythmic, overlapping wave-forms to which he gave the name “harmonics.”
Yet, of all the challengers to the sanctity of sign symbolism, none delivered a more worthy blow than the French statistician Michel Gauquelin. For decades, Dr. Gauquelin, in conjunction with his wife, Françoise, gathered and analyzed thousands of sets of timed birth data for eminent professionals in diverse fields. The name Gauquelin has become so well-known among astrologers, in fact, for his work with professional groups, astro-heredity, and the statistical correlation of planets with character traits that I shall not digress from our topic longer than it takes to mention his superb summary work, Cosmic Influences on Human Behavior, and to say that in numerous close examinations of his research by some of the nit-pickiest statisticians on the planet, Gauquelin came away usually on top and, on balance, substantially vindicated by replication. His pristine data collections have been the foundation of an enormous amount of statistical work over dozens of years. Even the fastidious Dr. Geoffrey Dean admitted, “Gauquelin has covered every possible non-astrological source of error so thoroughly that his results seem beyond doubt.”
In 1955, Gauquelin published his analysis of over 16,000 professionals by zodiacal sign-typing. The results were disastrous to traditional astrology. “We got few significant results,” he told me in 1980 when we discussed it, “and those we got were very contrary to what was expected.” An infamous example is the study of over 3,000 well-known military men. Most astrological authorities on the matter indicated that Aries should be the chief sign of the soldier. Furthermore, the Gauquelins already had determined empirically that Mars is the key planet of this professional group (by its presence at or near rising at their births, with a frequency far exceeding what chance would allow). Yet, when Sun-signs were tabulated, not only was Aries the least represented of the twelve, but the peak fell in Taurus, ruled by the pacific, tranquil, gentle planet Venus! Where Aries did manage a high score, however, was among painters, an equally humiliating blow to established astrological tradition.
All of these investigations, of course, were conducted using the Tropical zodiac, the only one with which the Gauquelins were familiar during the 1950s.
Another time they selected from their data files those famous athletes whose biographers described them repeatedly as active, aggressive, courageous, determined, and the like – trait-words already proven to belong to a prominent Mars. [FN: Mars at or near rising and culmination. – ED.] Only 95 champions qualified for this elite sampling. Pure chance would have allocated about eight of them to each Sun-sign. When the counting was over, it was found that Mars-ruled Aries had a mere two, the least of the bunch, with Mars-ruled Scorpio second from the bottom, with four.
For almost half a century these results have been without successful challenge. To this day, there is no way the data can be numerically twisted, bent, stapled, or mutilated to produce contrary results in these areas. Data gathering by the Sorbonne-trained Dr. Gauquelin was always conducted impeccably. His statistical methodology was rigorous and sound. Even the whining arguments from the wings that astrology isn’t amenable to statistics, that we shouldn’t expect positive results, or that Sun-signs are not what indicate a person’s profession do not begin to explain the long line of contradictions, of results diametrically opposed to what would be expected from what were previously the least doubted of astrology’s tenets.
As usual, it was Michel Gauquelin himself who took the next step and, in the process, not only gave us a chance to resolve this decades-old problem regarding zodiacal signs, but also produced, for the umpteenth time, one of the most important sets of research findings yet to appear before the astrological community.
[Next section continued below]
