Napoleon - DOB

[Jim Eshelman]

One of Siderealists' favorite examples, from Fagan's earliest writings on the subject, is the horoscope of Napoleon Bonaparte. Fagan loved not only that he was a Leo but that - despite weeks difference in the birthdays - Napoleon's Sun was in the degree as Alexander the Great's Sun.

An article from the mid-1960s has reminded me, though, that historians have some controversy about when he was born. We have tools to test the matter that weren't available to anyone in the mid-1960s - when ephemerides from 1769 were not available.

Napoleon's usually presented birth details are August 15, 1763, 9:40 AM LMT, Ajaccio, France.

The chart reads well enough from a natal perspective. A Leo Sun is certainly expressive of almost everything about him. Moon in Capricorn opposite Saturn is consistent not only with the mother relationship but especially with great ambitious conquest followed by an enormous fall. (Capricorn Moon has a bad history for the outcome of great leaders.) Pluto on IC serves many purposes, and is in a rather epochal, world-affecting Uranus-Neptune-Pluto Grand Trine (all in imperial constellations) joined closely by Mars (and "kited" by Jupiter which is especially close-orbed with Mars and Pluto). It's a good chart.

[Jim Eshelman]

The usual birth date does seem (to me) to have the weight of documentary evidence, as far as these things go in the absence of an official record. The date come from his mother who, as Edward Lyndoe once remarked, was probably present for the event. However, it floats in astrological circles primarily because it was allegedly given by Napoleon to a Corsican astrologer in the 19th century.

Some scholars, though, say he was born January 7, 1768 - not August 15, 1769 at all! The argument is that he took his younger brother's birthday to make himself younger and get into military school from which he otherwise would have been excluded. Note that this would have made him a Sagittarius-Leo, not at all inconceivable for him.

In an article in the April 1980 American Astrology, siderealist Paul Schure (writing as "Roscoe Hope") held that Fagan's adoption of the circa 9:40-9:45 time from John Worsdale rested on a math error (though I suspect it was more the inadequacy of a good ephemeris). Schure, on a tip form Arthur Blackwell, found another reference from Andre Barbault - from the name it appears to be a French provincial record - listing a birth time of "about 11:00 AM." Another record said his mother went into labor while in church, so a late morning birth is not absurd.

But the historic record for the other date is strong, though not in the majority of historic scholars. There are many possible arguments one way or the other, and I'm not deep in the community of historic scholarship that would be necessary to sort through it all with understanding.

What I do have, though, is astrology on my side. So I suggest we look at Napoleon's more generally accept birth date to see how well the chart behaved.

He died May 5, 1821, Longwood House, St. Helena, UK, allegedly from cancer, though with some medical reason to suspect it was by poison.

He married Josephine March 9, 1796.

He first rose to supreme power in France on November 9, 1799 (I think it must have been Paris). However, his proper imperial coronation was December 2, 1804.

He met final military defeat at Waterloo, Netherlands June 18, 1815.

He was forced to abdicate for the final time June 22, 1815. It seems he was in Paris when he did this, and had discovered that both the legislature and the people had turned on him.

[Jim Eshelman]

He died May 5, 1821, Longwood House, St. Helena, UK, allegedly from cancer, though with some medical reason to suspect it was by poison.

Longwood on St. Helena is 15S56, 5W40.

There is a Mars-Saturn exact conjunct at 28° Pisces that should figure significantly in this event. It doesn't aspect anything in his chart.

For the 1769 birth (I'm using 11 AM as the best record), there are no transits at all. Progressions give a partile (04') Sun-Pluto square, and progressed Moon trine natal Sun (06') - not very specific, and tending more to vitality, but at least showing a turning point. These aren't bad and I accept them as viable.

His SSR has an unaspected Moon square MC conjunct natal Jupiter. It's hardly bad! This would not be a deposed monarch living in hostile conditions and great pain.

His final SLR is interesting and quite viably a death chart (by the poisoning theory just a little better than the cancer theory). Transiting Uranus and Neptune are exactlyconjoined on EP, transiting Moon on IC (< 2°), etc. His Venus and Pluto are foreground. Not bad.

Using the 9:40 birth time just to see if we get anything at all gives a SSR with Uranus-Neptune-Pluto and Mercury on angles, Saturn nearby, Moon square natal Mars (there is medical evidence that his final, reportedly painful illness had fever). Oh, dang, his Saturn is on MC opposed by the Uranus-Neptune.

His final SLR has Saturn about a degree from Ascendant, among other things (but that's the main thing). It squares his Sun at MC. Ascendant is also 27° Pisces, the degree where the transiting Mars-Saturn conjunction formed the day of his death.

The Demi-SLR doesn't have much to say.

THOUGHTS: Wow, this actually gives me (just based on this one event) a lot more reason to believe the alternate birth date instead of the traditional one.

[Jim Eshelman]

He married Josephine March 9, 1796.

I think this was in Paris, though (surprisingly) I couldn't easily find an exact statement of that.

t Mars sq. r Mars
maybe t Venus sqq. r Neptune (depending on time of day)
Not wrong, but not very exciting.

Progressions are strange. p Mars sextile p Saturn, p Mercury sextile r Saturn, p Mars trine r Moon. But at least p Moon trine p Sun (with p Jupiter sextile them both), quite suitable. In fact, the Sun-Jupiter is only 02' wide.

His SSR is inconsistent and uncertain at best, but does have an interesting Moon conjunct natal Neptune within a few minutes. His SLR is a life-changer, with natal Pluto at MC, and has a close mundane Venus-Pluto conjunction widely angular. It's... fuzzy.


Looking at the earlier birth date - if we take the time attributed to his mother as correct - the chart is shockingly good! Transiting Pluto conjoins his Ascendant 45', transiting Mars conjoins his MC not quite partile. Against this we have strange things like Saturn exactly square his Neptune, sesqui-square his Jupiter.

For progressions, there is a Venus-Uranus trine that fits. Progressed Moon just started squaring his natal Mrs. Progressed Mars exactly conjoined his Mercury (whatever that refers to, it surely wasn't the marriage).

The SSR is mixed. Jupiter and Venus are near MC, Moon conjoins Descendant and is mundane square Jupiter, but Saturn exactly rises opposite natal Mars. I would accept it, but not excitedly.

The SLR is much more on target with (in the mundoscope) a Moon-Uranus conjunction setting opposite a Sun-Mercury-Jupiter conjunction rising. Ecliptically, Moon-Jupiter is almost partile. It's solid!

The Demi-SLR is more interest-provoking - with a Mercury-Uranus square across the horizon (tied into natal Neptune) - but also has a Moon-Jupiter-Pluto conjunction in the setting foreground, which is pretty good for "one of the great love stories of the ages." Natal Venus exactly squares Ascendant.

THBOUGHTS: Comparing the charts for the two birth dates, the traditional date gives us weak and questionable charts, the alternative gives some startlingly, even stunningly great ones.

[Jim Eshelman]

He met final military defeat at Waterloo, Belgium [then Netherlands] June 18, 1815.

Transits are few. The major one is Jupiter semi-square his Jupiter, which hardly expresses a thorough, unrecoverable defeat. The only other thing is Venus crossing his natal Mercury and MC (!!!), for the 11 AM time. This is... pretty horrible.

Progressions have a friendly Mercury-Venus sextile but at least manage an exact Moon-Mars conjunction. Ah, but p Mercury squares r Saturn, quite appropriate. Less fitting, p Sun squares r Venus. This is mixed, with some good hits and some bad misses.

His SSR, cast for Waterloo, is at least embarrassing. It has a Mercury-Neptune paran on the angles. I'm less happy with the Moon-Jupiter conjunction, but it's part of Jupiter square Neptune (half a degree), which is humiliating. Ah and SSR Moon conjoins his natal Mars-Neptune conjunction, so this turns out to be quite a good chart for the event.

His SLR is an extremely positive chart but, by the time of his defeat, the Demi-SLR had settled in with Saturn closely conjunct IC. I take this as a clean hit.


Going for the 1763 birth chart, there are no transits. Progressions open with a partile Venus-Jupiter square, which is wrong. But progressed Sun squares natal Mars (an era of great battles and warring).

The SSR doesn't really target the event (whereas the earlier birth date had it great). Basically, Moon conjoins natal Mercury exactly square Ascendant. Natal Saturn is very tightly conjunct IC, but transiting Jupiter is moderately foreground which doesn't look like defeat. The most fitting features is the partile transit from the SSR to the natal chart: Uranus conjunct natal Mars (39')

Then the SLR is a clean win, i.e., lose: For his greatest and final defeat, transiting Saturn is conjunct WP (partile). Additionally his Moon rises.

THOUGHTS: This one isn't that clear. The solunars for the traditional date seem quite fitting to me, although the alternate date SLR matches it - the discrepancy of the SSRs is left.

[Jim Eshelman]

He was forced to abdicate for the final time June 22, 1815. It seems he was in Paris when he did this, and had discovered that both the legislature and the people had turned on him.

Saturn had recently passed his IC, but was several degrees beyond (unless the birth time should be half an hour later, which is unlikely; usually errors are the opposite direction). He does, however, have t Saturn square his Uranus closely.

Progressions are essentially the same as for Waterloo.

His Solunars are the same charts, too, but now fall in Paris instead of Belgium. This isn't much difference, though. His SSR is similarly humiliating. His Demi-SLR is roughly the same, just with Saturn a little more widely angular.


For the alternate birth date, there is one clear marker: He returned from Waterloo thinking himself emperor of France and, with transiting Sun exactly conjunct natal Saturn, found he had lost all his popularity had needed to abdicate, which he did on the spot. Wow, what a transit.

His progressions are important for one reason only: Moon was 29°56', due to enter Taurus a couple of days later. His term as emperor and supreme commander and warrior was over.

For Paris, his SSR angles have shifted just enough that he has Pluto (which looks ecliptically like it's on Ascendant, but isn't) within 2° of Eastpoint. There are a few other points, but this is the stand-out.

His SLR has Saturn a little farther from WP (close enough to count, not close enough for excitement) and Moon closer to Asc. Kinda the same.

THOUGHTS: The first chart's SSR is quite good, but the balance of transits, Pluto-angular SSR, and Saturn-angular SLR is much better for the second one.

[Jim Eshelman]

This one really surprised me.

I think, at the very least, we have to conclude that there is no longer certainty about Napoleon's year of birth, let alone date, let alone time. The historic record and the astrological record do not sustain any certainty of the Leo Sun 1769 date.

Even more, the alternative birth date that some significant historians have entertained - January 7, 1768 - holds up extremely well. It performs as we would expect a chart to perform.

If that's the correct date, then I think we got lucky on the time. The record seems pretty clear that on the Leo date, Napoleon's mother went into labor during church and gave birth around 11 AM. But, if that wasn't when he was born, shouldn't we accept his mother's reported testimony that Napoleon (who now would be her firstborn) was born at 9:40 AM? The solunars based on this time are superb.

I therefore propose (now classed as Dirty Data) that Napoleon's chart be reconsidered as January 7, 1768 9:40 AM, Apaccio, Corsica [now France].

[Lyse]

Hi Jim,

Napoleon’s birth and baptism were recorded and the Corsican documents recently become available.

Napoleon (born August 15, 1769) and his younger sister Maria Anna (born July 11, 1771) were baptized, July 21, 1771.

The first link gives the baptismal and birth dates of the siblings in the register, they’re the last two entries on the page.

Etat-civil ancien - Table des actes de baptême de la commune d'Ajaccio de 1691 à 1788

‪ https://ibb.co/bLZ0Wc5

‪Also, Napoleon’s baptismal certificate ‬July 21, 1771 which also states the date of birth.

Etat-civil ancien - Registre paroissial d'Ajaccio : baptêmes du 26 mai 1770 au 7 avril 1771 ; du 23 avril 1771 au 4 Février 1772 ; du 5 février 1772 au 4 novembre 1772 ; du 5 janvier 1773 au 24 avril 1774, 1774, 1775.

https://ibb.co/HCWKpyt


It was his brother Guiseppe (later Joseph-Napoleon Bonaparte) that was born January 7, 1768

Joseph-Napoléon Bonaparte was a French statesman, lawyer, diplomat and older brother of Napoleon Bonaparte. During the Napoleonic Wars, the latter made him King of Naples, and then King of Spain.

Born: January 7, 1768, Corte, France
Died: July 28, 1844, Florence, Italy

It doesn’t make sense to me that they would switch names and birthdays but anything is possible.

Lyse

[Jim Eshelman]

Thanks, Lyse. We had this (from other sources) for years. The question arose because there has been, since 2001, a serious (though minority) scholarly view that his father did exactly what you said and switched the two records.

Napoleon waw baptized (as you show) two years after the given birth date. Astro.com summarizes the debate thus:

These data are put to debate with evidence presented in December 2001 by Mary Brett Ashley, who has a degree in history and substantial credentials as a scholar on Napoleonic and military history, plus three more years of additional studies on Napoleon. She is a consultant for ABC television to provide research for 20/20 specials and a few papers on Napoleonic history. She writes, "I have written to both Ajaccio and Corte for copies of these relevant certificates (as Dr. Weider cannot give me his as he is currently collaborating on another book which brings this to light as well as Napoleon's true lineage-which I strongly suspect contains more French genes than heretofore known)... Although Napoleon's Birthday is recognized as Aug 15 - indeed, his true birthday is Jan 7 1768, Corte, Corsica. His father was going to send him to military school in France but Napoleon was too old, so his father took his brother Joseph's birthday of Aug 15 1769 and switched so that Napoleon could enter Brienne. This is substantiated by historical records in Corsica where Joseph was born on Aug 15 and the child Napoleon was actually born on Jan 7..."

Ashley quotes a website of Richard R. Orsinger, Copyright © 1997, which states in its timeline of Napolean:

1764 Charles Marie Buonaparte, a Corsican of Tuscan descent, marries Letizia Ramolino, a Corsican of Florentine descent. These are the parents of Napoleon Buonaparte. Louis Charles Rene de Marbuef, Napoleon's true father and Governor of Corsica.

1769 Napoleone Buonaparte born in Ajaccio, Corsica, the son of a poor Corsican lawyer. Napoleon later adopts August 15 as his birthday, to coincide with the Catholic Feast of the Assumption. (http://www.txdirect.net/users/rrichard/napoleo1.htm)

Bourriene was Napoleon’s lifelong friend and secretary and the author of his memoirs in four volumes that he wrote after Napoleon’s death.

On the basis of this, I think there is a fair question about the birth date. Kenneth Bowser raises the reasonable point that the Leo-Capricorn chart is a stronger, more powerful chart than the Sagittarius-Leo chart. I was taken with the Sagittarius' chart response to predictive tools for events.

Since he didn't enter Brienne until age 9, I see a weakness in the argument that this was why his father switched the dates, since the baptism was at age 2.

I'm not at all settled on the question and think it's a good topic for open debate.

[Lyse]

As a former Catholic, baptismal records are sacrosanct. They would’ve had to have the parish priest falsify an official copy of a birth/baptism for another family member to enter military school under another name. I’ve seen these type of records before and the French kept excellent documentation. However, the priest may have done it for the money. It’s definitely a mystery!

[Jim Eshelman]

One of Ken Bowser's showpieces on Napoleon's chart is a Sun-Jupiter-Uranus paran structure. Ken takes natal parans as seriously as I take PV mundane aspects, meaning, entirely solid that they need to be used interchangeably with ecliptical aspects. I'm less persuaded about the value of natal parans - I am trying to resolve those mixed opinions and at present am only willing to say that they clearly exist per location (and are highly distinctive locationally), though I'm not sure if the birthplace parans persist forever.

It occurs to me - not to prove anything (since birth data ambiguity is the whole purpose of this thread) but, rather, as an interesting breakdown of these charts - to list the parans for both the August and January charts for four locations: Birthplace in Ajaccio (41N55, 8E44), Paris where he ruled France and her empire (48N52, 2E20), Waterloo, Belgium where he was broken (50N43, 4E23), and Longwood, Saint Helena where he was exiled and died (15S56, 5W40). These are all different enough in latitude to probably show some clear distinctions. Here goes... only 1° orbs...

August 15, 1769 birth
For all of these locations, his Saturn's relationship to the angles fluctuated, being closest in Waterloo, while in Paris his Moon was most angular. Both of these are strongly fitting.

Birthplace
Jupiter-Saturn sq 0°28'
Sun-Jupiter sq 0°36'

Paris
(I have to pause and say that these are remarkable!)
Jupiter-Pluto sq 0°38'
Sun-Uranus sq 0°39'

Waterloo
Venus-Neptune sq 0°08'

Saint Helena
Mercury-Jupiter sq 0°21'


January 7, 1768 birth

Birthplace
Venus-Mars co 0°23'
Sun-Uranus sq 0°29'
Jupiter-Saturn sq 0°45'

Paris
Saturn-Uranus sq 0°02'
Venus-Neptune sq 0°26'
Moon-Mercury sq 0°32'
Jupiter-Pluto sq 0°34'

Waterloo
(None)

Saint Helena
Sun-Jupiter sq 0°06'
Moon-Venus sq 0°10' [actually angular]
Mars-Neptune sq 0°27'

[Jim Eshelman]

Now for some opinions on these. I think, overall, the August chart shows up better, though I am intrigued by how similar both charts are for some of these locations. Breaking it down a little more systematically:

Birthplace
Leo
Jupiter-Saturn sq 0°28'
Sun-Jupiter sq 0°36'

Sagittarius
Venus-Mars co 0°23'
Sun-Uranus sq 0°29'
Jupiter-Saturn sq 0°45'

Though Saturn and Jupiter were in different signs, they retained (or recovered) a paran relationship on both dates 19 months apart. For birthplace I have to say I can accept either of these equally, the Sun-Jupiter in August seeming slightly better but the Venus-Mars in January being really impressive (and the Sun-Uranus filling in nicely).

Paris
Leo
Jupiter-Pluto sq 0°38'
Sun-Uranus sq 0°39'

Sagittarius
Saturn-Uranus sq 0°02'
Venus-Neptune sq 0°26'
Moon-Mercury sq 0°32'
Jupiter-Pluto sq 0°34'

Again, though Jupiter had moved an entire sign (and Pluto barely), both dates managed a Jupiter-Pluto paran for Paris. This makes since under either theory because Napoleon and his brother both moved to Paris and were overwhelmingly successful there. I am slightly more impressed with the Leo chart, all things considered, but can't reject anything in the Sagittarius chart (which seems a little more of a support figure because of Moon-Mercury, though this could go different ways).

Waterloo
Leo
Venus-Neptune sq 0°08'

Sagittarius
(None)

Something wins out over nothing. Venus-Neptune is acceptable if not persuasive (it places ones dreams on the line and either indulges them or confronts them with reality). Given Saturn at its closest angularity for the place, I have to tip this toward Leo, but mostly by default.

Saint Helena
Saint Helena
Mercury-Jupiter sq 0°21'

Saint Helena
Sun-Jupiter sq 0°06'
Moon-Venus sq 0°10' [actually angular]
Mars-Neptune sq 0°27'

I imagine he was kept in comfort during his exile. Neither of these is fully satisfying because I do not see overt marks of exile and humbling in either, nor of fading health and death. Given that, I slightly prefer the Sagittarius chart because it reflects the likely comfort plus some measure of emotional agony (or flailing power fantasies). The Leo chart's one aspect looks too successful. (Natal Saturn is 3.5° from MC there, but it had been strong all his life and only a little farther in Paris.)

As mentioned above, from this data alone I somewhat favor the Leo chart - but it isn't a slam dunk.

[Jim Eshelman]

We can, of course, also examine the difference in regular mundane aspects (PV aspects), though these resemble more the ecliptical aspects. (If any ecliptical aspects are closer, I'll use cross-outs below.) Here they are (with natal angularities for the locations added):

August 15, 1769 birth
Birthplace
Moon-Saturn op 1°48'
Mars-Neptune 3°48'
Jupiter-Uranus op 3°02'
-- Uranus on WP 0°08'
-- Mercury on MC 0°29'
-- Moon on N 1°51'

Paris
Moon-Saturn op 2°13'
Jupiter-Uranus op 2°47'
Mars-Neptune co 3°43'
-- Moon on IC 2°49'
-- Saturn on MC 5°02'

Waterloo
Moon-Saturn op 2°06'
Jupiter-Uranus 2°42'
Mars-Neptune co 3°40'
-- Saturn on Z 1°14'
-- Mercury on MC 4°18'
-- Moon on IC 5°12'

Saint Helena
Moon-Saturn op 2°29'
Mercury-Jupiter sq 2°50'
Mars-Neptune sq 2°58'
Jupiter-Saturn op 3°21'
-- Moon on Z 1°27'
-- Saturn on MC 3°46'
-- Uranus on Dsc 9°51'


January 7, 1768 birth
Birthplace
Mercury-Jupiter sq 0°11'
-- Venus on Z 1°42'
-- Moon on Dsc +4°36'
-- Neptune on Dsc -4°50'

Paris
Sun-Venus sq 1°09'
Jupiter-Uranus op 3°54'
-- Neptune on WP 0°18'
-- Moon on Dsc 1°59'
-- Mars on MC 4°37'

Waterloo
Sun-Venus sq 2°28'
Venus-Pluto sq 0°46'
Jupiter-Uranus op 3°20'
-- Moon on Dsc 1°11'
-- Neptune on WP 1°38'

Saint Helena
(No aspects)
Venus on MC 1°19'
Moon on WP-a 1°36'
Mars on MC 5°54'
Neptune on Dsc 9°03'

On balance, I like the Leo birth better, especially because the Sagittarius chart for birthplace (the natal) seems to favor the arts, enjoyment, and culture over power. Nonetheless, it isn't a slam dunk.

[Lyse]

Not to take away from your analysis of the two charts, which is excellent, but I can’t find any reason as to why there is any serious discussion about Napoleon’s birthdate. In fact, I’m unable to find anything about Mary Brett Ashley as a recognized historian, except that she’s an astrologer with an interest in Napoleon.

“In 1774, aged five years old, Napoleon entered the primary boarding school run by Beguine lay sisters in Ajaccio, as a day-boy. Two years later he studied French under Abbé Recco (who received 20,000 Francs in Napoleon’s will)”. Here again, this is a small village and there’s now a younger brother, presumably in school, pretending to be older but with his brother’s name. It doesn’t make sense.

[Jim Eshelman]

I understand the last point entirely. (I made a variation of the same argument above - it making no sense that the decision was made at that exact juncture.)

But her credentials are much more than an astrologer interested in Napoleon. She reportedly has nontrivial academic and professional qualifications. That doesn't mean she's right, but it means to me that her work should be investigated. - I just found another reference (from a Russian author) saying Napoleon's marriage certificate with Josephine listed his birthday as 1768, but she seems not to take the earlier date as persuasive. (There is a further reason for moving the date, that I didn't know until a few minutes ago: France hadn't annexed Corsica in 1768; therefore, unless he was born on the later date, he wasn't French.)

[Lyse]

France hadn't annexed Corsica in 1768; therefore, unless he was born on the later date, he wasn't French.)

I have read that and it makes sense but am still sceptical.