Apocalyptic Beliefs in 20^th Century Astrology

One of the more prevalent and powerful myths in recent times is that of the Age of Aquarius.  This is a myth that originated sometime in the late 19^th century largely within the Theosophical Society, and was based upon a legitimate astronomical phenomenon of the precession of the equinoxes, but the astrological interpretation ascribed to it was quite possibly taken out of astronomical context and instead used as a tool to stimulate social change.  It is seen as a millenarian[1] astrological concept because many of the loose historical examples applied to it are said to show a correlation between the different astrological “Ages”, and the rise of certain major religious motifs in western culture, in roughly 2,000-year increments.  This was important because at the time that the precession of the equinoxes began to be ascribed astrological significance, the Theosophical Society and the subsequent “New Age” movement that it spawned were developing rapidly, and it appeared that this was an astrological phenomena which heralded the advent of their new religion, just as the birth of the Christian religion had seemingly correlated with the beginning of the “Age of Pisces” roughly 2,000 years earlier.   Thus this newly developed concept was said to be signaling the end or eschaton[2] of a troublesome 2,000 year era, and the beginning of a new age in which it was believed that humanity would finally pull itself out of the spiritual low that it had been in for several millennia, and it would finally begin to evolve and move upwards again on the grand spiritual cycle of growth that was envisioned in Theosophical orthodoxy.[3]  This rather simple phenomenon of precession, which had been known in the west since at least the 2nd century BCE[4], suddenly gained apocalyptic[5] significance because it indicated that the world was in the midst of an enormous change.  This foreknowledge of the impending age stimulated a historicist[6] movement to hurry the process along by teaching humanity to improve itself in order to accelerate the transfer of power to the coming era.  Nick Campion points out in his book Astrology, History and Apocalypse that although the idea of correlating precession with changes in religious motifs was probably not originally developed by astrologers within the Theosophical Society, they quickly appropriated the idea, and it is from astrologers who were theosophists that the majority of material on the Age of Aquarius has been produced.  This suggests that not only was this concept of the astrological Ages essentially used in a semi-religious context due to the Theosophical astrologers who expounded it, but that it was explicitly used as an apocalyptic millenarian myth in order to propagate certain religious beliefs, which happened to include astrology in their general paradigm.  Thus, while the Theosophists were essentially using astrology to justify the spread of their religion, the spread of their religion in this way had the effect of reintroducing astrology to western society en mass because they used a type of astrological mythology as one of the very corner stones of their religion.  This is a legacy which would stick with astrology throughout the 20^th century as it regained its foothold in society, and even now in the 21^st century many astrologers who are influenced by “New Age” ideologies still believe that we have either entered the Age of Aquarius, or that we are right on the brink of doing so.  While a critical look at the astronomical side of this myth clearly brings the validity of this claim into question, there is no doubt that it was a very powerful myth which greatly contributed to the reemergence and development of astrology in the 20^th century, and even into the 21^st. 

Campion identifies four ways of categorizing the dating of the Age of Aquarius in 20^th century astrological literature in his paper The Age of Aquarius: A Modern Constellation Myth.  The main and most important way of dating the astrological ages, and the one from which the myth arose originally is through the phenomenon of precession.  Late Mesopotamian astrology in the mid 1^st millennium BCE used a sidereal zodiac, which took the unequally sized constellations, which lay on the ecliptic, and divided them into equal 30-degree segments to make up the twelve signs of the sidereal zodiac.[7]  Sometime during the 2^nd and 1^st centuries BCE in the Mediterranean and especially Hellenistic Egypt, this Mesopotamian astrology was mixed together with certain elements of Persian and Egyptian decanic astrology to create horoscopic astrology[8].  This astrology incorporated elements from the Babylonian zodiac of the sidereal constellations, but it also used a “zodiac” of twelve 30-degree segments starting from the vernal equinox, which was based on the seasons.  At the time the vernal equinox was roughly aligned with the beginning of the first 30-degree segment of the constellational zodiac, so the two systems were somewhat indistinguishable from one another.  Then in the 2^nd century CE, a highly influential astronomer/astrologer named Claudius Ptolemy (c.100-c.178 CE) defined the beginning of the zodiac as the vernal equinox, thus beginning a long tradition of using the tropical zodiac as the main reference point in horoscopic calculations in the west[9].   By this time the two zodiacs had begun to slowly drift apart due to precession, although both retained the same zodiacal names that had been assigned to each division in the beginning.  As a result of the nonspherical shape of the earth and the gravitational forces of the Sun and Moon, the intersection planes of the ecliptic and the equator are subject to a gradual westward movement which shifts the position of the Sun at the equinoxes in the tropical zodiac at a variable rate of 1 23’ 45” per century[10] against the background of the constellations of the sidereal zodiac.  Precession causes the Vernal point to slowly shift backwards through the sidereal zodiac, so that each year on the first day of spring the Sun will rise slightly earlier in the constellation that it was in the previous year.[11]  Thus, in this particular category each astrological “Age” is generally defined by the location of the Vernal point in a particular sidereal constellation or sign. 

The problem with this type of categorization in the study of precession is that the constellations themselves are unequal in size, and there are no clear boundaries between them.  If one wishes to use the evenly divided sidereal zodiac of signs, which was apparently used by the Babylonians and modern Indian astrologers[12], where the constellations are portioned out into equal 30-degree segments, then there is the problem of deciding which ayanamsha[13] to use in order to determine the first degree of sidereal Aries.  While Rob Hand states that the “scholars quite independent of Fagan and Bradley have deduced that the original Babylonian zodiac was close to the values derived by Fagan and Bradley”[14], the official state sanctioned ayanamsha of India is the Lahiri ayanamsha, and there are a multitude of other ayanamsas in use as well[15].  So there is no definitive agreement on how to divide the sidereal zodiac into equal 30-degree segments, thus making it difficult to clearly define the cusp that divides the sidereal signs of Pisces and Aquarius and the astrological Ages that they are said to denote.  The other approach to studying periods of history through precession is one that was proposed by Carl Jung in his 1951 paper The Sign of the Fish and elaborated on by Rob Hand in his book Essays on Astrology where the unequal sidereal constellations or morphomata[16] are used to time the ages from the ingress of the Vernal equinox over the specific fixed stars that compose the constellations.  This is an interesting approach because it provides the possibility to time events and changes within the Ages more precisely, and perhaps with more variety due to the distinct natures of the individual fixed stars themselves.  It also puts an interesting spin on the upcoming “Age of Aquarius”, because Hand points out that the constellations of Pisces and Aquarius overlap quite a bit so that for quite a long period of time the vernal point will reside in both constellations and consequently “…we have nearly nine hundred years of the era of the west fish to go through before we completely reach the Age of Aquarius.”[17]  Using the other approach with the equally portioned sidereal zodiac and the Fagan/Allen ayanamsha places the ingress of the Vernal point into the sidereal sign of Aquarius sometime in the late 25^th or early 26^th century, and the Lahiri ayanamsha places it in the early 26^th century[18].   Thus the original astronomical phenomena upon which this myth is based seems to indicate that either there will be no sudden shift into the Age of Aquarius because it is more of a gradual process of the vernal point moving through the two overlapping constellations, or that there will be a sudden changeover, if we use the sidereal signs and a particular ayanamsha, but that this shift is still centuries in the future, and the starting point is still somewhat elusive.  Although Campion outlines three other categories of defining the beginning of the Age of Aquarius that are sometimes used, such as those that are purely symbolic, those that are independent of Aquarian symbolism, and those that are based on Aquarian symbolism but not within the context of precession, these are not legitimate candidates for the study of the Age of Aquarius because the system was originally defined within the context of precession, and attempts to sidestep that only seem to arise because of deeply held, yet subtle religious beliefs which allow for the blurring of distinctions between separate astrological techniques in order to support a particular point of view.  This raises the question of if the Age of Aquarius is not an immediate astrological or astronomical reality, then what purpose does it serve, and has it served in the past century or so since it came into vogue?  Campion states it rather succinctly when he says that “The unavoidable conclusion is that the belief that the Age of Aquarius is beginning at the present time is therefore justifiable on neither astrological nor astronomical grounds, but is clearly a manifestation of traditional millenarianism, the expectation that the New Age is about to begin.”[19]

A study conducted at a major astrological conference in 1989 showed that one of the main distinctions in the late 20^th century astrological community was between astrologers who saw astrology as a particular worldview and identify themselves as members of the “New Age movement”, and then astrologers who see astrology as more of a predictive, or divinatory tool and who do not identify themselves with the New Age movement.[20]  The author of this study Shoshanah Feher, defines the New Age movement as:

…A movement that emphasizes that a spiritual transformation will occur after which people will be better aware that they are one with the natural world.  The transformation can be achieved through various healing therapies as well as spiritual beliefs and practices.[21]

The study points out that while both groups tend to see astrology more in the light of a healing or psychological tool, this is particularly more prominent in those who identify with New Age beliefs, and this group is actually more inclined to believe that the primary concern of astrologers should be with counseling people, and with much less emphasis placed on prediction (if any in the most extreme cases).  This movement towards a more psychologically oriented and spiritualized astrology which is less focused on prediction can then be seen as a direct result of the New Age movement, with its focus on ‘healing therapies and practices’, and this in turn was partially the result of the myth built up around the phenomenon of precession and belief in the coming Age of Aquarius. 

There were three very pivotal astrologers in the 20^th century who are credited as changing the emphasis and techniques of astrology to make it more about character interpretation, spirituality and examining the psychological characteristics of the individual within the context of healing and a more humanistic philosophy.  Campion points out that

After [Alan] Leo, then, the most significant steps in the creation of psychological astrology took place in the United States, first due to the efforts of Mark Edmund Jones (1888-1980), who was deeply dissatisfied with astrology as it had been handed down to him, and then Dane Rudhyar (1895-1985).  Both men were, like Leo, Theosophists.   

It was with these three men that we see astrology transformed into an outlook that informed a particular worldview, but also we see that it was largely through them and their writings that astrology became intertwined with the New Age movement and even belief in the Age of Aquarius itself. 

Alan Leo (1860-1917) had apparently studied astrology since he was 17 years old, and then when he was 25 he became involved in the Theosophical Society and Spiritualism and he began to seriously integrate the concept of reincarnation into his astrological model and shortly after that he began to integrate the concept of karma into his astrology as well.[22]  Eventually he took a trip to India where he studied Vedic astrology, and this seemingly affirmed that the ideas that he had been developing due to his contact with Theosophy were in agreement with various Indian astrological concepts.  In his book Esoteric Astrology he remarks

…On my recent visit to India I was enabled finally to learn from unquestionable sources that these teachings were part of the ancient mysteries of Astrology.  To-day my whole belief in the science of the stars stands or falls with Karma and Reincarnation, and I have no hesitation in saying that without these ancient teachings Natal Astrology has no permanent value.[23]

Leo was also heavily influenced by the writings of H. P. Blavatsky (1831-1891) who was one of the founders of the Theosophical Society, and it is from her that he drew much of his philosophical inspiration for the astrological system that he was developing throughout the course of his life.  She was also likely the largest influence on Leo in developing his thoughts on precession and the different astrological Ages.  Campion explains that

…Real interest in precession only began in the 18^th century, when Western scholars used the fact that the stars had shifted to try to put dates on Hindu Vedic texts which mentioned particular stars.  This work became very important in comparative religious studies and as it happens, Madame Blavatsky read most of the important work on the subject.  She was, therefore, very aware of precession.  It was with her and her contemporaries that we begin to see precession of the equinoxes first used to explain the evolution of religious ideas, a notion which was taken up by astrologers from the 1870’s.[24]

Rudhyar points out the 25,413-year period that Blavatsky gives in her book The Secret Doctrine[25] as clearly relating to the current cycle of precession, and this is likely one of Leo’s earliest sources for the subject.  This would prove to be a concept that was very influential to Leo who took Blavatsky’s idea that various world teachers reincarnate at regular points in time and combined it with the cycle of precession which produced the idea that there are certain individuals who are born at specific moments in time who embody or personify the highest quality of that period of time.  The two most conspicuous periods that he talks about are the 26,000-year cycle in which “the divine man, or law-giver” who strikes “the note of the whole cycle” is born, and the 2,000-year cycle in which a “race Teacher” is born who strikes “the note of a new religion to suit the race born under that particular sign.”[26]  Campion notes that

Alan Leo believed that Lord Maitreaya, the herald of the New Age, was to appear at the spring equinox in 1925.  This gave an urgency to his reform of astrology – in line with what he believed were essential spiritual requirements – and his evangelization for astrology, including his teaching, writing, and creation of astrological societies.[27] 

This is substantiated in Leo’s preface to his book Esoteric Astrology where he alludes to the approaching New Age as being the impetus for the development of his unique blend of Indian and Western astrological techniques, and certain Hindu concepts such as Karma and Reincarnation

…I am actuated by the primary motive of expressing what I believe to be the true Astrology for the new Era that is now dawning upon the world.[28]

So we clearly see that this apocalyptic belief in the New Age, and the equivalent Age of Aquarius were largely the reason that one of the most influential astrologers of the 20^th century formulated his new system and then disseminated it around the world, in such a way as to “stimulate the revival of astrology across the western world, particularly in Britain, the United States, France and Germany.”[29]  To Leo the astrology itself was an apocalyptic tool or technique because it could be used to discover the underlying patterns that govern history.  This is clear in the preface to his book Esoteric Astrology

To many, the ideas put fourth in this book will come as a revelation concerning the laws which guide the evolution of the world: infallible laws which work incessantly for the ultimate good of humanity.[30]

Thus, Leo’s astrology was not only effected by his apocalyptic spiritual beliefs which stemmed from his involvement in Theosophy and Blavatsky’s writings which incorporated the concept of precession, but indeed the astrology itself was inherently apocalyptic to him because it was used to reveal an underlying pattern in history, and in the world in general, which he appears to have believed was indicative of a type of celestial providence. 

Ultimately, while Leo had the effect of stimulating a revival of astrology across the western world, it was arguably Marc Edmund Jones who had the greatest effect in actually changing the underlying philosophy and creating a new astrology which paved the way for a more psychologically oriented, “New Age astrology”.  Robert Zoller argues in his article Marc Edmund Jones and New Age Astrology in America that

Jones’ revisioning of astrology was radical; so much so, in fact, that it can be legitimately said that he created a new astrology erected upon new philosophical bases.[31] 

Like Leo, Jones was a Theosophist and was heavily influenced by the writings of Madame Blavatsky.  He refers to the Age of Aquarius in passing numerous times in his books, although it doesn’t appear that he published any treatises strictly devoted to the subject.  He seems to have believed towards the end of his life that the Age of Aquarius had already begun in 1930, not due to precession, but rather due to the discovery of Pluto.   

The great cycle experienced in man’s zodiacal ages has had attention with the new Aquarian period seen in these pages to be launched with the discovery of Pluto, preceded by the Piscean period launched at the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon in the 6^th century B.C. and previously marked off by an Aries Age established with the invention of writing around 3100 B.C.[32]

To him, although the New Age and the Age of Aquarius were synonymous, he does not appear to have followed the original convention of demarcating the astrological Ages by the study of the precession of the equinoxes through the sidereal signs or constellations, but instead he points to a completely different astrologically significant event and then uses Aquarian symbolism outside of the context of precession.  For example

The equalitarian new age of mankind, ushered into its beginnings astrologically with the discovery of the planet Pluto in 1930, is viewed in these pages as a universality of co-operation freely accepted and tendered by all people everywhere.[33] 

This attempt to blur the distinction between the concept of the astrological Ages, and his belief in the New Age can perhaps be seen as an excuse to justify the rather extreme reconceptualization of astrology that Jones had been a large part of in his lifetime.  Jones was highly critical of the contemporary astrology of his day throughout his career, and Zoller argues that the type of astrology which Jones’ created 

…Served more as a vehicle for the dissemination of social, philosophical or alternative religious ideas than for the accurate forecasting of life’s events which astrologers such as [Luke] Broughton had thought of as its main function.  It was touted by its proponents as heralding the New Age of progress, social consciousness and spiritual and material good.[34]

So in the case of Jones, it wasn’t so much a matter of apocalyptic beliefs influencing his desire to create a new astrology and then disseminate it as in the case of Leo, but rather he used apocalyptic beliefs in order to justify and legitimize the work that he had done to change the system.  Although the correlation with the Age of Aquarius is questionable, in Zoller’s view the overall effect that his system had on astrology itself is justified to some degree because

Jones’ revision of astrology opened the door to the ‘humanistic’ psychological astrology of Dane Rudhyar, first set out in 1936 in his The Astrology of Personality, and may be viewed as the foundation stone of New Age astrology.  Without the Idealist foundation to astrology provided by Jones, it is unlikely that Rudhyar would ever have succeeded in grafting psychology and his own version of metaphysics to existing astrology.[35] 

Rudhyar is often considered to be one of the most influential astrologers in the 20^th century because he is credited with creating a truly psychologically oriented astrology, and like Leo he was deeply influenced by the belief that the Age of Aquarius was approaching and in a typical historicist fashion that he must implement reforms in astrology in order to prepare for this.  He spent considerable time discussing the Age of Aquarius in his books, and unlike Leo and Jones, he wrote a sizeable treatise in which he explicitly outlined his thoughts on the subject.  Rudhyar’s book Astrological Timing, the Transition to the New Age contains his major work on the subject of the astrological Ages, and in it he defines the various ambiguities with the approach of studying history through precession, and more specifically the issue of how to divide the sidereal zodiac in order to determine the correct epoch for the entrance of the vernal point into the constellation of Aquarius.  Rudhyar even goes as far as to point out the discrepancies and varying opinions on when the Age of Aquarius supposedly starts, and ends this chapter on a “note of uncertainty”, saying that “this uncertainty [over when the Age of Aquarius begins] is quite characteristic of the astrological situation as a whole.”  After explaining the ambiguities in dating the Age of Aquarius, Rudhyar states that we are nonetheless “in a period of world-wide crisis”, the reason for this being either “an accelerated evolution which will lead to a more technological and more computerized and automated global society” or that “we are at the threshold of a world-wide revolution, the first aim of which is to make our present-day institutions and ways of life so un-operative that a state of global chaos is produced in the hope that out of that chaos a totally new and better civilization will emerge.”[36]  So he then posits that surely “…if astrological cycles have any validity at all at the level of mankind as a whole, they certainly should show that we are NOW in a period of crucial transition.”[37]  He then commits the typical millenarian act of dismissing the possibility that the “present world crisis” which he perceived was not as important as he thought simply due to the rationale that the vast scope of the change that he was seeing in the world at the time was so radical to him, even though he admits that upheaval and change are in some ways perpetual cycles within humanity in every day and age.  After discussing the actual astronomical phenomena of precession with some depth, he reluctantly points out that the really critical developments were yet to come in the next two or three centuries, but interestingly he notes that if such were true

…The prospect it reveals is quite forbidding, and the hope of many groups of people for a far more constructive and spiritual New Age beginning at some fairly close date are indeed tragically meaningless.[38] 

Eventually he seems to come to the conclusion that there are other cycles that are working in tandem with precession which are initiating the changes that he saw around him, ahead of the actual concrete changeover to the New Age[39].  He decided that the problem of determining exactly when the tropical and sidereal zodiacs were in alignment

CANNOT be solved on any astronomical or astrological basis alone, simply because we have no way of knowing where precisely the boundaries between the constellation Pisces and Aries should be located.[40] 

And so, eventually he settles on an essentially arbitrary, albeit exact date of 100 BCE as being the beginning of the Age of Pisces, not due to any specific astronomical or astrological phenomena, but rather, purely based on his own belief in what a couple of important turning points were in Christianity and European civilization, and how they fit in with his 10-degree divisions of an exact 30 degree sidereal sign that he has settled on, even though earlier in the same work he had stated that

There is no reason to believe that our zodiacal constellations should all be of equal size (i.e. covering each 30 degrees of longitude)…”[41] and “What we call zodiacal SIGN in astrology is something entirely different in principle from a constellation of stars.[42]

From that point forward he decided that the exact duration of the precession of the equinoxes through a sidereal sign was 2,160 years, and then it was just a matter of applying various techniques from natal astrology in order to substantiate his case through engaging in a brief generalized study of history using various division of these suddenly equal sized sidereal signs that he had divided into thirds and twelfths.  He states many possibilities of what the end of the Age of Pisces might produce, and what the Age of Aquarius might begin with by drawing on contemporary New Age ideas such as a possible polar axis shift, or “the rise of at least a portion of a new continent”, a clear reference to the mythical lost continent of Atlantis, the possibility of contact with extra terrestrials which would “no doubt profoundly and radically affect man’s mentality and presumably the entire pattern of human society.”[43]  He even draws on contemporary fears of the time that were fueled by the Cold War when he mentions that

…There could be a devastating nuclear World-War killing perhaps nearly half of mankind and making entire continents uninhabitable for at least half a century

But luckily this would only last until

“…Around 2060 A.D., the date I have given for the concrete, physical beginning of the Aquarian Age.”[44]  … “Then the today so emotionally longed-for Aquarian Age should begin.”

 Thus, Rudhyar was not using the concept of precession as the impetus to create a new system of astrology as Leo had done, nor was he using it to legitimize the system that he had created as was the case with Jones, but rather Rudhyar was using the astrology to give credence to a social movement which he was deeply involved with in the 20^th century and which looked to him to provide a sort of celestial endorsement for its continuing existence.  He was very mindful of this, and in the end he contrived the techniques in order to come up with a compromise that would indicate that the New Age of Aquarius was indeed predetermined and even imminent, yet far enough in the future that every person had the obligation to assist in its enfoldment.[45]  Thus, even Rudhyar who is such a towering figure in 20^th century astrology had subscribed to a type of millenarian belief system and he used an explicitly apocalyptic astrological technique in order to support it. 

Three of the most prominent and influential astrologers of the 20^th century were Alan Leo, Marc Edmund Jones and Dane Rudhyar.  All three men were extremely influenced by Theosophy and New Age ideology and they espoused these concepts throughout their many writings.  They can be seen as something resembling astrological evangelists because at the same time that they were spreading astrology and reconceptualizing it, they were also spreading a deeply spiritual or religious message that the world was in the midst of a great change.  Indeed, it was largely this belief that fueled their desire to spread astrology in order to help people to improve themselves so that the New Age could commence.  Based off of this it is no surprise that astrology is generally aligned with the New Age movement, and astrological texts are commonly restricted to the New Age shelves of contemporary bookstores.  It is no doubt that without the influence of these three astrologers the subject would not have been able to achieve the revival that has been witnessed in the late 20^th and early 21^st century, nor the reconceptualization of the subject within the more modern framework of character interpretation, counseling and psychology. 

However this appears to be an instance of deeply held spiritual beliefs influencing and clouding the interpretation of an otherwise viable astrological technique.  Campion points out that even the supposed nature of the sign Aquarius is essentially a fabrication, initially carried out by Alan Leo in order fit the ideal that had been created

The supposed features of the Aquarian Age attributed to the sign Aquarius are therefore modern, and probably date back no earlier than the 1890’s.  Indeed they were probably adapted from existing millenarian thought.  That is, the supposed psychological attributes of the modern sign were based neither on empirical observation nor ancient tradition but on Alan Leo’s reasoning of what the ideal Aquarian ought to be like, based in his equation of the sign with the coming spiritual New Age.[46]

Even the significations of the planets Saturn and/or Uranus which are said to rule the sign of Aquarius are either sugarcoated, or ignored completely, along with other traditional notions of the sign of Aquarius such as it position in the 8^th house of death in the mythical horoscope of the world the Thema Mundi. 

Later astrologers such as Rob Hand have proven that this can indeed be a quite useful application of astrology towards the study of history, as long as the personal beliefs of the astrologer and their desire to see positive change in the world do not overcome their ability to accurately apply the technique and then interpret it through a theoretically consistent use of astrology.  In his essay the Age and Constellation of Pisces Hand is even able to use precession against the backdrop of the morphomatons to show that the vernal point will align with the first star in the constellation of Aquarius sometime around the year 2060 using the Fagan/Allen ayanamsha.  This is interesting because it correlates with Rudhyar’s date of 2060 for the “concrete, physical beginning of the Aquarian Age”, but unlike Rudhyar, Hand actually derived this date through sound astrological techniques, and he does not contrive the interpretation to fit into any preconceived notions about what will happen on that date based on his own religious beliefs.  Unlike his predecessors Hand express his beliefs on what we should do without compromising the astrological technique itself by stating that

If we have nearly nine hundred years of the era of the west fish to go through before we completely reach the Age of Aquarius, then we have nothing better to do than to infuse history with love and consciousness.[47]   

Regardless of the validity of these three prominent 20^th century astrologer’s beliefs in the Age of Aquarius from a technical standpoint, it is notable that it was an extremely powerful myth which played a major role in the development of 20^th century astrology.  Sadly though, the legacy of the more modern, psychological and even spiritualized astrology, which they bequeathed to the astrological community is marred by this erroneous interpretation of an otherwise viable technique which still continues to plague the astrological community to this day.  While these three men created and disseminated many different astrological techniques, theories and beliefs that will be carried on by future generations of astrologers, this belief that they have ascribed to the phenomena of precession and the Age of Aquarius is not likely to be one of them. 

Bibliography

• Nick Campion, Astrology, History and Apocalypse, Center for Psychological Astrology Press, London, 2000.
• Nick Campion, The Age of Aquarius: A Modern Constellation Myth.  Paper presented to the Oxford VI Conference on Archaeoastronomy and Astronomy is Culture, June 1999.
• Nick Campion, The Great Year, Penguin Books Ltd., London, 1994.
• Rob Hand, Essays on Astrology, Para Research, Rockport, MA, 1982.
• James Holden, A History of Horoscopic Astrology, American Federation of Astrologers, Tempe, AZ, 1996.
• David Pingree, From Astral Omens to Astrology, From Babylon to Bikaner, Istituto Italiano Per L’Africa E L’Oriente, 1997.
• David Frawley, The Astrology of the Seers, Passages Press, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1990.
• Perspectives On The New Age, State University of New York Press, New York, NY, 1992. 
• Alan Leo, Esoteric Astrology, Modern Astrology Office, London, 1925.
• Alan Leo, How to Judge a Nativity, Astrologers Library, New York, NY, 1978. 
• Alan Leo, The Progressed Horoscope (second edition, revised), Astrologers Library, New York, NY, 1978.
• Alan Leo, The Complete Dictionary of Astrology , Destiny Books, Rochester, VT 1983.   
• Alan Leo, The Art of Synthesis, L. N. Fowler & Co. Ltd., London, 1970. 
• Alan Leo, Astrology for All, Borden Publishing Co. Los Angeles, CA, 1947. 
• Alan Leo, Casting the Horoscope, Modern Astrology Office, Ludgate Circus, England, 1927. 
• Dane Rudhyar, Astrological Timing, The Transition to the New Age, Harper & Row, 1969
• Robert Zoller, Marc Edmund Jones and New Age Astrology in America, Culture and Cosmos, Bristol, U.K. Volume 2, Number 2
• Marc Edmund Jones, Fundamentals of Number Significance, Shambala Publications, Boulder, Colorado, 1978.
• Marc Edmund Jones, The Guide to Horoscope Interpretation, Sabian Publishing Society, New York, NY, 1961. 
• Marc Edmund Jones, Scope of Astrological Prediction, Sabian Publishing Society, Standwood, WA, 1969. 
• Peter Washington, Madame Blavatsky’s Baboon, Schocken Books, New York, NY, 1995. 
• H. P. Blavatsky, An Abridgement of the Secret Doctrine, The Theosophical Publishing House, Wheaton, IL, 1968. 

Endnotes