““… belief in astrology is one thing, and its scientific demonstration, the proof that it is more than just a belief but also a reality of Nature, is another.”
That great mind of the Renaissance Johannes Kepler had a deep conviction that astrology — like astronomy — needed to be reformulated “in order to become a true scientific doctrine.” (35) Likewise, historian of Esotericism Eliphas Levi in “Transcendental Magic” wrote that true astrology became profaned among the Greeks and Romans and its restoration to its “primitive purity” would be the creation of an entirely new science. This was the aim of Gauquelin, and in this light the importance of his work cannot be over-stated. But the traditional astrologers are not necessarily rushing on to his bandwagon. In the words of the astronomer J A Hynek from the Department of Astronomy, Northwestern University, who wrote the introduction to one of Gauquelin’s books:
“…the Gauquelins have not proved astrology…They have, rather, disproved and disposed of much of the “astrologer’s foolishness”… [they have] quite effectively disproved the “astrology of the masses.” (36)
Not only have they banished the pursuit of “profane” astrology to the pit but most of professional and serious practice into the bargain. Gauquelin said that his works should not be termed “astrology.” The Gauquelin horoscope is only a skeleton; most of the essential elements of traditional astrology — the zodiac, the aspects, the houses — have lost their significance, and out of the ten planets used by astrologers, only five are left. In his own words neo-astrology is “extremely frugal.” Its single foundation is his experimental proof of the influence of the planets. According to Gauquelin the difference between the horoscopic doctrine and neo-astrology represents a revolution. Astrology through the centuries has simply safeguarded the essential: the fact that the planets exert an influence at birth.” Planetary Types: the Science of Celestial Influence P.58
