Skyscript Astrology Forum

Good morning/afternoon.

My name is Joseph D. W. Pelobello and I have been interested in natural sciences (geology, astronomy, etc.) since I was young, but I have been into astrology recently. However, upon learning about the difference between traditional tropical and sidereal astrology, I began noticing that sidereal astrology would be a better fit for me—and it also seems to describe most people I know a lot better.

While researching this, I came across two books written by Steven Schmidt in the 1970s: Astrology 14: Your New Star Sign and The Astrology 14 Horoscope: How to Cast and Interpret It. Steven Schmidt not only updates the existing signs to match more closely with the dates where the Sun currently crosses over the constellations they were based on, but also adds two more signs also in the zodiac band: Cetus and Ophiuchus. This leads to a total of fourteen signs.

There are some things I want to point out and summarize from the books:

• Schmidt's motivation for writing the books stems from him wanting to make astrology a legitimate science. He wants astrology to be open to new ideas and change with the times, as mainstream science does.
• Each sign occupies roughly 25.7 (360/14) degrees along the ecliptic and is in equal length. There are also 14 houses, instead of 12, as a result.
• Because of the above two points, Schmidt drops the usage of classical elements in his system, along with decans and the midheaven. His books also don't seem to have any mention of exaltations (although page 44 of his first book still implies a solar exaltation in Aries).
• As expected, Schmidt uses modern rulerships, in dire contrast to most sidereal astrologers I've seen who are more strict on using traditional rulerships.
• Schmidt keeps the traditional aspects and their meanings.
• Schmidt wanted to use the scientific method to find the typical traits for each star sign: he sampled a very large number of people falling within a sign (including famous people and people he knew personally) and tried to determine each sign's trait by finding common traits within those people. Hence, some of the traits he describes for each sign could be different from what traditional astrology teaches.

I haven't seen this system used outside of the book, so I would love to hear your thoughts. I find it interesting the lengths Schmidt would go to make astrology a legit science, and I'd be interested in how you guys would feel if your signs have changed to something else in this new system, and whether you fit its traits more. The second book has templates for birth charts using this system.

Here are all 14 signs and the ruling planets assigned to each of them:

1. Pisces: 21 March—15 April, ruled by Neptune (no overlap with traditional)
2. Aries: 16 April—11 May, ruled by Mars (overlap with traditional)
3. Cetus: 12 May—6 June, ruled by Jupiter (new sign)
4. Taurus: 7 June—2 July, ruled by Venus (no overlap with traditional)
5. Gemini: 3—28 July, ruled by Mercury (no overlap with traditional)
6. Cancer: 29 July—23 August, ruled by the Moon (no overlap with traditional)
7. Leo: 24 August—18 September, ruled by the Sun (no overlap with traditional)
8. Virgo: 19 September—14 October, ruled by Mercury (overlap with traditional)
9. Libra: 15 October—9 November, ruled by Venus (overlap with traditional)
10. Scorpio: 10 November—5 December, ruled by Mars (largest overlap with traditional)
11. Ophiuchus: 6—31 December, ruled by Pluto (new sign)
12. Sagittarius: 1—26 January, ruled by Jupiter (no overlap with traditional)
13. Capricorn: 27 January—21 February, ruled by Saturn (no overlap with traditional)
14. Aquarius: 21 February—20 March, ruled by Uranus (no overlap with traditional)

Schmidt also provides a handy conversion chart in the second book, but I will reproduce it here for convenience's sake:

• Pisces = 0 degrees tropical Aries
• Aries = 26 degrees tropical Aries
• Cetus = 21 degrees tropical Taurus
• Taurus = 16 degrees tropical Gemini
• Gemini = 11 degrees tropical Cancer
• Cancer = 6 degrees tropical Leo
• Leo = 0 degrees tropical Virgo
• Virgo = 26 degrees tropical Virgo
• Libra = 22 degrees tropical Libra
• Scorpio = 18 degrees tropical Scorpio
• Ophiuchus = 14 degrees tropical Sagittarius
• Sagittarius = 10 degrees tropical Capricorn
• Capricorn = 6 degrees tropical Aquarius
• Aquarius = 2 degrees tropical Pisces

Joseph, welcome to Skyscript! Back in the 1970s when Steven Schmidt's book was written we didn't have the Internet with so much easily acceptable information at our fingertips. Today there is still confusion about the zodiac, but not as much mis-information as back in the 1970s. Based on what you posted the starry constellations in the sky were confused with the astrological signs of the zodiac. Although sidereal signs roughly align with the constellations as used by astronomers, those constellations actually have very little to do with the zodiac used by astrologers.

The astrological SIGNS are 30 degree segments of the ecliptic, whether measured from the spring venal point (tropical) or based on some date in time ( sidereal Lahiri), or measured from a particular star. The difference between astronomical constellations and the zodiac of astrologers has caused a great deal of confusion among those who aren't knowledgeable about the practice of astrology.

Talk of a 13 or 14 sign "zodiac" has nothing to do with the zodiac used by astrologers. If astrologers do use stars from the constellations in interpretations, these stars are incorporated in whatever sign they happen to fall in. Thus, stars of Ophiuchus fall in the SIGN of sidereal Scorpio and are often given a medical interpretation.

Steven Schmidt may have isolated traits that belong to the constellations. These could be studied in the context of the tropical or sidereal astrological zodiacs that contain stars of the constellations. The boundaries of constellations have changed since ancient times, so the astronomical measurements of constellations can't be used as a new "zodiac" as such. The historical record of stars and constellations always has to be incorporated in astrological study.

Two more notes on Steven Schmidt's proposed constellational zodiac:

The author has linked his constellational boundaries to tropical zodiac degrees from apparently the 1970s when the book was published. By 2042 these zodiac boundaries will have shifted by a degree and will continue to shift with the equinoxes through time.

Deborah Houlding has a related and very detailed and instructive article on Skyscript with wonderful illustrations that discusses why there are 12 signs in the zodiac rather than 13: https://www.skyscript.co.uk/zodiac.html
This is a great article for the review of all astrologers, but should be on Page One of every beginning student's astrological notebook.