5.Do you offer precession correction in transits or solar return charts?
No we don't. Because we do not consider the method logical and consistent in itself. Tropical astrology uses a frame of reference which moves with the rhythm of the Sun-Moon-Earth system. The technique of "precession correction" breaks this system trying to introduce a notion of "natal birth marks in absolute space". This is false on several levels:
The reference frame it introduces is not absolute, it translates and rotates with the (fast) movement of the solar system within the galaxy. A transiting planet does never return to the point in absolute space where it once was.

The concept of "return charts" and of transits altogether is - on a deeper level - a symbolic concept rather than a physical concept. It should therefore be applied in a consistent symbolic system and not in an inconsistent potpourri of systems. If you want to get around precession, we recommend to do "sidereal" astrology with one of its unprecessed reference frames. We don't think it makes sense to mix incompatible systems.

Can you precess a tropical solar return?
Tropical charts are geocentric and based on when the Sun crosses the equator at the equinoxes or reaches its nadir or zenith at the solstices. Precession is sidereal, star oriented technique based on zero-point Aries in the sky. The two systems are totally different and separate. To precess a tropical chart is like mixing apples and oranges. It makes no sense to do this and generally the charts make no sense either. Tropical charts should not be precession corrected. Mary Fortier Shea

Personally I have no problem with people preferring sidereal over tropical astrology. However, as I see it the idea that 'precession correction' somehow represents an improvement over normal tropical astrology is a result of muddled thinking. Its noteable that many of those most passionate in advocating 'precession corrected charts' for tropical charts are already siderealists anyway. Is that a hint? As I see it this is often a trojan horse argument to undermine the tropical zodiac. The tropical zodiac doesn't require 'correction' and this implication is rather insulting to many tropical astrologers who get perfectly good results without any need for such tinkering. IMHO Tropicalists that go along with this kind of argument are applying a confused methodology.

??Precessing tropicalists just want to have it both ways.??

Personally the logic behind the precession corrected return charts appeals little to me. Either it's pure tropical returns, or sidereal returns. If astrologers have found the sidereal / precession corrected returns charts to work, that may hint about the validity of the sidereal zodiac in general.

There are two types of Solar Returns: Precessed and Non Precessed. Precessed, or Precession Corrected Solar Returns take into account the precession of the equinoxes when calculating the position for the Sun in the Solar Return. (For a more detailed explanation of Precession, see the article on the Tropical Zodiac vs. the Sidereal Zodiac in Chapter 1.) Precession Corrected returns come from Western Sidereal astrology, and although many Western Tropical Astrologers (myself included) tend to view most information from the Sidereal school with a great deal of skepticism, Precession Correction seems to work very well indeed. The actual amount of precession is negligible: about 4 seconds of arc per year. But since timing is everything in Solar Return charts, the older we get, the greater the difference in the houses and angles of the Precession Corrected chart. Kevin Burk

"Most astrologers are aware that the vernal equinox, otherwise known as the first point of Aries, does not remain stationary with respect to the fixed stars but moves backwards through them at a rate of approximately 50.25 seconds per year....The problem for us is....that the timing of transits taken in the two zodiacs begins to differ as a person gets older...this problem almost immediately begins to affect return charts...In other words, one should treat the natal positions of the planets as if they were fixed stars....many astrologers agree that at the very least, determining the positions of the natal chart corrected for precession helps significantly in timing events".

?my own experience has been that in timing an event the corrected positions are more accurate than the uncorrected ones? Planets in Transits, p30.

"The two charts are actually in agreement. It is as if one has the advantage of two eyewitness accounts or two expert opinions on an issue. Sometimes, what may not be accentuated in one account is highlighted in the other. An optimum solution is to calculate and use both return charts."

As mentioned previously, there exists a controversy among astrologers about whether to adjust the Solar return chart for precession. Neither Volguine nor Morin precessed their charts, yet some modern authors believe that precession is the only way to calculate an annual chart and that tropical non-precessed returns are simply invalid

Working "sidereally" does not require the use of any of the different historical sidereal zodiacs. A precession-corrected chart (such as a solar return), for example, is strictly sidereal. Some astrologers have the notion that precession-corrected charts are a mixture of sidereal and tropical. This notion is the result of identifying the word "sidereal" with "a sidereal zodiac", failing to see that a precession-corrected chart is based on a sidereal zodiac the starting point of which is the moment of birth (time) and the position of the ecliptic at the moment of birth (space), and forgetting that the usual ayanamsa displacement in space is a function of a difference in time.
Software programmers are sometimes to blame for the confusion. Some programs calculate precession-corrected charts or returns but present the positions tropically, others offer the calculation of "sidereal" progressions "without bija", i.e., using the tropical year as parameter. Both are in my opinion mathematical absurdities that result from the habit of artificially separating the time and space dimensions of precession.

In principle, "precession-corrected" (tropical) positions and "truly sidereal" positions are exactly the same, the difference being only the point in time that is chosen as fiducial:

1-) precession-corrected positions (usually) use the radix as fiducial

2-) sidereal positions use September 11, A.D. 221 as fiducial

NOTE: This date refers to the Fagan/Bradley sidereal zodiac, which I use as example in this exposition.

In other words: a "sidereal astrologer" uses the tropical zodiac of the year 221 as fiducial, a "tropicalist" who works with precession-corrected positions uses the time of the radix as fiducial. Both are "precession-corrected" tropical positions, the only difference is the amount of time or of accumulated precession which results from the fiducial or starting point chosen. Both are sub-sets of a purely sidereal (or quasi-sidereal) reference frame.

Astrological measurements can be either tropical or sidereal, independent of whether one uses a tropical (or sidereal) zodiac or not. That this is often not recognized is another example of how much astrologers are controlled by a purely spatial abstraction at the expense of the more realistic, dynamical model that includes both space and time.

Confusion is created by the habit of associating the word "sidereal" with a specific sidereal zodiac of some astrological tradition or school. "Sidereal" is a system of reference to measure movement, and is independent of any of the traditional zodiacs used by astrologers, sidereal or tropical. The question of sidereal or tropical is not simply a question of what traditional zodiac one uses, but a question of how one wants to measure time.

If one subtracts the precession accumulated from the time of the radix to the tropical positions of a specific date, one is effectively using a sidereal zodiac with its zero point defined as the position of the equinox at the date of the radix. The tropical position of 0 Aries when a person is born is considered fixed in a quasi-inertial or "fixed" reference frame, and precession is counted from that day on. A precession-corrected tropical solar return is a strictly sidereal construct based on a sidereal reference frame the starting point of which is the radix.

Another way of saying it is that a "tropical" precession-corrected return represents positions in a sidereal zodiac the starting point of which is the vernal point of the radix, while a purely "sidereal" return represents positions in a sidereal zodiac the starting point of which is the vernal point of September 11, A.D. 221 (in the case of the Fagan/Bradley zodiac).

"Sidereal" is by convention a "fixed" reference frame, against which the precessional motion is observed and measured. The astrological concept of "a radix" is almost the same thing: something "fixed" in time against which one charts everything that happens in time. From this perspective, precession-corrected (=sidereal) solar returns and transits appear to be a logical way to proceed, since the birth chart is conventionally considered "fixed" in time and space.

This is the principle behind the use of a sidereal reference frame. What zodiac (tropical or sidereal) one chooses to represent the positions is irrelevant form a mathematical or calculation standpoint, unless one gives special weight to purely astrological considerations, such as where the zodiacal signs should begin or end, a consideration that for many astrologers (including myself) is of little interest.

A "fixed" sidereal reference frame is no different than what is assumed about the moment of birth or the birth chart, the concept of "radix", the radix moment having a different weight than all the others and used as the common reference frame for all. The radix space and time coordinates are the basic reference frame in horoscopic Astrology.

Is astrological analysis (or, for that matter, the analysis of a human life) a question of anything against anything or is it by necessity structured around certain "privileged" or meaningful events?

The symbolical link between the concept of "sidereal" (i.e. fixed in time and space) and the concept of "radix" provides the framework to understand the different possibilities; one can categorize the types of events being compared --i.e., birth against anything else, a human biography, a process, or simple unrelated events. For example, one can think of:

1-) precession-corrected positions when one date or chart is seen in reference or with respect to the other (the radix)

2-) tropical-only positions when both are seen comparatively in reference to themselves only (in equal or "democratic" terms, giving the same weight to the 2 moments)

3-) a traditional sidereal zodiac when both are seen in reference to something else that includes both. The traditional sidereal zodiac is especially useful when one is comparing 3 or more independent dates or charts.

A precession-corrected transit can be defined as the time when a transiting planet crosses exactly the same point *in the natal ecliptic* at which a natal planet was when you were born. The ecliptic at the time of the transit has moved with respect to the ecliptic at the time of birth (at a rate of approximately 47" per century). The ecliptic at the time of birth is considered fixed in the space of the fixed stars, but the natal planets are referred to this ecliptic plane and not the stars...

In other words, the original natal positions are not "sidereal" to start with, but tropical. Then, this tropical ecliptic is frozen in inertial space, and the transiting planets are measured with respect to this fixed ecliptic of birth. Transits are measured not with respect to the sky of the fixed stars, but to the ecliptic of birth...

Mark wrote:The notion of precession correction for tropical charts is very recent and to the best of my knowledge finds no support in the astrological sources from the Persian, Arab, Medieval or Renaissance period.

This is an interesting question. One Renaissance astrologer who explicitly recommends using sidereal revolutions/returns is Giuntini (Junctinus), who says that this method is used by 'some astrologers'. I know the quotation has been discussed on Skyscript before. However, Giuntini may actually have considered a sidereal zodiac more valid (similar to the way in which Placidus and others favoured topocentric longitudes in theory but used geocentric ones in practice).

From the Perso-Arabic era we have, for instance, the Book of Aristotle, which uses the sidereal year (365 days 6 1/5 hours, quite close to the modern value). But then it is often problematic to label authors from this era as siderealists or tropicalists, as they typically define the zodiac with reference both to the seasons and to the constellations.

Juan states:
Confusion is created by the habit of associating the word "sidereal" with a specific sidereal zodiac of some astrological tradition or school. "Sidereal" is a system of reference to measure movement, and is independent of any of the traditional zodiacs used by astrologers, sidereal or tropical. The question of sidereal or tropical is not simply a question of what traditional zodiac one uses, but a question of how one wants to measure time.

If one subtracts the precession accumulated from the time of the radix to the tropical positions of a specific date, one is effectively using a sidereal zodiac with its zero point defined as the position of the equinox at the date of the radix. The tropical position of 0 Aries when a person is born is considered fixed in a quasi-inertial or "fixed" reference frame, and precession is counted from that day on. A precession-corrected tropical solar return is a strictly sidereal construct based on a sidereal reference frame the starting point of which is the radix.

Another way of saying it is that a "tropical" precession-corrected return represents positions in a sidereal zodiac the starting point of which is the vernal point of the radix, while a purely "sidereal" return represents positions in a sidereal zodiac the starting point of which is the vernal point of September 11, A.D. 221 (in the case of the Fagan/Bradley zodiac).

"Sidereal" is by convention a "fixed" reference frame, against which the precessional motion is observed and measured. The astrological concept of "a radix" is almost the same thing: something "fixed" in time against which one charts everything that happens in time. From this perspective, precession-corrected (=sidereal) solar returns and transits appear to be a logical way to proceed, since the birth chart is conventionally considered "fixed" in time and space.

Eddy wrote:If you won't use the tropical ecliptical positions then abandon the whole idea of the ecliptical reference frame. The use of it simply makes no sense anymore.