Arty Farty Friday - Michelangelo - A Question

The man considered by many to be the greatest sculptor and artist of all, Michelangelo, was born, according to AstroDatabank, while the Sun rolled through zodiac sign Pisces in the year 1475. Why, I'm wondering, have I never featured Michelangelo in these Arty Farty Friday posts before? Ah yes - the old Julian/Gregorian calendar question - as it relates to astrological calculations. I've questioned this in the past (here), but without finding clarification. I do understand the calendar change-over and reasons for it in general. In astrological matters the accurate translation of dates from one calendar to t'other is going to be of extra importance.

"Moses" by Michelangelo

For Michelangelo, born in Italy, on (Julian style) 6 March 1474 - which becomes 1475 Gregorian Calendar because 1 January, not 25 March was turn of year by Gregorian. Several sources for this date, and a time of birth, are quoted in AstroDatabank's page. The change to Gregorian calendar would also transfer 6 March (Julian) to 15 March 1475.
AstroDatabank confirms this, yet proceeds to calculate the natal chart using 6 March. The sources quoted mention that Michelangelo's birth was on a Monday (6 March was a Monday Julian-style), but that would not be the case using Gregorian calendar when 6 March becomes 15 March. I have to suppose that Gregorian calculations are used by today's astrology software, so to find out where the planets were situated on the zodiac at the time Michelangelo was born, wouldn't we have to look at a chart for 15 March ?
I'm puzzled! AstroDatabank's compilers are experts - I'm not arguing with them, but seeking explanation.

For comparison with the chart at AstroDatabank, and out of curiosity, here's a chart set for 15 March 1475, in Caprese, Italy at 1.45AM (data as at AstroDatabank, apart from the day.)

The charts for 6 March and 15 March 1475, throw up what some would consider a crucial difference - Sun in early Aries on 15th rather than Pisces on 6th. I don't see that as any great problem though - Michelangelo was everything Aries is cracked up to be wasn't he? His natal Moon would have been in Cancer rather than Pisces - I'm sure astrologers could live with that - the emotional sensitivity of Water is still there - and in a Cardinal rather than mutable sign. There are still Grand trines linking personal planets to Neptune and/or Uranus.

His rising sign using 15 March would have been Capricorn rather than Sagittarius. I don't see this as a stumbling block, especially as in this chart Moon was very close to Saturn, Capricorn's ruler. I've always considered Capricorn and Saturn emphasis to be very relevant to artists who are drawn towards sculpture, first and foremost - the solidity, strength and hard work involved - as against simply wielding a brush full of paint. Michelangelo shone brightly in paintbrush wielding mode too, of course (Sistine Chapel ceiling etc), but sculpture does seem to have been his true love, and a far rarer skill - to his high standard anyway.

I'd still be interested to know the thinking behind AstroDatabank's choice of dates from which to calculate position of planets in Michelangelo's natal chart. The celestial bodies would surely have been situated in the positions known to us, in later centuries with Gregorian calendar, as 15 March - aren't those the planetary positions we need to be looking at?

I haven't yet come across any astrology-driven blog or website with interpretation of a Michelangelo's natal chart for 15 March (Gregorian). There's mention of Michelangelo's natal chart in an article in a book I have (Best of National Astrological Journal 1933-35). I've mentioned the article before, in different context (see HERE.) What's stated doesn't tie in completely with AstroDatabank's version, or the 15 March chart.

"Michelangelo had Capricorn on the ascendant with the Moon three degrees away. His heavy stone-work, massive sculpture, his diligence in his work and the great length of life all show the influence of Saturn. It is true that he had the Sun and Mars in Pisces in the second house. Manly Hall says that Pisces rules Catholicism, and the Roman Catholic church was certainly Michelangelo's strong outlet."

For me, the plot thickens!

Wandering through some comments/reviews of a Michelangelo biography by Miles J. Unger, published last year, Michelangelo: A Life in Six Masterpieces, I noticed this comment by David Wineberg who had read the biography (I trust he will not mind my using his comment/review here), it might help to throw light on the comparative accuracy of charts for 6 and 15 March...or not.

His life was a constant controversy. He made enemies, he dodged (metaphorical) bullets, and he made art. He was an unpleasant misogynist who ironically adored nothing more than portraying the human body. He was universally recognized as the greatest, within his own lifetime. He lied and embellished, but his art speaks for itself. It all makes for a great read.

He was doubly cursed; he lived in interesting times, and was an interesting character. Michelangelo's greatest achievement was to fuse the artist and his work. That is a huge transition point, centered on Michelangelo in this warts and all biography. Because in addition to taking art in a whole new direction, complementing rather than being subservient to religion, Michelangelo turns out to be arrogant, obnoxious, self-centered, narcissistic, antisocial, overbearing and uncaring about any of it. Despite it all, he was the first superstar of art.

He never married, and there were of course questions about his sexual preferences, what with all those nude males he clearly preferred. He deflected them all by saying his art was all the wife he could handle. Later in life, he risked having close relationships with younger men. He was a drama queen; his favorite tactic was to threaten to quit unless he got everything he wanted. And he quit often anyway. He was a notorious abandoner, starting projects and never completing them. There are far more of them than completed works.

Despite abusing his body with little food, minimal rest, and zero care, he lived into his eighties. He outlived nine popes, and worked with five of them. They were often personal friends of his from childhood, which allowed him to be even more arrogant and petulant than he would otherwise. He seemed to have written it all down in letters and poems, and it is juicily reproduced here. This biography is as flesh and blood as Michelangelo's sculptures and paintings, a fitting framework if ever there was one. (David Wineberg)

I guess it matters not a jot, really, which natal chart is more accurate, as far as Michelangelo's genius is concerned, that's a given. Astrologers (and annoyances like me) are the only set of people who will care about position of the planets as this seminal artistic genius was released into the world.

 Rachel and Leah by Michelangelo

Old Style/New Style Calendars - Help Wanted!

I set out to write a post on Thomas Paine and his natal chart but hit a stumbling block on his birth date. One thing led to another and now my brain is suffering from what they call in the USA a "Charley horse".

Can anyone well-versed in both calendrical history and how it applies to astrology give me a hint or two please?

I understand the difference between Julian and Gregorian calendars and how & why the change was made. I spent around six years in my early working life working as assistant to our County's archivist, often assisting in the documentation of ancient records, where cross-overs of the calendar systems were involved. I'd have to remember how the start of the year changed from 25 March to 1 January in 1752 in Britain, and document any piece dated, say, January 29 1730 as January 29 1730/1.
I do "get" that part of the conundrum.

There's also the matter of 11 days difference between the two calendars for dates in the 1700s, which is a crucial piece of information when it comes to setting up a natal chart.

When looking at Thomas Paine's date of birth, January or February 1737 even Astrodatabank isn't certain whether the 29 January (Old Style) or 9 February (New Style) is correct because they are not certain whether the difference had already been accounted for when some biography or other quoted 29 January 1737. But.....here's where my brain cramps - shouldn't January 1737 be 1738 New Style? Or had it been adjusted from 1736 Old Style? And if 9 February is the adjusted date shouldn't that also be 1738 New Style....or.......?

And where were the Sun, Moon and planets really ? (Knocks head on desktop).

From source notes at Astrodatabank's page for Thomas Paine

Original entry gave January 29, 1737 at 11:30 AM, citing Dane Rudhyar with an added note of "PC gives February 9, 1737, 11:00 AM, spec." On Rodden's original typed file, she asks "is the date OS [Old Style] or NS [New Style] and notes that she "asked Blackwell 3/88." This seems not to have been resolved by Rodden. In December 2011 PT adds that England observed Old Style dates at the time of Paine's birth. However, reference works vary with both dates used (January 29 and February 9), depending on the source, often with no notation as to the calendar used. The date remains unresolved.

Any ideas, anyone, either about Thomas Paine's birth date/year or general advice for anyone interested in astrology when birth or event dates are affected by Julian/Gregorian calendar differences?