Gauquelin sector?
Michael Baker
SeaGtGruff
> Can anyone explain this term to me? Prefer email.
I don't know if you've gotten any e-mail responses, but I didn't see any posted
responses, so...
Michel Gauquelin was a French researcher who conducted statistical analyses of
astrological charts. He found that a significant percentage of people who
achieved recognition in certain fields either had certain planets rising, in
upper culmination, setting, or in lower culmination, or had a lack of certain
planets in those areas. This is what came to be called "the Mars effect,"
although there were "effects" for some-- but not all-- of the other planets,
too. It's a rather complex subject, because there's a lot of controversy about
it among the skeptics, and an adequate explanation of Gauquelin's research
would take a while to give.
For example, the "plus sectors" seem to correspond-- in theory-- with the idea
of planets being strong in the angular houses. Unfortunately, the "plus
sectors" which Gauquelin discovered don't actually correspond to the angular
houses; they more closely correspond to the *cadent* houses, in which planets
are traditionally said to be weakest! This has led to skeptics crowing that,
even if Gauquelin's research is valid (which they deny is the case), the fact
that it doesn't jive with the ideas of angular houses and cadent houses is
proof that astrology is bogus.
Then there is the matter of how the Gauquelin sectors are calculated. In
general, they correspond to the Placidus house system, although Gauquelin
divided the chart into 36 sectors rather than 12 houses, for statistical
purposes. As I understand it, the Gauquelin sectors are calculated using the
same method as the Placidus house cusps, with two important exceptions: (1) the
number of sectors is 36, rather than 12; and (2) the sectors must be calculated
for each planet. You might say that Gauquelin used a true Placidus system, and
the Placidus house cusps are merely a simplified version of the correct
system-- that is, the way it should be done, but isn't.
To understand this, you must realize that the planets do not always lie on the
ecliptic circle; they "have latitude." In fact, the planets are hardly ever on
the ecliptic, except when they are crossing over it in their orbits. The
ecliptic is tilted at an angle to the horizon, as well as to the meridian.
What this means is that a planet hardly ever rises, sets, or culminates at the
same moment that its ecliptical position does. That is, let's suppose you have
Venus at 5:00 Libra, and you also have 5:00 Libra on your Ascendant. You
probably think Venus is right smack-dab on the horizon, don't you? If that's
what you think, you're probably wrong! Unless Venus is right on the ecliptic--
or has a latitude of 0 degrees-- it will rise, set, and culminate either before
or after the rising, setting, and culmination of 5:00 Libra.
In the Placidus house system, the cusps are calculated on a time basis, using
the diurnal and nocturnal semi-arcs of the Sun (i.e., the arc between the
Midheaven and Ascendant, and the arc between the Ascendant and Imum Coeli).
Given the fact that the planets do *not* generally rise and culminate at the
same times as their ecliptical positions, it would be most correct to calculate
the house cusps for each planet in the same way that they're calculated for the
Sun. This is what Gauquelin did, although instead of dividing the diurnal and
nocturnal semi-arcs by 3 (using a time basis), he divided them by 9, giving
three sectors per "house." Thus, Mercury's sectors, Venus's sectors, Mars's
sectors, Jupiter's sectors, and so on, are calculated separately, based on the
actual times when they rise and culminate.
So that's what the Gauquelin sectors are. They're numbered differently, too,
in the order in which a planet rises and sets as the Earth rotates. That is,
sector 1 is the last third of the Twelfth House; sector 2 is the middle third
of the Twelfth House; sector 3 is the first third of the Twelfth House; sector
4 is the last third of the Eleventh House; and so on around the chart, with
sector 36 being the first third of the First House.
Keep in mind, however, that each "third" is calculated on a time basis, not a
spatial basis. Just as each Placidus house is usually unequal in length as far
as degrees of the ecliptic are concerned, each "third" of a house is also
usually unequal in length. And the "houses" and sectors of Mars aren't exactly
the same as the "houses" and sectors of Jupiter, or of some other planet.
Based on his research, Gauquelin identified each sector as belonging to either
a "pluz zone" or a "minus zone." The "plus zones" roughly correspond to the
first third of the First House and the entire Twelfth House (or sectors 36, 1,
2, and 3); the first third of the Tenth House and the entire Ninth House (or
sectors 9, 10, 11, and 12); the first third of the Seventh House and the last
two thirds of the Sixth House (or sectors 18, 19, and 20); and the first third
of the Fourth House and the last two thirds of the Third House (or sectors 27,
28, and 29). The remaining sectors make up the "minus zones."
Note that there are four "plus zones" and four "minus zones," creating a kind
of cross pattern in the chart (i.e., if you were to color the four "plus
zones," they would form a slightly lopsided and slightly irregular cross).
This creates a pattern which bears a remarkable similarity to the "aphetic
places" of traditional astrology, but it's almost a mirror-image of the
crosslike pattern formed by the "aphetic places" (i.e., the Ninth House is
emphasized instead of the Tenth House; the Third House is emphasized instead of
the Fourth House; and so on). It's as if the ancient astrologers had the right
idea, but they got their zones shifted some 30 degrees off from where they
should have been.
Gauquelin's zones are actually an idealized pattern based on his research
results. If you read any books about his work, showing the circular graphs of
the "Mars effect," "Jupiter effect," "Saturn effect," and so on, you'll notice
that some of these graphs resemble each other, but they don't precisely
coincide with each other. Gauquelin almost seems to have deliberately copied
the "aphetic places," but rotated them some 30 degrees to make them give a
"best fit" to his graphs.
In case that last sentence upsets some people, let me assure everyone that it
isn't meant as a criticism, but merely as a very subjective observation on my
part. And I'm not trying to imply that he did anything "sneaky" or
questionable or wrong. Still, the Jupiter graph and Mars graph, etc., don't
exactly match each other, and his "plus zones" do seem to be idealized, and
possibly guided (or even subconsciously influenced) by the "aphetic places,"
but with the cross shape rotated slightly to fit his observations in the best
way.
Also, you'll notice that some of his graphs show an emphasis in one or more of
the "minus zones," and this is an important part of his conclusions. Briefly,
certain types of people tend to have one or more key planets in the "plus
zones," and the other key planets in the "minus zones." That is, a person with
a "strong Mars" will tend to be attracted to certain types of careers (i.e.,
those characteristic of Mars), whereas a person with a "weak Mars" will tend to
be attracted to other types of careers. This is also true with other key
planets; and the particular combination of strong and weak planets is also
important. I really haven't studied this subject much, which is why I've
hesitated to post a response to your question.
If you're interested in Gauquelin's work, I would suggest that you read some of
his books, or "The New Astrology" column in the _American Astrology_ magazine,
or Kenneth Irving's web page on the subject at the following URL:
http://members.aol.com/kirving/mmf.htm
Michael Rideout
SeaGtGruff
<snip>
> Note that there are four "plus zones" and four "minus
> zones," creating a kind of cross pattern in the chart (i.e., if
> you were to color the four "plus zones," they would form a
> slightly lopsided and slightly irregular cross). This creates
> a pattern which bears a remarkable similarity to the "aphetic
> places" of traditional astrology, but it's almost a mirror-image
> of the crosslike pattern formed by the "aphetic places" (i.e.,
> the Ninth House is emphasized instead of the Tenth
> House; the Third House is emphasized instead of the
> Fourth House; and so on). <snip>
I'm sorry; I was mistaken! I was thinking of the "hylegical degrees," which
are not the same as the "aphetic places." Also, I thought I remembered that
the "hylegical degrees" made a cross shape in the chart, but they actually make
a kind of T-Square shape (the bottom of the cross is missing). And although
the areas near the Ascendant and Descendant are 30 degrees wide-- 5 degrees
before, and 25 degrees after-- the area near the Midheaven is *90* degrees
wide-- 35 degrees before, and 55 degrees after. So please disregard what I had
written about the "aphetic places"!
Michael Rideout