Gauquelin's findings - 9th and 12th house strongest?

[Mr stellium]

I recently found an interesting article on the internet summarising Gauquelin's findings in relation to natal astrology. As most of you may be familiar with, he concludes that the position of certain planets relative to the 4 angles is the most important factor in determining career path and some personality traits. Here's the article: http://wiretap.area.com/Gopher/Library/Fringe/Occult/gauq.1

He ranks the houses in order of strength as follows:

1. 12th and 9th
2. 3rd and 6th

This contradicts traditional astrology which states that these are weak, somewhat ineffective houses. How can this be explained? Perhaps the planets are stronger after they cross the angle (e.g risen into the 12th etc) because they have entered the persons consciosness, whereas planets which have not yet crossed the angle do not and their effects are not felt strongly or strongly integrated in the person's psyche...just a thought. What do you guys think of this contradiction?

 

[RayAustin]

Sun in the twelfth isn't as bad as we think, as it is often a position of world-known leaders like Bush, and Putin. Maybe they aren't the greatest leaders, but they have risen to a high position; so I have long held suspicions that the twelfth house can be a power house--most likely secret power, that makes you wonder how it got there and who really is behind it.

The third is (in my opinion) second least weakest house as the joy of the Luna, next to the ninth house, which is least weakest of all being the "the house of the sun god", and the house of Jupiter. I can't remember who it is, Mr. Stellium, but there was some classical astrologer that considered the ninth very benefic and as powerful as the midheaven!

I have often thought that many classical astrologers were fatalistic because of their world-view where opportunities for the common man were few and far between compared to now, and the houses' power are still subject to the condition of the culture of the native. So it is no wonder that the cadent houses are ascribed as they are.

Stellium, what does Gauquelin state as his reasoning? I'd suspect it might have to do with planets that can be on the angle.

Ray

 

[hermetic]

from the link posted:

Gauquelin's found that the two most powerful houses are the 12th (after
rising), 9th (after midheaven), and two next most powerful houses are
the 6th (after setting) and the 3rd (after midnight). Astrologers say
that the most critical houses are the 1st (before rising), 4th (before
midnight), 7th (before setting), and 10th (before midheaven). In other
words, astrologers are right that the planet angles are very powerful,
but wrongly assert that the planets are strongest at the angle and
approaching the angle. Gauquelin found that the planets are strongest
in the two hours (1 house) after the angle.

this kind of makes sense if we think about it. True, I sometimes wondered about 1st house Sun vs. 12th house Sun, how we always read 1st house Sun gives one power, but at that point of birth Sun was still invisible on earth, while with Sun at 12th - we see it, it casts its rays - wouldn't that give out Sun energy to the native? basically what is written here...
that would mean we'd have to forget all we ever learnt about house strenghts ??? hmmm
but good post nevertheless, I'm curious what others have to say

 

[RayAustin]

that would mean we'd have to forget all we ever learnt about house strenghts ??? hmmm

Right hermetic if it is true, I do not think that this necessarily applies to all branches, though.

 

[lodals]

Interesting topic, though not too sure about his planets in house findings - for me they were mostly telling me what I couldn't do, apart from Saturn in 10th (not strong will) which I hate to admit may be true, and Jupiter in 5th (simple??!!) which I baulked at at first, then realised that was as good an explanation as any for some of the things I've done!
Had to agree with his findings about planets in angles though! My Grandad had Moon in Aquarius (don't know his time of birth), so did my mom (ditto with time of birth) she passed it on to me (conj IC) and one of my brothers, then from me it skipped a generation, but two of my grandaughters have inherited it! Also, he doesn't mention this, but all three of my children have the same two signs on the MC/IC axis as I have. My eldest two, from my first marriage have Leo MC and Aquarius IC, the same as me, and my third, who was born in South Africa, has Aquarius MC and Leo IC. Would be interested to hear if this is a usual occurrence and if Gauquelin mentioned it in his work?

 

[waybread]

I read a couple of the Gauquelins' books a while back. Basically Michel and Francoise were a married couple, both statisticians, who set out to disprove astrology based on (a) municipal birth records in France, which include the birth time; and (b) the French equivalent of Who's Who, indicating a lot of prominent Frenchmen and what they were known for. So they focused on career and public image, specifically.

What they found was that there were statistically significant correlations, but that these were not known to conventional astrologers of their day!

Regarding the "cadent" houses [3,6,9,12], it isn't the entire house which is prominent, but rather a few degrees close to the chart angles. The "Gauquelin zones" are actually pretty close to the angles. Then the effect drops off sharply once you move into the next (i. e. cardinal) houses.

They did find a correlation between conventional meanings of planets and professions, however. For example, Mars was prominent in the charts of athletes.

The Gauquelins have been criticized by other statisticians, and ignored by conventional astrologers.

I found their work fascinating!

 

[RayAustin]

, it isn't the entire house which is prominent, but rather a few degrees close to the chart angles. The "Gauquelin zones" are actually pretty close to the angles. Then the effect drops off sharply once you move into the next (i. e. cardinal) houses.

They did find a correlation between conventional meanings of planets and professions, however. For example, Mars was prominent in the charts of athletes.

The Gauquelins have been criticized by other statisticians, and ignored by conventional astrologers.

I found their work fascinating!

I find that fascinating too. Waybread, how many degrees was the area of the influence? Was it five degrees to the angle?

 

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

I find that fascinating too. Waybread, how many degrees was the area of the influence? Was it five degrees to the angle?

This is how I thought of it. There's a picture that goes with the findings and all the spikes seem to fall within the 5 degree orb or an angle. You can find the picture on Wiki by searching for Gauquelin himself.

 

[RayAustin]

This is how I thought of it. There's a picture that goes with the findings and all the spikes seem to fall within the 5 degree orb or an angle. You can find the picture on Wiki by searching for Gauquelin himself.

Yeah, so really, they're just confirming what the traditionals knew already, and that there is indeed an orb of power at the angle cusps.

 

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

The picture I was thinking of was his Mars effect. It has spikes just before the First and Tenth, but not before the Seventh and Fourth, which I find a little weird, but cements what Lilly says in that the First and Tenth are the most significant.

The Mars effect, by the way, was a research project where he located Mars in the charts of famous athletes. I think the way in which it was conducted was too simplistic.

 

[The_Sundance_Kid]

I am not a writer, I am not an actor, I am not a scientist.

This man shatters dreams.

And also, what does 'simple' mean? Where I live, that word means retarded.

I've been pondering this man recently, and I think the orb thing is true, that the cusp of an Angle from the cadent house is very powerful. So his research on planets near angles was useful.

But I wonder how he looked at Zodiac signs. Did he base his tests merely on Ascs and which signs ruled which houses? Did he look at ruling planets and aspects? Did he confirm a link between say Mars and Aries, so those with Mars in Aries or Capricorn in the 9th near the MC were more noted or more successful sports people than Mars in Libra on the 9th near the MC?

 

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

But I wonder how he looked at Zodiac signs. Did he base his tests merely on Ascs and which signs ruled which houses? Did he look at ruling planets and aspects? Did he confirm a link between say Mars and Aries, so those with Mars in Aries or Capricorn in the 9th near the MC were more noted or more successful sports people than Mars in Libra on the 9th near the MC?

He didn't do any of that. Just house position. That's what I mean by simple.

 

[CRYSTALSTARLIGHT]

I never felt that the 12 9 6 and 3 houses were weaker even though it is mentioned in astro books...rather that the planets close to the angles were being energized because of that a little more regardless of what house they were in and the closer they were the stronger...maybe it was partly because my sun and moon in Sag were 4 and 5 degrees away!

 

[The_Sundance_Kid]

Lol, I meant what does Gauqelin mean when he says certain placements make the native 'simple', like

' Moon in 1st, 2nd house: "simple" '

Maybe the slight cadence inclines one to powerful changes/ growth/ strength in the lifetime because normally by progression there will be a crossing of the angles at some point. Angular housed planets will not do this. Looking at the progressions of retrograde planets in people would be the best scientific way to look at that I guess. So 10th house Mars' which progress retrograde over the MC would be anomalies that fit in with the general Gauqelin results, while 9th house Mars that are retrograde will never cross the MC and so they would be the anomalies that don't fit in with Gauqelin.

 

[waybread]

5 degrees sounds about right, but I am just going by memory here. I believe it varies according to planet in the "power zone" and then the 9th and 12th are more powerful--with a wider zone--then the 3rd and 6th.

I honestly don't know why it should work this way, and don't recall the Gauquelins' own explanations. I wondered whether it might have something to do with progressions or solar arcs, which move counter-clockwise. I could imagine a young child having his significant natal planet in the 9th or 12th progressing to where it hits his MC or AC, at which point his talent manifests and he probably gets extra training or education. A planet already in the 10th or 1st wouldn't get the same "jolt". Also Jupiter is the natural ruler of the 9th and traditional natural ruler of the 12th: perhaps such people align with a greater cause more easily.

Just speculation, though!

Sundance, I don't know what that "simple" description means, either!

BTW, I located a couple of the English-translation books of the Gauquelins in my public library.

 

[R4VEN]

But I wonder how he looked at Zodiac signs. Did he base his tests merely on Ascs and which signs ruled which houses? Did he look at ruling planets and aspects? Did he confirm a link between say Mars and Aries, so those with Mars in Aries or Capricorn in the 9th near the MC were more noted or more successful sports people than Mars in Libra on the 9th near the MC?

I agree with this, Sundance_Kid. Signs are very significant as a filter to Martian energy.
I have Mars (in Libra, conj Neptune - agghh!!) in 9th within less than 4 deg of MC. I played a lot of sport between ages of 9-36. At 19 or so I was given an opportunity to try out for the state women's cricket team. Was told my bowling was already of state standard, but I should go away and work on my batting. I thought: Yeah, ok, whatever, and did nothing more about it, content to play at the level I was already playing.

A classic case of `the sign matters!!' (not to forget all the weird distracting aspects.)

 

[gimzo23]

So would that basically mean, according to his findings, that planets separating from the angles would actually be stronger than applying ones? Do I see this right? Does anyone know if he was the only astrologer who thought so? Thus, for instance, a planet in the 3rd house within 5 degrees of the IC would actually be stronger attached to the IC, and thus have a greater impact on it, even though having moved away from exactness, than a planet 5 degrees in the 4th and moving towards the IC? Isn't it a consensus among astrologers that applying aspects are always stronger than separating ones? Or is this up for argumentation? Does anyone know, if he was of the opinion that this was only the case for planets on the angles, or did he think this way for all other aspects between planets as well?

 

[gimzo23]

In Lee Lehman's book Essential Dignities, she redid Gauquelin's data taking sect (day or night births) into account, and got even higher spikes.

But I don't think she did it by sign - might have done, I'd need to look it up.

If you have Solar Fire, you can check the Gauquelin zones on your own - they are a bit cuspy, which we'd expect anyway. It was a fascinating piece of research, though, and led to the whole Starbaby - look it up on the Net - debacle wherein CSICOP falsified data to try to disprove it.

So much for the Amazing Randi's reputation as the arch-debunker - at least in my view.

Thanks for the info.

 

[waybread]

So would that basically mean, according to his findings, that planets separating from the angles would actually be stronger than applying ones? Do I see this right? Does anyone know if he was the only astrologer who thought so? Thus, for instance, a planet in the 3rd house within 5 degrees of the IC would actually be stronger attached to the IC, and thus have a greater impact on it, even though having moved away from exactness, than a planet 5 degrees in the 4th and moving towards the IC? Isn't it a consensus among astrologers that applying aspects are always stronger than separating ones? Or is this up for argumentation? Does anyone know, if he was of the opinion that this was only the case for planets on the angles, or did he think this way for all other aspects between planets as well?

Gimzo, it's been a long time since I've looked at the Gauquelins' books, but my recollection is that they used a house system where the MC, IC, AC, and DC were identical with house cusps. I don't think they ran into the issue that you might with some house systems, where the MC is not the same as the 10th house cusp.

 

[gimzo23]

Gimzo, it's been a long time since I've looked at the Gauquelins' books, but my recollection is that they used a house system where the MC, IC, AC, and DC were identical with house cusps. I don't think they ran into the issue that you might with some house systems, where the MC is not the same as the 10th house cusp.

It sounds interesting. I might look into a book of theirs about these studies someday.