Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hello, everyone. This is my first post on the Skyscript forum.

On page 18 of J. Lee Lehman’s translation from the French of Gérard Encausse’s book “Astrology for Initiates??? (1920), the author (known as Papus) writes:

“The ancients had divided the sky in seven zones of influences, and while any zone may contain one or more stars, it didn’t change the zone count. Uranus and Neptune must be considered to be in the zone of Saturn, as well as placing the asteroids in the zone of Jupiter. But we won’t consider Uranus nor Neptune in our exposition.???

Since most asteroids are found toward the inner edge of the main asteroid belt, which is closer to the orbit of Mars, wouldn’t this place them in the zone of Mars?

I’d really appreciate anyone’s thoughts on any of the above.

Cheers!

Hi Samuel

Welcome to Skyscript!

These are interesting thoughts. However, while the asteroid belt may gravitate more towards Mars (pun subconsciously intended, probably), I look at it mostly as a zone (or sub-zone) of its own, and as some kind of demarcation line between the rock planets and the gas giants.

Thank you, Michael!

I’m specifically interested in where the astrologers of the classical world would have placed the asteroids had they known of their existence — presuming, of course, that they would have placed them anywhere at all.

Papus clearly believes that the asteroids belong in the zone of Jupiter, perhaps because they exceed the orbit of Mars. Would other traditionalists believe likewise? Or would they take issue with this particular view?

Thanks again!

Well, the thing is that the ancient astrological model of the cosmos is essentially self-contained - with just seven spheres carrying celestal bodies assigned to twelve signs as per the domicile scheme.

The relatively recent discovery of previously invisible bodies in our solar system (including asteroids and trans-Saturnians) due to the invention of the telescope breached that framework in the first instance. There is not a way to fit those additional bodies into the traditional model per se.

That being said, I strongly believe that it's possible to extend that very framework in a sensible fashion, so we will end up with something akin to the harmonious and perfectly balanced world view of the ancients eventually.

However, as it stands, this is pretty much a work in progress. Simplifying attempts such as the one you mentioned (by Papus) IMO fall short of the true requirements - although there is no denying that they offer food for further thought.