Francesco Giuntini published Speculum in 1573.

The aphorism is not about the aspects, I was mostly replying to Herman.

Hi all,

Heck, looking at the Tetrabiblos, I'm not sure Ptolemy is using signs or divisions for the topical places, or using topical places very much at all. Taking as an example, book 3, chapter 4, he seems to prefer to focus on sect and planetary relationships to judge topics. In chap 5 of the same book, he's taking as the place of the mother whichever sign Venus or the Moon is in, based on natal sect.

Thank you, Margherita and Tom, for picking up.
As I am all boiling up for another administrative dead-line to miss, I thought it very appropriate to check my seminar-notes as I really don't have the time for it now, LOL.
This is what I found: (according to my notes) John also said that each degree of a sign, is like a step of a staircase: every degree has its boundary or limit or "space": from degree x?00 to degree x?59, is like a separate unity, distinct from the foregoing and the following degree.
Hence we have such things like Sabian symbols. Terms, faces are examples of other beacons where trespassing implies another kind of quality. This change of quality is maximised at a sign's boundaries, obviously.
As a repentant former modern astrologer, I am since then fascinated by this idea of every degree of the zodiac marking a distinct quality. In that former life of mine, I understood the zodiac (visually) as a circle with a smooth surface - as in the (modern?) concept of a planet at 27+ degrees of a sign already being energised by the next sign, expressing itself with the quality of the next sign; while by what I understood from John, I should visually perceive the zodiac circle rather as some kind of gear (just referring to my internal perception!).
While my former understanding would also like produce a "bzzzzz..." or "swoosh" sound when the zodiacwheel turns, this discrete quality of the zodiacal degrees would produce somehting like a "tac-tac-tac-tac-..." sound...
And even though it doesn't keep me awake at night, it *does* fascinate me...

As a 'modern' astrologer I'm not sympathetic to this fuzzy 5 degree notion or the idea that a planet can ''work'' in both houses.

It's also my understanding that the more clued up modern astrologers take this more exact line, for me which house placement is resonant with the persons life enables me to determine the TOB as well as the veracity of ones preferred House system.

As a 'modern' astrologer I'm not sympathetic to this fuzzy 5 degree notion or the idea that a planet can ''work'' in both houses.

We run into this a lot because the modern idea is that the house begins with the cusp and nowhere else, it has never been any different, and therefore the five degree rule means the planet works in both houses or only works in the next house. This is incorrect. The idea is that the house begins five degrees before the cusp. So 4th cusp has 20 Aries, the 4th house begins at 15 Aries. A planet at 16 Aries is not in the third, but rather is in the 4th house. The cusp is the most sensitive point, not the beginning. When we enter a home we do so through the door. The most important point in the home is not the doorway. It is farther inside, but when we walk through the door we are in the home.

The word "cusp" does not mean "beginning" in any language. It comes from a Latin term, "cuspis" that referred to the tip of a sword. That is where the energy of the sword is focused. A cusp in an astrological house is the same thing - a sensitive point. That is why the word was chosen and not some word for "beginning." Therefore, the earliest writers that this term may have believed the house began other than at the cusp, and since it is not logical that it could begin after the cusp, it must begin before it. Whatever this is, it is not fuzzy.

We can accept the idea or reject it, but we need to understand it correctly first.

Tom

The cusp is the most sensitive point, not the beginning.

I started a thread on this in May 2006. It went nowhere. Perhaps my fresh enthusiasm for whole sign houses was off-putting. http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1575

As far as I've been able to find out the word cusp changed meaning from 'point' to 'beginning' around the Renaissance and was due to astrologers. My Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966, reprinted 1996) lists as its first entry for cusp ?(astrol.) entrance of a house XVI?, so they date the astrological meaning to the 16th century. Interestingly, the meaning in English of 'point' and 'apex', which is closer to the original Latin, dates later, to the 17th century. Those are dates of the first recorded usage. Comparison with other languages is needed for an accurate understanding regarding its usage in astrology. Arabic, anyone?

It looks like astrologers became confused over whether house cusps were points of intensity within the houses or were the beginning of the houses. As they became confused they changed the meaning of the word cusp. Then came the 1960s and Sun-sign talk. Some people discovered they were born 'on the cusp', referring to the beginning of signs. I couldn't say for sure, but it wouldn't surprise me if the expression 'to be on the cusp of something', meaning a time of transition to a new state, condition or era, comes from 20th century Sun-sign talk.

It looks like astrologers changed the word cusp in English, all right. That's my guess, anyway.

Which makes it sound even fuzzier for me, surely if you are using the example of an actual house then once you have opened the garden gate then your dynamics have shifted. This strikes me as the most sensitive point.

In any event I was just posting to question Hervaros's asumption that there is some energising going on at 27 degrees, doubtless some characters who define themselves as modern astrologers argue this but its not an opinion I have come across voiced by the more highbrow types.

Kirk,

I have a slightly different take on this, but I have no hard documentation to back it up. According to the online Etymological dictionary the first English use of the word "cusp" was astrological:

cusp
1580s, from L. cuspis "point, spear, pointed end." Astrological use is earliest.

The astrological use in English is earliest and only dates from the 16th century. To me this sounds like the word was chosen by an astrologer, and it became standard usage. If the idea of house cusp meant beginning, why would anyone choose a word from Latin that meant "point?" Why not coin a word from the Latin that meant "beginning?" Obviously I don't have the answer.

Bonatti wrote in Latin and prior to the 16th century. What Latin word did he use where we use "cusp?" Ben? Ben?

Tom

. . . once you have opened the garden gate then your dynamics have shifted.

Yes, your dynamics are shifted ? you are now facing a garden. But wouldn't the dynamics of the garden experience be stronger if you were within the garden ? surrounded by it ? and not standing at the gate looking in?

Which makes it sound even fuzzier for me, surely if you are using the example of an actual house then once you have opened the garden gate then your dynamics have shifted. This strikes me as the most sensitive point.

Apparently we aren't going to agree on the meaning of fuzzy, either. If you have important business to discuss, you don't discuss it at the front door. You go inside the house. If you are standing in the entrance way still wearing your coat and hat, the dynamics haven't shifted. The temperature has. When you remove your hat and coat and take a seat at a table or in the living room, then the dynamics shift.

Tom

Tom,

Good point! (Good cusp? ) I was assuming that the mathematical and architectural usage of cusp would have come first. I suppose I wasn't willing to let astrology be first.

But I think my somewhat unrelated comments regarding Sun-signs and the expression 'on the cusp of' still look possible.

It looks like astrologers became confused over whether house cusps were points of intensity within the houses or were the beginning of the houses.

Astrologers confused? Never!