Hello,
there's been a discussion on another board about planets on the 29th degree.. Eg.: Mercury on 29 Taurus, should he be considered peregrine or dignified? The general opinion is, that yes, he is already in domicile. It seems strange to me, and I'd really like to know some sources where this is stated, and would also be interested in your personal experience with these 'borderline planets'.
Yuki

Nah I can say, from my experience, this is not true. I know Sahl says that a planet's power is in the next sign but I don't think he means that it would be considered in domicile if at the end of Taurus.

I have Mercury at 29 54 Scorpio and Mercury's significations in my chart are prevalent when the profections are in Scorpio, not Sagittarius. I would also say Mercury exhibits the traits expected of at the end of Scorpio rather than the beginning of Sagittarius. I have another chart here where Mercury is at 29-something Sagittarius and it is the same there too.

Konrad wrote:Nah I can say, from my experience, this is not true. I know Sahl says that a planet's power is in the next sign but I don't think he means that it would be considered in domicile if at the end of Taurus.

Ibn Ezra said something similar, this is a quote I found somewhere from the Beginning of Wisdom:
When a planet is at the end of a sign, it loses its strength and all of its power is in the sign it will enter [next]. If the planet is at the 29th degree of the sign, its influence is still in the sign it is in, because within 3 degrees the planet has influence in the degree it is in, one degree before and one after.

but it doesn't really explain anything. I find it especially intriguing in the case of Venus in Aries, where she is in exile, and at 29 supposedly all of a sudden in domicile.

I have Mercury at 29 54 Scorpio and Mercury's significations in my chart are prevalent when the profections are in Scorpio, not Sagittarius. I would also say Mercury exhibits the traits expected of at the end of Scorpio rather than the beginning of Sagittarius. I have another chart here where Mercury is at 29-something Sagittarius and it is the same there too.

Thanks Konrad..that's helpful. I have too little experience with delineation to be able to draw from that, so your comment is much appreciated.

Yukionna wrote:

Konrad wrote:Nah I can say, from my experience, this is not true. I know Sahl says that a planet's power is in the next sign but I don't think he means that it would be considered in domicile if at the end of Taurus.

Ibn Ezra said something similar, this is a quote I found somewhere from the Beginning of Wisdom:
When a planet is at the end of a sign, it loses its strength and all of its power is in the sign it will enter [next]. If the planet is at the 29th degree of the sign, its influence is still in the sign it is in, because within 3 degrees the planet has influence in the degree it is in, one degree before and one after.

but it doesn't really explain anything. I find it especially intriguing in the case of Venus in Aries, where she is in exile, and at 29 all of a sudden in domicile.

I have Mercury at 29 54 Scorpio and Mercury's significations in my chart are prevalent when the profections are in Scorpio, not Sagittarius. I would also say Mercury exhibits the traits expected of at the end of Scorpio rather than the beginning of Sagittarius. I have another chart here where Mercury is at 29-something Sagittarius and it is the same there too.

Thanks Konrad..that's helpful. I have too little experience with delineation to be able to draw from that, so your comment is much appreciated.

Well in your case with Venus there, it should be quite simple to test out since the topics Venus rules and the topic of the house she is traversing are either going to turn out well or not so well. This while taking into account other, more complex, mitigating or supporting factors, of course.

It was just a hypthetical Venus..I'd find it interesting cause the difference in dignity is so big. So yes, you're right, it should be possible to test the thesis against it. I'll try to find one and post it here..might take a while..

I was thinking. If you have any horaries with a void-of-course Moon at 29 deg then you could use those too.

I just had a look and I have only one chart with a void of course Moon at 29 deg. It was at 29 46 Taurus and it behaved like an exalted void of course Moon. I can post the chart tomorrow for you if you want?

Yes please

If the planet is at the 29th degree of the sign, its influence is still in the sign it is in, because within 3 degrees the planet has influence in the degree it is in, one degree before and one after.

Much of the time our ancestors thought in ordinal numbers (1st 2nd 3rd etc) while we think in cardinal numbers (1 2 3). I believe Ibn Ezra is thinking in ordinals in the above quote. The 29th degree is 28 degrees of a sign to 28 degrees 59' 59". The 30th degree is 29 degrees 0' 0" to 29 degrees 59' 59". Look at the context. A planet at 28 degrees (29th degree) has one degree before it (27-28 ), the degree it is in (28 - 29) and one after it (29 - 30). I don't think he is referring to the next sign.

Yukionna wrote:Hello,
there's been a discussion on another board about planets on the 29th degree.. Eg.: Mercury on 29 Taurus, should he be considered peregrine or dignified? The general opinion is, that yes, he is already in domicile. It seems strange to me, and I'd really like to know some sources where this is stated, and would also be interested in your personal experience with these 'borderline planets'.
Yuki

Mercury at 29.59 Taurus is in Taurus, not Gemini, so therefore it is not dignified.

I'm not a believer in "borderline" planets. It's in one sign or another, not a bit of both.

The vindication of this strict sign border approach can be seen by analysing cardinal ingress figures. For example, when the Sun is at 29.30 Pisces, you wouldn't go erecting a mundane figure.

Analysis of Ingress figures with the Sun at 0.00 Cardinal signs show them to be accurate.

Stellarium wrote:

I'm not a believer in "borderline" planets. It's in one sign or another, not a bit of both.

Like it or not several traditional sources ( Sahl, Ibn Ezra and Bonatti all suggest a planet in the 30th degree (modern 29th degree) exercise power or influence in the following sign.

Is Sahl our oldest source for this notion? According to Benjamin Dykes Sahl was using whole sign houses. So this seems almost like a cuspal idea developed from whole sign houses. I suggest the whole sign origin to this doesn't have much logic where astrologers are already using quadrant houses which involve planets close to cusps exercising influence in the next quadrant house. This would include Ibn Ezra (probably Placidus) and Bonatti (Alcabitius). I haven't noticed this idea in ancient astrology yet but I haven't had much time to check this out. Both Bonatti and Ibn Ezra were probably unaware of the prior use of whole sign houses from where this idea seems to have originated.

The 30th consideration of Guido Bonatti has more detail than Ibn Ezra on the issue of planets in the 30th degree (modern 29th degree):

The 30th Consideration is, to observe when a planet that is significator, or the Moon, shall have past the 29th degree of the sign wherein it is, and touches the 30th, and especially if it have passed one minute of that degree; for then it shall have no strength in that sign, but in the next; so that if in the first it signified any evil, it shall hurt the person or thing threatened no more than the fall of a house shall one that is just got out of it, or being with one foot upon the threashold, has one behind him that throws him out, and then the building falls. And if it signified any good, it shall profit no more than he that hath spread a net for birds, and just touches the feathers of their tails, but never catches their bodies; and therefore Zael says, ?If a planet or the Moon be in the 29th degree of any sign, its virtue is yet in that sign wherein he is; because he has not yet wholly past the 30th degree.?

Mark

Mark wrote:Stellarium wrote:

I'm not a believer in "borderline" planets. It's in one sign or another, not a bit of both.

Like it or not several traditional sources ( Sahl, Ibn Ezra and Bonatti all suggest a planet in the 30th degree (modern 29th degree) exercise power or influence in the following sign.

Is Sahl our oldest source for this notion? According to Benjamin Dykes Sahl was using whole sign houses. So this seems almost like a cuspal idea developed from whole sign houses. I suggest the whole sign origin to this doesn't have much logic where astrologers are already using quadrant houses which involve planets close to cusps exercising influence in the next quadrant house. This would include Ibn Ezra (probably Placidus) and Bonatti (Alcabitius). I haven't noticed this idea in ancient astrology yet but I haven't had much time to check this out. Both Bonatti and Ibn Ezra were probably unaware of the prior use of whole sign houses from where this idea seems to have originated.

The 30th consideration of Guido Bonatti has more detail than Ibn Ezra on the issue of planets in the 30th degree (modern 29th degree):

The 30th Consideration is, to observe when a planet that is significator, or the Moon, shall have past the 29th degree of the sign wherein it is, and touches the 30th, and especially if it have passed one minute of that degree; for then it shall have no strength in that sign, but in the next; so that if in the first it signified any evil, it shall hurt the person or thing threatened no more than the fall of a house shall one that is just got out of it, or being with one foot upon the threashold, has one behind him that throws him out, and then the building falls. And if it signified any good, it shall profit no more than he that hath spread a net for birds, and just touches the feathers of their tails, but never catches their bodies; and therefore Zael says, ?If a planet or the Moon be in the 29th degree of any sign, its virtue is yet in that sign wherein he is; because he has not yet wholly past the 30th degree.?

Mark

In your quote there Mark, Sahl seems to be saying that the planet has to be fully into the new sign for it to be considered there unless he is talking of degrees in the sense that Tom mentioned.

I was thinking of this too. If a planet should be considered in the next sign at 29 deg, do we then take a degree or a smaller portion from each of the bounds or decans? Where do we stop doing it? I don't doubt it has some sort of effect on the topic signified but I think it is a bit of a stretch to say it is gaining or losing dignity by being there.