Here is the horary I said I would post yesterday:
Basically, the querent asked if they would gain employment in the next wee while. They had been doing menial, physical work for a few months (cutting grass, fixing shelves, cleaning etc.) and wanted to know if they would gain anything more suited to their work history and qualifications.

The querent here is the Moon, void of course, in the last degree of Taurus. Lord of the 10th, Mars, is in fall in the Asc. I asked them if they had been doing any sort of low-grade physical work to which they said yes. I then judged that due to the lord of the 10th being Mars in fall and the Moon being void of course, that they would continue to so this sort of work for the next while.

They did continue to do odd-jobs until the end of 2011.

I think that is quite clear in this chart with the Moon being void of course but exalted as she still "performs somewhat" in Taurus.

Konrad wrote: 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.

He is I think. It's as Tom was saying regarding how to count the numbers. The 1st degree of a sign is between 0 degrees and 1 degree. The 30th degree of a sign is between 29 and 30 degrees.
So the quote is saying that a planet between 29 degrees and 29 degrees 59 minutes loses the strength it has in that sign.

Konrad tnx for posting. I don't know anything about horary, but from what I understand, had the Moon be considered peregrine, the querent would not have been able to perform at all?

Paul, nice meeting you here..what do you say about the 29th degree rule? Any ideas?

It is an interesting thought. I looked at it more like it was an indication of the querent's current state (things not going well but the exaltation saves from complete disaster). The question was about getting something different than what was already there. The void of course Moon showing me that it would not be different and Mars backing that up being lord of the 10th in his fall in the Asc mirroring the work the querent had already been doing.

Something I noted later on when I found out the resolution of this chart was that the Moon had seperated from the square with the Sun around 1 degree before. The Sun is placed in the second and ruling it. The querent's money problems began a year before. If we take a degree to be a year, then the Moon's next aspect is in 1/3 of a degree to Venus, lady of the 4th and 11th. The querent's wife got a job at the end of 2011 which required them to move to a new town which fits the 1/3 of a year time-frame and the 4th house - change of place and 10th from the 7th - wife's career (as well as Venus being the wife). More importantly though, the Moon was void of course for around 15 mins of arc and I can say that things did not "goe well forward" for this person. This indiactes to me the Moon was definitely void of course for that period and in no way should be considered to be in Gemini.

Yukionna

My understanding is that planets at the last degree of their sign are still taken to be in that sign - that doesn't change. However the dignity they gain essentially from that sign is weakened. So Mercury at 29 Gemini loses its domicile 'strength'.

What about other meaning, like planet in the last degree(30th) loosing its power in whatever it's promising in horoscope. It was always puzzled me if planet at Leo30 and conjunction powerful royal star Regulus. But at the same time planet at the very end of sign is extremely weak.

Konrad wrote:...This indiactes to me the Moon was definitely void of course for that period and in no way should be considered to be in Gemini.

Konrad,
In refering to the aspects I think you made it quite clear with your example that a planet is to be seen in the sign it is in, and not in the next one. Thanks. (I definitely would like to learn horary in some far future, it's fascinating). I'm still not so clear on the dignity-part of the question.

Paul wrote: My understanding is that planets at the last degree of their sign are still taken to be in that sign - that doesn't change. However the dignity they gain essentially from that sign is weakened. So Mercury at 29 Gemini loses its domicile 'strength'.

Paul,
does it just lose its strength, or does that mean a planet takes on the dignity it has in the next sign, eg as in the example of Venus on 29 Aries? Because that is the question for me.

The whole problem came up in a discussion on another board, where we were trying to decide on the Alcocoden. Mercury at 29 Taurus being peregrine is not a good candidate. However, if he gets the domicile rulership of the next sign, things look different.

Well if the Moon was peregrine I wouldn't expect much to have happened for the querent at all while being exalted nothing much changed but it wasn't a complete disaster for the person. They at least had some form of employment.

Konrad wrote:

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.

Hi Konrad,

Actually the earlier quote I provided was from Guido Bonatti's Book of Astronomy.

Tom and Paul seem to have cleared up the confusion about what degrees these older authors are actually referring to. Its a common misunderstanding we often see on Skyscript which people also apply to exaltation degrees or degrees of the terms/bounds too.

Here is the actual statement of Sahl that seems to have influenced both Ibn Ezra and Bonatti:

''Judgement 15: On a planet being at the end of a sign.
If a planet were in the last degree of a sign, its strength has already receded from that sign, and its strength will be in the next sign: like a man who put his foot upon the threshold of the gate, wanting to go out out-which if the house then fell, it would not impede him. Indeed if a planet were in the twenty ninth degree, the strength of the planet will be in the same sign. Because there are three degrees of every planet in which its virtue is spread out-namely, the degree in which it is , and the degree which is behind it , and the degree which is in front of it.'' Works of Sahl and Masha?Allah p54-55. Translated by Dr Benjamin Dykes, Cazimi Press, 2008

In his footnote to this section Ben Dykes states:

This seems related to Sahl?s allowing out-of-sign conjunctions

So the whole notion seems related to Sahl's approach to aspects and his allowing a conjunction right on the whole sign boundary. As I stated the logic of this seems blurred when astrologers moved away from whole sign houses altogether.

Its nothing to do with planets literally being in another domicile or having essential dignity there. Rather its simply a rationale to explain out of sign conjunctions. Planets are however seen to have influence in both the preceding and and following degree. An image I find helpful here is to visualize a Monkey swinging between two trees. He has one paw on the last tree and one on the tree ahead but he is physically located in between the two. Just like the Monkey focusing on the next tree a planet at the end of sign has all its momentum focused on the next degree. Assuming it isn't retrograde!

By implication a planet is seen as weaker and more vulnerable both at the very end and very beginning of a sign. A practical analogy would be an old man close to death (last degree) or a newborn baby (O degree).

Beyond all this any planet in the last few degrees of a sign falls in the terms of the malefics.

I have had a look through some hellenistic sources and I note the 1st century Roman astrologer Manilius (The Astronomica) identifies the 1st and 30th degrees as unfortunate.

This also re-appears in modern astrology with the notion of 'critical degrees'.

Yukionna wrote:

What about other meaning, like planet in the last degree(30th) loosing its power in whatever it's promising in horoscope. It was always puzzled me if planet at Leo30 and conjunction powerful royal star Regulus. But at the same time planet at the very end of sign is extremely weak.

Hello Yukionna,

I dont know how long you have been studying astrology but this kind of apparent paradox is quite common. Like everything in delineation its important to keep an eye on the bigger picture and not let one single factor swamp our analysis. If you do a lot of chart analysis you will frequently discover such apparent contradictions between dignifying vs debiliting conditions in a chart. For example say you have a Saturn in Aquarius (domicile ruler) (+)but say its also retrograde or combust of the Sun (-). Equally though Saturn might be trine the Sun (+) but occidental of the Sun and in a night chart (-). Astrology is full of such conflicting indications. Take a look a Lilly's dignity weighting table as an example:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dig5.html

Mark

Mark wrote: Its nothing to do with planets literally being in another domicile or having essential dignity there. Rather its simply a rationale to explain out of sign conjunctions.

tnx Mark, this corresponds with how I felt about it. Although I know there are many opinions on these things, it's always nice to have my own confirmed

The quote you gave was not by me. Nevertheless I can say that, yes i still struggle with these conflicting chartfactors. I can only hope that clarity will come with practice. Lots of practice....

Hello Yukionna,

The quote you gave was not by me. Nevertheless I can say that, yes i still struggle with these conflicting chartfactors. I can only hope that clarity will come with practice. Lots of practice....

Sorry I got you confused with Yuriy!

Mark

Mark wrote:Beyond all this any planet in the last few degrees of a sign falls in the terms of the malefics.

We do find malefics in the beginning bounds [terms] in either the Ptolemaic or Egyptian versions.

5 bounds in the Ptolemaic version; 3 bounds in the Egyptian version


james