you are great guys, thank you a lot, just one question remained unanswered.

Does the 5 degree rule aplies on cases when planet is 2,3 degree from the cusp of next house, but the nex house is in another sign than planet ?

Tom wrote:I just wonder if it follows that absolutely everything we do must be so mathematically precise.

It's not rather the precision that counts but I think exact mathematics can be of a support of the choice for a theoretical preference. In some case the differences are very small (e.g. aberration of light) and can easily be ignored but it's quite fun to ponder on these things.

As for practical use and flexibility I think that for example in case there would be one or two planets in the beginning of house II and another several degrees in the end of house I, then the former will 'pull' the latter into the II'nd. If there would be a planet at the end of house I and one or two others in the middle of house I, I'd say they would 'pull' the planet back into the I'st. Maybe the same could count for signs.

Does the 5 degree rule applies on cases when planet is 2,3 degree from the cusp of next house, but the next house is in another sign than planet ?

I wouldn't use it if the sign is different, but others would.

Tom

Tom wrote:

Does the 5 degree rule applies on cases when planet is 2,3 degree from the cusp of next house, but the next house is in another sign than planet ?

I wouldn't use it if the sign is different, but others would.

Tom

why

Hello Tom,

That is interesting.

Am I understanding this correctly, that Saturn at 0? 0' 0" Capricorn does NOT trine the Sun if it is at 29? 59' 59" Aries, even if their angle of separation is 119? 59' 59"?

I ask this because my idea of astrology's "mechanism" is that it is mathematical and based on the particular subdivision of the circle. Yours seems to be based on the "harmony" of the signs containing the (hypothetically) aspecting planets. Is this correct?

Peace

Atlantean

Am I understanding this correctly, that Saturn at 0? 0' 0" Capricorn does NOT trine the Sun if it is at 29? 59' 59" Aries, even if their angle of separation is 119? 59' 59"?

Correct. In fact in Hellenistic astrology this might be considered a square, albeit a very weak one.

I ask this because my idea of astrology's "mechanism" is that it is mathematical and based on the particular subdivision of the circle. Yours seems to be based on the "harmony" of the signs containing the (hypothetically) aspecting planets. Is this correct?

Also correct. I have a problem with two planets in harmonious signs being in an inharmonious aspect and vice versa. This is me. Morin (1583 - 1656) did not seem to have a problem with it, if the aspect was very tight. He was a mathematician though and emphasized the math end of astrology along with natural philosophy. If the math trumps the signs, why bother with the signs when delineating an aspect?

Unlike modern astrologers, I dont' emphasize aspects in natal delineation, or use planetary configurations like grand crosses, mystic rectangles etc. I'll take note of them, but not as an individual unit.

"Out of sign" aspects probably have influence of some kind. I just wonder if they are worth bothering with. In the example you mentioned, I would look at the birth time and if it were possible that a few minutes would put the Sun in Taurus, I might look at it that way.

As for the "five-degree rule" and the next house in a different sign, I view it as sort of a conjunction. Two planets in different signs cannot be conjunct. Therefore a planet in one sign cannot be in the be in the house of another if he is outside the cusp. This may be an argument for whole sign houses, but I don't use that system, in any formal sense I like to keep things simple.

Tom

During a seminar-break, I asked John Frawley WHY a planet at 29? of a sign, with the next housecusp at 0?x of the next sign, would be interpreted (solely) in the house it mathematically is in.
"Because there are boundaries between the zodiac-signs, like walls, which keep them separate." (or something close to it).
This is concordant with what Tom said about out/in-of-sign aspects.
My next question was going to be where this could be found in ye old texts, but break was over and we never came back to that issue...
Maybe somebody else knows about references for these sign-boundaries???

Ptolemy does not mention that the rule of 5 degrees does not apply when the sign changes: houses and signs are different concepts and in fact they move in a different way.

But when we talk about signs - not houses- the rule of 29th degree was well known.

Francesco Giuntini from the French version of the treaty on solar returns (from speculum astrologiae)- French is easier than Latin under INDISPENSABLE RULES
"Hermes aphorism n.50 and Zael aphorism 14 stated that when the horoscope or a planet arrives to the 30th degree of a sign, its meaning moves to the following sign. But if it is in the 29th degree of a sign it will maintain the meaning of that sign, because it will have not entirely pass the 29th degree. The strength of a planet, should be taken by three degrees, the one where it is, the next, and the previous. "

margherita

Ptolemy does not mention that the rule of 5 degrees does not apply when the sign changes:

If in fact Ptolemy used whole sign houses, he would not have mentioned this as the house and the sign are one and the same. However, if he did use whole sign houses, he is saying that at 25 degrees of a sign the planet should be read as if it were in the next sign. That never made sense to me, and I still wonder, despite Schmidt's work and the work of others, if Ptolemy used whole signs.

Francesco Giuntini from the French version of the treaty on solar returns (from speculum astrologiae)- French is easier than Latin Smile under INDISPENSABLE RULES

I don't know when this was written but ...

"Hermes aphorism n.50 and Zael aphorism 14 stated that when the horoscope or a planet arrives to the 30th degree of a sign, its meaning moves to the following sign. But if it is in the 29th degree of a sign it will maintain the meaning of that sign, because it will have not entirely pass the 29th degree.

The 29th degree is from 28 degrees 00 minutes to 28 degrees 59 minutes. The 30th degree would be from 29 degrees 00 minutes to the end of the sign. That is the way most traditional authors used those terms. Today we're a little sloppy and an ASC for example at 29 degrees 30 minutes would be referred to as the 29th degree. In general our ancestors thought in ordinal numbers (1st 2nd 3rd) and we think in cardinal numbers (1, 2, 3). So this is a one-degree rule for signs, if I'm reading it correctly. I hope not. I prefer Leo rising to Virgo.

And it only mentions moving from one sign to the other. It does not mention aspects.

Tom

Hello Tom,

Tom wrote:
If in fact Ptolemy used whole sign houses, he would not have mentioned this as the house and the sign are one and the same.

this is what the English speaking traditional astrologers say.

For example Giuseppe Bezza does not think or teach like that, basing this on Almagest mostly.

About Ptolemy's house system we already talked many times, one professor/astrologer says this and another that, so for me it's evident nobody has the some unquestionable evidence.

margherita