Skyscript Astrology Forum

Jerd wrote:

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

Yes. Although the attribution of Saturn as the first bound ruler in Leo (within the Ptolemaic system) is not uncontroversial. While Lilly assigns it to Saturn. (the version of Ptolemys terms displayed on Skyscript) other sources such as FE Robbins translation of Tetrabiblos and Hephaistio of Thebes assign the first bound (term) under the rulership of Jupiter.

Its an academic point for me though as I personally use the Egyptian bounds (terms).

Looking at the Greek system of planetary rulers for each degree
(Monomoiria) the malefics also control the first degree in the signs ruled by Mars and Saturn ( ie. Aries & Scorpio and Capricorn & Aquarius).

Mark

Mark wrote:
Sorry I got you confused with Yuriy!

Mark

That's ok.
I've raised question specifically about 30th degree (not even 29th).
At some horary training we were told that even Sun at 30Leo doesn't promise anything significant because of last degree located. If for instance Sun is professional significator.
But 29th degree makes planet already VALID in whatever promising its essential/accidental dignities.
I believe it came from Bonatty. But other authors considered last 2.5 or 3 degrees as making planet invalid or etc.

Yuriy wrote:

At some horary training we were told that even Sun at 30Leo doesn't promise anything.

That is not the way I was taught horary. That sounds far too sweeping a generalisation to be useful or accurate to me. Its perfectly clear Lilly and his 17th century contemporaries looked at aspects (within orb) across the sign boundary.

For example the Sun in the last degree of a sign could well be applying to a trine of Jupiter just over the sign boundary.

Regarding Bonatti he does have a consideration before judgement if the Moon is in the late degrees of a sign. I dont think this was generally applied to other planets. It makes little sense to have a standard rule for the Sun. Its not a co-significator for the querant like the Moon is.

Without chart examples it difficult to be certain but it does appear that Bonatti is following Sahl in only allowing out of sign conjunctions not Ptolemaic aspects. On the other hand Ibn Ezra did support out of sign aspects.

If one works from a position excluding Ptolemaic aspects across the sign boundary any planet in late degrees may well be void in course. I think this is the logical origin of this idea.

Personally though, I have seen out of sign aspects work successfully too many times to entertain this notion.

Hence I would interpret Konrad's horary chart quite differently. I dont regard the Moon in Konrad's chart as Void of course at all as it is applying to a tight square to Venus in Virgo across the sign boundary. This represents a frustration of the querants plans for another kind of job. However, this is a fairly mild acting sinister square as Venus receives the Moon in its sign of Taurus. Unfortunately, Venus is in fall in Virgo so it is not able to offer much to that exalted Moon. There were obviously other clear indications of the querant not obtaining their wish with a debilitated Lord 10 (Mars) in fall on the ASC. The Moon is also on the Pleiades.

On the void of course Moon this article by Deborah Houlding sets out a variety of traditional sources. As you will see many traditional authorities did not consider the Moon at the end of sign as automatically VOC. To meet that criteria it had to be forming no applying aspects:

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

Mark

Thank you Mark.
I think I've mistakenly mentioned horary, that was professions definition from natal chart and selecting the most powerful significator. So, Sun at 30Leo didn't brought significant fruits in career, person have switched to other field or etc.
And you're right, if for instance Sun at the end of Taurus separating from square to Mars at 25 Leo and making sextile to MC at Leo1 through sign boundary. That's the positive example.

Yukionna wrote: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 I always thought of it like Mark's quote from Sahl - being in the treshold of passing from one room to the other, but I also like Mark's analogy of a monkey swinging from one tree to another. I see it that the planet at 29 degrees turns its attention toward the next sign and so does not have access to the resources of its sign, or rather ignores access to these resources as it's looking toward the next sign, however it will not gain access to the next sign's resources until it is in the following sign. So planets at 29 and 0 degrees are weakened as they are 'suspended' much like Mark's monkey analogy, not yet quite able to avail itself properly of the sign's resources.

In practical terms, in horary particularly, I always attribute these things with a 'change of circumstance'. So in your example of Mercury at 29, I might say that cirumstance will change soon that will be beneficial for the querent (for example). I do the same with out of sign aspects, such as where the Moon is void in its current sign but applies within orb to a planet which will perfect upon changing signs - namely that the situation will change or circumstance will change and this new change will bring with it new potentials etc. It's a similar idea.

Yuriy 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.

Planets at the end of the sign are weak - that's one rule of thumb.
Planets conjunct benefic fixed stars are strengthened - that's another rule of thumb.

But they're just general rules of thumb, if the symbolism is fitting with regards the fixed star Regulus in the context of, say, a horary question, then a planet found there may be considered strengthened or perhaps the weakness of the last degree is mitigated.

Given what has been said, It would be interesting to a see delineation of Jupiter/Sagittarius in the figure of Prince Charles. http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Cha ... e_of_Wales

Jupiter is at 29.53 Sagittarius in the 5th by WS or quadrant division.

How is Jupiter weakened in its significations (based on what we know of his life)? Should it be delineated as Jupiter/Capricorn?

Paul and others, thanks for the contributions..

Stellarium
That's a nice one. Normally Jupiter in Sag in the 5th would be able to realise whatever it promises, but due to being in the DD (Dreaded Degree) and by being cadent (Quadrant would surely put him in 6, as he's only 4 degrees away from it. Is there such a rule in WS?) it seems Jupiter is weakened both in quality and quantity. But he's in Hayz, so that gives some strength.

And if we see him in Sag, then there'd be no trine with Saturn, unless we allow out of sign aspects. Ah, and it even gets better, cause Moon is on 0 Taurus, so there'd be no trine there either.

Well, as Jupiter is significator of the native by being triplicityruler, it being weakened seems to be consistent with what we know of the prince.

Thanks..I hope someone sheds some light on this one, it's tricky.

Yuki

Yukionna wrote:Paul and others, thanks for the contributions..

Stellarium
That's a nice one. Normally Jupiter in Sag in the 5th would be able to realise whatever it promises, but due to being in the DD (Dreaded Degree) and by being cadent (Quadrant would surely put him in 6, as he's only 4 degrees away from it. Is there such a rule in WS?) it seems Jupiter is weakened both in quality and quantity. But he's in Hayz, so that gives some strength.

And if we see him in Sag, then there'd be no trine with Saturn, unless we allow out of sign aspects. Ah, and it even gets better, cause Moon is on 0 Taurus, so there'd be no trine there either.

Well, as Jupiter is significator of the native by being triplicityruler, it being weakened seems to be consistent with what we know of the prince.

Thanks..I hope someone sheds some light on this one, it's tricky.

Yuki

Here is one delineation:

Jupiter/Sagittarius/5th signifies Prince Charles's children, William and Henry. Jupiter here signifies children born into wealth and of high status.
Note the rising degree of Prince William (27.26 Sag). Mars/Sagittarius adds a boisterous nature to children (this is especially true of Henry who himself has Mars/Sagittarius) and signifies high military rank.

According to Valens, Mars with Jupiter signifies:

Jupiter and Mars make glorious and showy characters, friends of the great or of kings, distinguished governors and receivers of stipends, those making a career in public affairs or in campaigns, and those considered worthy of honor and status, but uncertain in their livelihoods and habits, tossing away their possessions.

Now, if Jupiter were as weak as has been said because of its position in the last degree of Sagittarius, we might expect Charles to have no children at all or the children to be obscure and of ill-repute because of Mars.

Moon/Taurus separates form Jupiter/Sag/5th and applies to Saturn/Virgo/2nd - Mother dies while they are children because 7th ruler Saturn is in 2nd which is 8th from 7th (death of spouse).

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Wil ... %281982%29
Harry

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Hen ... 29_England

Stellarium wrote: Now, if Jupiter were as weak as has been said because of its position in the last degree of Sagittarius, we might expect Charles to have no children at all or the children to be obscure and of ill-repute because of Mars.

But why couldn't the Sun signify the children? It's ruler of 5th by position, and position is stronger then rulership. Sun is in Venus' dignity, and she's very strong in 4, the house of ancestors. It's only decan-and triplicity rulership of course, but still..

I believe Stellarium is using whole-sign houses.

It is interesting too as the Lot of Children is bang on 0 deg Sagittarius if the the time is correct. Also Saturn is overcoming the 5th house too, so if Jupiter was indeed at a loss for power then surely Charles wouldn't have any kids with both malefics so strongly configured with the 5th house and the Lot of Children?

Konrad wrote:I believe Stellarium is using whole-sign houses.
?

Yes, in that case my argument goes down the drain. To be honest, I use WS as well normally, but the link was to a quadrant house-chart..I should really stick to my routine...if I can call it that..

What do you mean by Saturn overcomes the 5th?