Skyscript Astrology Forum

This topic pops up from time to time on various threads, so I thought it might be worthwhile for discussion. I'd like to see some example charts provided by others. This will take some work, but it should repay the efforts.

The so-called five-degree "rule" as it is usually understood today is as follows: the house begins five degrees before the next cusp, if that space and the cusp are in the same sign. The cusp is the most sensitive point in the house. It is not the beginning. This is the most difficult part to grasp for contemporary astrologers brought up in modern astrology. If Mars is at 22 Scorpio and the 4th house cusp is at 26 Scorpio, four degrees distant, Mars is in the 4th house because the 4th house begins at 21 Scorpio, five degrees before the 4th house cusp. Mars is not treated "as if" it were in the 4th or as though it influences the 4th. It is in the 4th.

Why should we make an exception if the sign changes within five degrees of the cusp? If we did that, it could change the planetary ruler (except at the Capricorn-Aquarius sign line). If 3 Aries rises, and the first house begins five degrees sooner, at 28 Pisces, the ruler might be considered Jupiter and not Mars. It is a confusion eliminated by sticking with the sign on the cusp as ruler and making an exception for the rule in cases like this.

If that's the case why bother with the rule at all? Probably because it makes no sense if a planet is close to the cusp, but not past it, to say it does not influence the house represented by the cusp. For example. Venus at 16 Taurus and the ASC is at 18 Taurus. Venus in the 12th is a whole lot different than Venus in the ascendant.

OK then why five degrees? Why not six or four? Well because Ptolemy said so. That may not be the best reason, but it is the source of the idea. In Book III of Tetrabiblos while discussing the apheta or giver of years Ptolemy writes:

Firstly those places, only are to be deemed prorogatory, to which the future assumption of the dominion of prorogation exclusively belongs. These several places are the sign on the angle of the ascendant, from the fifth degree above the horizon, to the twenty-fifth degree below it; the thirty degrees in dexter sextile thereto, constituting the eleventh house, called Good Daemon,; also the thirty degrees in dexter quartile, forming the midheaven above the earth; those in dexter trine making the ninth house, called God, and lastly those in opposition , belonging to the angle of the west.

Good old Ptolemy, clear as always. As mentioned above, Ptolemy is discussing the aphetic places or the planet or places that carry the life of the native until it meets with or comes into evil aspect with the anareta, and then poof, game over. That is another topic.

Ptolemy lists the aphetic places as houses 1, 7, 9, 10, and 11. Wilson interprets Ptolemy as defining these places as five degrees above the cusp to 25 degrees below it measured in oblique ascension. From all this springs the "five-degree rule under discussion. It may be tempting to just chuck all this and go back to the simpler the cusp begins the house attitude except that makes no sense linguistically. The word "cusp"
does not mean nor can it be converted to any word that means "beginning." According to the Online Etymology Dictionary:

1585, from L. cuspis "point, spear, pointed end." Astrological use is earliest.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?sea ... hmode=none

The cusp, then, is the pressure point, like the tip of a sword or spear or knife. It is not the beginning of anything. On the above mentioned instruments it is, in fact, referred to as "the end."

So the five-degree rule has a pedigree of sorts. The next question and most important to the practicing astrologer is: does it work? A simple example is that of Rock legend, Mick Jagger

July 26, 1943
6:30 AM D - BST
Dartford, England
4 Leo 17 rises

Jagger's Sun is at 2 Leo 20, 2 degrees and three minutes above the horizon. Without the five degree rule Jagger's Sun, although highly dignified, is in the 12th house. It rules his ASC and is the exaltation ruler of his MC - 11 Aries 38. It is conjunct Jupiter at 5 Leo 31 below the ASC. It is the only tight aspect the Sun makes. Does anyone really see Mick Jagger as an independent (Sun in domicile) loner (in the 12th house)? Granted he did study at the London School of Economics and he is a bit more refined in interviews than he was as a young man on stage, but he hardly ran from the limelight. In fact he gave up his economics studies in order to perform.

There is an aphorism that a 12th, 8th, or 6th house planet can "get out," express itself, if it is in aspect with a dispositor, usually domicile or exaltation ruler. Jagger's Sun is in domicile, has no exaltation ruler, and is its own triplicity ruler. His Sun seems better delineated as being in the 1st rather than the 12th.

One anecdotal example proves nothing. I offer it only as a simple demonstration, and invite others to provide data for or against the proposition that a house begins five-degrees before the cusp.

Tom

Tom,
Thanks for the post. I don't want to get off topic here (just yet) so I will say that we have been looking into this very thing recently. (great minds)

What we are seeing is that the planets within the 5 degrees fit better in the next house. For instance my wifes Mercury is at 15 degrees Aquarius in the 6th house (Placidus). The cusp of the 7th house is at 18 degrees. She is totally 7th house material here in the way her Mercury functions. Whole sign houses fit her better. We are tending more toward this in what we are seeing in practice.

That brings me to my off topic issue. Her Sun is basically 27 degrees Capricorn (Born 16th Jan.). But we have looked at this and she fits Aquarius in not only thinking. Not just a little...Now I know the first thing that comes to mind is that her Mercury is sitting there in Aquarius. We think we have taken this into account. She has her Moon in Capricorn as well as her Sun but we still feel she is more Aquarius. (Leo Asc)

What type of orb...if any... is there between signs? Is it only the cusp dates? Do particullary warm years affect this? Food for thought.

Ken

I can understand how 5? for houses is acceptable, due to the nature of house construction itself (the difference in systems already points to this) but 27? from a sign, in the case of the sun gives us at least 3 days before changing signs and that's a lot of time to necessity a correction... the tropical system does seem very precise regarding sign, and I do not see very much profit from applying this 5? rule to signs.

Both our prime minister Gordon Brown and the leader of the opposition David Cameron have Saturn in the dutiful 6th house. They both have occasional problems keeping their MPs in order which is also a 6th house concern but Cameron's Saturn is almost exactly 5 degrees from the descendent in pisces. If we count it as 7th house it can suggest delays or problems in matrimony but as he far as I can see this does not apply to him.If anyone wants to check his chart here are the details:
David Cameron born 9th Oct 1966 at Wantage UK at 05:55 am. I seem to remember another source saying 6 am.

Matt

Hi ,

We can see usage of lord s change for a cusp near the end of a sign in this document:

http://www.astrologiamedieval.com/tabel ... teenth.pdf

specialy for the V and XI houses delineation. Vth house cusp is posited in 29 degrees piscis, and the lord choosed is Mars instead Jupiter. Idem for the XIth in 29 degrees Virgo , Venus is employed rather than Mercuri.

I think using this rule of five degrees mixes two separate concepts. Degrees in ecliptic are different than degrees in houses. In Regiomontanus system for exemple, a house is 30 degrees of equator. The cusp posited in the ecliptic is the intersection between the ecliptic and an specific arc. We can see the house width changing according the number and the latitude. The same thing appends with the placidus system. So five degrees of ecliptic have differents length in different houses.

Crossing the border of a sign is not harmless. The celestial state change at all. What philosophical reason can justify or deny this? It s an open question I suppose.

Dom

There are some good points here:

What we are seeing is that the planets within the 5 degrees fit better in the next house.

While this is an acceptable linguistic explanation (it's the easiest way to explain oneself), I do think we need to keep in mind that the idea is the house begins five degrees before the cusp, unless there is a sign change. If Mars is at 17 Taurus and the 3rd cusp is at 21 Taurus, according to the rule, Mars is in the third house. The cusp is the most sensitive point (more on this below) of the third house. It is not the beginning. At least that is the idea. Think of it as your house. The beginning is the front door. The most important room may be the living room. One has to enter through the front door before getting to the most sensitive point, yet once one crosses the threshold, one is in the house. Signs are a different matter.

I can understand how 5? for houses is acceptable, due to the nature of house construction itself

This is my position. The five-degree rule gives us a fudge factor that compensates for house construction. However even this is not totally accurate as the example of Cameron shows. The angles are the angles regardless of house system.

I think using this rule of five degrees mixes two separate concepts. Degrees in ecliptic are different than degrees in houses.

This is a good point. 99% of the time astrologers think in terms of celestial longitude. This is not our only measurement. Let's re-visit the idea. The concept seems to come from Ptolemy, and for many older astrologers this was good enough. However it is also true that the word "cusp" does not mean "beginning," and this is the only word used to describe house lines or sensitive points in houses. The measurement of five degrees seems arbitrary and we are measuring it in longitude while house cusps are not necessarily measured that way.

So where does the house begin? Using whole sign houses the answer is simple: at 0 degrees of each sign. For quadrant houses, the answer isn't so simple. Experience does seem to indicate that a planet close to a house "behaves" as though it is in the house represented by the cusp.

I don't know anything about David Cameron or his love life. The chart for 5:55 am has two planets near a cusp: Saturn at 4 degrees 59 minutes from the 7th, and Jupiter 4 degrees 12 minutes from the 11th (Placidus cusps). Saturn in the 7th can produce an unhappy marriage or a long lasting one or an unhappy long lasting marriage. That the 7th is ruled by Jupiter and Saturn is not in contact with Mars or Lord ASC and the exaltation ruler is strong, based on just this, I'd say his marriage or partner wouldn't necessarily mean grief. The 7th has other meanings, as well, rivals or enemies (for sun sign fans, Gordon Brown is a Pisces), lawsuits, business partners, etc.

As for the Jupiter in the 11th, it would indicate female friends of high social standing (Jupiter conjunct Moon in 11), success (Jupiter) as an MP (in the 11th - the house of Parliament). One might argue with Jupiter in the 10th a successful career is shown, but Jupiter is in Leo, the sign on the MC is Gemini, and Cancer is intercepted in 10. 10 is a large house, and Jupiter isn't even in the sign following the sign on the MC. In whole signs Jupiter is in the 12th. At 6:00 am everything changes.

So the house begins at the cusp even though the word "cusp" does not mean beginning, or the house begins five degrees before the cusp because Ptolemy sort of says so. Neither position is philosophically too persuasive.

I know you're all dying to know this, so I'll answer the question, "But what does Morin say?" Morin is fun to quote because he looks at things a bit differently, yet he remains more or less within the tradition. Morin says houses begin at the cusps because that's the way it is. In Book 18*, Chapter 15, Morin notes that "the ancients" determined the strength or influence of a planet in a house is the same regardless of where the planet is placed in the house. This he regarded as "contrary to reason."

He further notes that each house is comprised of the 30 degrees on the ecliptic (Regiomontanus houses were his system of choice):

" ... For example, the last five degrees of the 9th house is said to be in the 10th house, because it was evidently observed that a planet in those final degrees as an influence on the meaning of the following house."

He then goes on to correctly cite Ptolemy on this matter:

Thus, when discussing the aphetic [prorogative] Houses (which in his opinion are only the 1st, 10th, 9th and 11th) Ptolemy (in Chapter 11, Book 3) took the 1st house as starting from the last 5 degrees of the 12th until the 25th of the 1st House proper. Neither Ptolemy nor his commentators offer any explanation for this assertion, nor do they clear up the difficulties caused by it. Therefore we must now deal with it. emphasis added

Morin is exactly correct. Ptolemy gives this "rule," and applies it only to certain houses for a specific purpose. His disciples included all 12 houses in the rule, and no one anywhere ever attempted to give a reason for it. We traditionalists often accuse moderns of following a belief without a reason, but once in a while, we do it ourselves.

To avoid lengthy quotes and endless corrections of typos on my part, I'll summarize the rest of Morin's argument. He argues that the houses do not begin five degrees before the cusps because if that were true, the planet posited in that five-degree area would no longer have influence on the preceding house. Ptolemy, he correctly points out, never said this.

Morin further asserts that based on the above, the boundaries of the houses are the two circles of position that make up the cusps. The cusp, he argues, is the most sensitive point in the house (everyone agrees with this), and since no one directs (he is referring to primary directions) the space five-degrees prior to the cusp, the cusp must be the beginning of the house.

However he admits that a planet close to a cusp, but not beyond it, does have an influence in that house. That, he asserts, is due to the orb of influence of the planet - not to a mysterious and arbitrary five-degree rule. So if Mars has an orb of 6.5 degrees either way, and Mars is within 6.5 degrees of the following cusp, Mars will influence that point as Mars influences everything within that moiety.

It's a nice neat package, but the reasoning doesn't seem to be a lot better than Ptolemy's "because I said so." We direct cusps and we direct to cusps precisely because they are the most sensitive point. The fact that no one directs the space five-degrees prior is no more relevant than the fact that no one directs the space five degrees after. He does not address, perhaps because he didn't know, the fact that Ptolemy doesn't really mention quadrant houses at all. This is another story altogether and an interested reader is referred to Rob Hand's booklet Whole Sign Houses for a deeper explanation.

Finally, although the Mars example above makes some sense, Morin allows huge orbs in some cases. He allows the Sun a whopping 18 degrees moiety granting the Sun influence over two houses in many, many charts. Nor does Morin, to my knowledge, address a planet just over the cusp affecting the previous house, which would be consistent with his idea. He may, but I don't recall seeing it.

At least he gives us some sort of reasoning, even if a close examination reveals its weaknesses. In other words, his reasoning is a step above Ptolemy's, but it is a very short step.

I offer the above as simply something to think about on a snowy morning.

Tom

*Astrologia Gallica, Book 18 Trans. Anthony LaBruzza, AFA[/i]

I ll share my experience with you. By the way Tom great text !

I think it depends about planet itself.

I had problem with my chart , because 5 minutes was so important for me to have exact chart. My Saturn is ruler of ASC and he is just 0,30 from cusp of 12 house. During my early childhood I had extreme health problems (which are not indicated just with Saturn) but in the same time i had a great interest in exploring astrology, astronomy etc.

I have 4 planets on the border of houses (5 degree).

During year i made conclusion about that.

Planet distanced to 5 degrees from next house influences both houses. I think that effect of planet which is just 2 degrees from next house vanishes in the firs 20 years of life - progression of horoscope. I look that as an evolution. Person gradually leaves energy of X planet in house 3 and house to house 4.

The main problem is what to do whith planets which are 4 degree-s from the next house cusp and i think that is a totally divided energy.

Domagoj

Hallo Tom,

you wrote:

I offer the above as simply something to think about on a snowy morning.

For me a rainy late afternoon will do . . .

I like your quoting Morin a lot. It cant be to much, because the way you do it is fascinating and Morin is the one, who scrutinizes all topics of astrology for a better rational understanding - and he does it systematically. Thank you for your discussing Morin's writings regularly.

There is a - and perhaps academical - objection as to your example in the very beginning: Is the birth-time of Mick Jagger rectified? Otherwise it would hit eventually the ascendant exactly?

And as to Morin and the 'five degrees': The ancients said (when I remember rightly and without quotation), that Planets were - between the status of application and of separation - also in aspect within about 3 - 6 degrees, depending on the author, but not depending on the planets and their orbs. This is possibly a parallel to the conclusion of Morin and could explain, how and that the orbs in this context are to be understood as a conjunction with the non-radiating housecusps.

. . . thanks for the fine rainy late afternoon

Jonny

Is the birth-time of Mick Jagger rectified?

The data is from an old book of mine: The American Book of Charts by Lois Rodden, 1980. The data rated B, from a Biography

Tom