skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Planets in the last degree of a sign

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
geodorn



Joined: 04 Apr 2009
Posts: 23
Location: USA

Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 2:58 am    Post subject: Planets in the last degree of a sign Reply with quote

I am looking at a chart and am quite overwhelmed by 2 traditional planets being in the last degree and one in the 1st degree of different signs. All of them having a difference of 30' or less.
From one perspective I can, of course, use the "binary" yes or no for sign attribution, but "intuitively" it does not seem right and I am thinking of them either acquiring the characteristics of the following sign, or (in the case of the one in the 1st degree) still having some of the characteristics of the preceding sign. It is probably a no-no from the traditional perspective, but is this so?
Thanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mattG



Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 345
Location: Greenwich UK

Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 7:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In modern astrology it is a no-no but I am sure J.B. Morin had an idea that taking orb into account a planet could bestride two signs. I have natal moon at 29D and have always been convinced that there is something to it.

Matt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mattG



Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 345
Location: Greenwich UK

Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looking back at AG18 ChXV he emphasises this idea in houses not signs. He entertains that the same logic could apply to signs but dismisses it. Having said that he provides examples of the former but not the latter.

Confused Matthew
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Eddy



Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 922
Location: Netherlands

Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that the astrologers of Ptolemy's days used aspects by sign rather than by geometrical relationship between planets. Tetrabiblos I-13, but a 'smooth' change from sign to sign sounds attractive to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Surely the signs are ruled by their rulers from the beginning to the end. They may be weak, but the sings remain their own houses and are not shared with another planet concerning rulership.

Ibn Ezra, The Beginning of Wisdom (Epstein-Translation), p. 130, about the influence of planets at the beginnings and ends of signs with an interesting addition:

"28 ) Any planet that is [positioned] at the beginning of the sign is considered weak until it reaches 5 degrees away from it.
. . .
35) 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."


Johannes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
geodorn



Joined: 04 Apr 2009
Posts: 23
Location: USA

Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 1:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you all for the replies!
Yes, those planets also give me some pain with their aspects, because one “falls out” of a tight square into a trine by sign with one planet and from the opposition into aversion with the other planet, and all this just because of 30’ of arc. Oh well…

Johannes, thanks for the quotes. So apparently this "smooth" transition was considered. However, I am confused by the last passage (#35): the first sentence says “When a planet is at the end of a sign … all of its power is in the sign it will enter [next]”, but then apparently it is not so when the planet is in the 29th degree. Was he using 0deg as the start or 1deg (I am sorry, forgot the term for this)?
Thanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Olivia



Joined: 15 Oct 2008
Posts: 866

Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 1:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, Ibn Ezra used 1-30 degrees. He's one of my favourite astrologers, and I, too, took a double-take when I first encountered that passage (as well as doing some counting on fingers).

So what we call the 29th degree, he'd call the 30th degree, and what we'd call the 0 degree, he'd call the 1st degree.

ETA: I have precisely two planets with any power (and they're cadent) by this scheme, as well as quite a few on the sign border myself. It does make sense to me, though it gets a bit mind-bendy on the interpretations. But when it's your own chart, if you're honest with yourself, you can probably work out which aspects make the most sense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

geodorn wrote:

Johannes, thanks for the quotes. So apparently this "smooth" transition was considered. However, I am confused by the last passage (#35): the first sentence says “When a planet is at the end of a sign … all of its power is in the sign it will enter [next]”, but then apparently it is not so when the planet is in the 29th degree. Was he using 0deg as the start or 1deg (I am sorry, forgot the term for this)?
Thanks.


geodorn, you call the planet's transition "smooth". But it should be clear that this is only according its weakened power. In my opinion his working virtue or quality is not changing before a planet really leaves the sign wherever this border is, at 29°59´ as it is today`s convention, or not until full 30°00´ are behind him and the planet enters the first fraction of the next sign.

The virtue/quality of a planet works in combination with the virtue/quality of the sign he is in - however both are defined. Just entering the next sign there is nor rest of the last sign's virtue with the planet. The influence of the signs should change exactly at the sign boundary.

I'm very interested indeed to learn whether there are other teachings.

Johannes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated