End of house

1
I read that traditional astrology defines planet position very striclty. So if you have cusp of 5 house on 21 Taurus, and Jupiter on 20 Taurus, Jupiter works only in house 4.

But, as i was researching this issue, I found that some of traditional astrologers don t think equaly. Example, some think that if Moon is find 2-3 degrees before next house he cosiders to be in next house.

I ask this because when you want to take a global picture of your chart, you want to divine planets in cardinal, fixed and mutable houses. That becomes difficult is the planet is near the cusp of next house.

What do you think about this problem ?
As long as you remember me I ll never be too far

2
Hello :D
I read that traditional astrology defines planet position very striclty. So if you have cusp of 5 house on 21 Taurus, and Jupiter on 20 Taurus, Jupiter works only in house 4.
This is definitely NOT a mainstream traditional perspective on planetary positions near the house cusps(as far as I'm aware of!). Guido Bonatti, Lilly, etc. say that a planet's influence is already in the next house when it is 5 degrees distant from it. Morin actually gives a planet an 8 degree orb of influence in front of a cardinal house, 5 degrees in front of a succeedent, and only 3 degrees in front of a cadent one(if my memory doesn't fail me on this one - Tom may correct me if I'm wrong about Morin.)
you want to divine planets in cardinal, fixed and mutable houses
Signs are either cardinal, fixed or mutable(common), houses are not; houses can be angular, succeedent or cadent.
So very briefly(since I haven't got time to go in depth explanations here,maybe someone else is going to elaborate a bit more on this) there isn't much of a problem to ponder upon.

Greetings,
Goran

3
Yes, assigning Cardinal, Fixed and Mutable to houses is modern and part of the modern misunderstanding that signs = houses.
Guido Bonatti, Lilly, etc. say that a planet's influence is already in the next house when it is 5 degrees distant from it. Morin actually gives a planet an 8 degree orb of influence in front of a cardinal house, 5 degrees in front of a succeedent, and only 3 degrees in front of a cadent one . . .
The default setting in Solar Fire for Ibn Ezra's calculation of the chart almuten uses the 8,5,3, cusp offsets in the general.alm file. That puts it several centuries before Morin ? IF Solar Fire has it correct.

In the hyleg.alm file they use the same 8, 5, 3, for the 'Bonatti/Lehman' and 'Omar/Bonatti' hyleg calculations. I would like to hear if anyone feels this is historically incorrect.

7
Okey we have one more issue here.

Thas that rule applies in cases when

you have some planet (mars example) 2 degrees before cusp of next house if the next house is in the another sign.

example, Mars 29 Virgo, in 8 house, 9 house cusp at 1 Libra.
As long as you remember me I ll never be too far

8
If Mars is 29* something Virgo, then its influence and strength are still in the current sign.
Anyway, it would be much easier to discuss this if we had a chart you're referring to :D

Goran
Last edited by cor scorpii on Wed Sep 10, 2014 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

9
Vindex wrote:okey, so if it is true.

Does that planet has impact only at nex house, or his influence is divideded on both houses ?
Hi, vindex!

What you have to keep in mind in such situations is that the, besides the influence of the planet onto a certain house, the influence of the house onto the planet is important too. Or, in even better words, the posibility for a planet to express its nature on a field of activities described by a certain house is important. And not all parts of the houses as equally strong.
Purely technically speaking, you can make a note of the fact that the planet is still inside, say, the 4th house (let's say that it is 3% degrees distant from the next cusp) and some astrologers do that (personally, i don't, but that doesn't really matter) but, even if were partially connected to the 4th and to its symbolics, it is sitting in the least powerful part of the house meaning that its power (the planet's power) is under a very weak influence of the previous house though, in such cases, "previous" technically means "current".
The most potent place of each house is its cusp. If we visualise the cusp of the house as a source of heat or light then it easily becomes obvious that the area of its strongest light (or heat) does not cover only the first few degrees of the house but also the equal number of degrees that precede the cusp. The power of the house starts fading, sort of speaking, after these first few degrees (some would say 5, some would adjust the number of degrees to the nature of the house) and this "process" happens gradually - the deeper inside the house, the further from the source of 'light'.
So, when a planet is 3?distant from the next cusp, not only does it mean that it is very distant from the previous cusp but it also means that it is exposed to the strongest influence of the next one. So, again, whilst you can assume that, technically at least, it still does have some sort of influence onto the 4th house (and that it receives the influence from it), it is very important to notice that it is a very weak connection because the symbolics of the house are fading whilst the next cusp and the symbolics of its house communicate with the planet directly- the closeness of the planet to the cusp actually turns it into a cuspal planet and such planets actually touch the most potent place of a house. So, though the planet has not yet reached the degree of exact conjunction with the cusp, it is actually already exposed to the strongest influence of the house that it is yet to enter. At the same time, the influence of the house that it is still in is almost extremely weak.
So, maybe the planet does have some sort of impact onto the previous (or current) house, but how well can their influences intertwine there? How well can the house actually receive that influence? Being very weak - it actually looks like a barren field and does not help the planet to express its nature. But, the next cusp does because it is very active and cooperative. ;-) So, we may be talking about some sort of infleunce but we have to keep in mind that the influence of the next cusp is much, much stronger.

10
Re Morin:

First we'll clarify the so-called "five-degree rule." The house begins five degrees (or thereabouts) prior to the cusp. The cusp is the most sensitive point in the house, but it is not the beginning. It's the doorway, not the living room.

Morin disagreed to a point. He noted that the cusp was the most sensitive point, but that the cusp was the beginning of the house and a planet within five degrees of, say, the 4th house was in the third not the fourth.

However, he acknowledged the influence of a planet on the next house. He argued that such a planet would affect both houses. And he disagreed with the idea of a set distance for all planets. He used the orbs, or moieties for each planet. Now Morin's orbs were huge by today's standards, and probably by his contemporary standards, so following this rule, if the Moon was 12 degrees prior to a cusp, the Moon would influence both houses. He gave the Sun an 18 degree moiety. I don't recall his actually citing anything this far away from a cusp as a practical matter in Astrologia Gallica.

Huge orbs notwithstanding, his basic idea has merit and provides a good sized fudge factor if the birth time is off by more than a little bit.

Tom

11
With the 5? rule and the rules of Morin on Sun and Moon moiety degrees, I think this should differ according to the used house system. In this thread,
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4088 , Domastro's remark is of importance.
Domastro wrote: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.
So for example if your used system is Porphyry and houses I, II and III are 20? each then the 5?, 12? or 18? should be divided by 1.5 (30?:20?) giving results of 3?20', 8? and 12? respectively. In this example the houses IV, V and VI are 40? each and the three examples should be divided by 0.75 (30?:40?) or multiplied by 1.3333... resulting in 6?40', 10?40' and 24? respectively.

If this isn't done then it might occur that a planet might be within the orb of cusp III while in house I, this is especially the case with house-systems with great differences like Campanus and at the more higher latitudes on Earth.

Equal ecliptical house systems won't have this problem. I personally would prefer Equal-MC houses and a smooth alteration between houses (and between signs as well).

12
I think using this rule of five degrees mixes two separate concepts. Degrees in ecliptic are different than degrees in houses.
This is true, but I'm not sure it is all that important unless we are attempting to come up with an ironclad system that is does not vary no matter how we use it. While this might be useful if we are performing some kind of scientific test, I don't see it's value when reading a chart. We measure degrees from cusps using the ecliptic. Saturn at 20 Libra is five degrees from a cusp at 25 Libra, even though the house degrees are different. That's what the rule is based on. Anyone is free to accept or reject it.

The point in the five degree rule, or at least the point for some of us, is to give a little leeway when delineating a house that has a planet nearby. Does that planet or doesn't it have an effect on the following house? Almost everyone agrees that it does or that it can. Therefore the next logical question is: how far away does it have to be in order for it to have influence? From that we get these five degree type rules.

Is there any more logic to a five degree rule than a six degree rule or a four-degree rule? Is the number anything other than convenient? I don't think anyone would say a planet 5 degrees from the 5th cusp influences the 5th house but at 5.5 degrees it does not. Do we want to introduce even more math so that we can be excruciatingly correct when we place the planet in a chart? Does it matter?

We're all born and raised in the scientific-materialistic world, and today we can pinpoint the location of a planet using various coordinates with more precision than our ancestors. I just wonder if it follows that absolutely everything we do must be so mathematically precise. We're reading a chart, not making precision cuts. If it appears close on the chart, toss it it the next house and see if it makes sense. That's what our ancestors did and many of them were pretty good astrologers.

Tom