Skyscript Astrology Forum

In ancient and most of the modern astrology books we can read about a so called 5? rule which means that a planet that is less than 5? before the next house has to be delineated in this next house - e.g. Mars in the 5th house but 3? before the cusp of the 6th is delineated as already being in the 6th (albeit some say he is in both houses).

But with regard to the primary motion of the planets which is clockwise, this Mars has just entered the 5th house. According to the primary motion a planet e.g. Mercury on the cusp of the 7th house already made his way through the 7th house and is going to enter the 6th house. But in our chart delineation we regard Mercury as entering the 7th house, being on an angle and thus accidentally strong.

What is the reason for this viewpoint or approach in the delineation for the planets in the houses?
I`m really very interested about your ideas and opinions.

Hello Jogi,

The 5 degree rule. I myself never understood this when I first encountered it. I have some conjectures now but they are just that, conjectures!

The Hellenistic and early medieval astrologers used Whole Sign house system (and so are many astrologers today including me - but not exclusively of course!). If Whole Sign house system is used, there is no need to worry about the 5 degree rule as the sign boundaries set the house boundaries (the problem dissapears, unless the 5 degree rule applies to sign boundaries - which is very unlikely). The Hellenistic astrologers (and probably early medieval astrologers) used the Whole Sign system for topical analyses of a chart (according to modern Hellenistic astrologers) and used the quadrant house system (probably Porphyry) for special topics like evaluating strength of a planet and length of life. In fact, Ptolemy seemed to use quadrant house system (btw astrologers are still debating whether he used Equal House or ?) in his determination of "hyleg" or apheta.

If the astrologer is a strong advocate of any of the quadrant house system, then he will have to give very strong reasons for using his house system instead of one of 20 others! 100 diiferent astrologers will give you 100 (or even more) reasons for favoring one house system to the other (and some do have merit).

The different quadrant house systems give very different house cusps (other than the angles) e.g. if you were to plot the chart at 8:20 am, March 16, 2010 in London, you'll get the following for the 6th house cusps:

Campanus 4Vir52
Placidus 27Vir41
Topocentric 27Vir41
Regiomontanus 27Vir13
Porphyry 17Lib14
Alchabitius 17Lib46
Equal 27Lib32
Koch 19Lib13

Do you really want to worry about the 5 degree rule when different quadrant house systems (each claimed to have some merits) produce such different cusps? The difference between Campanus and Koch is staggering (definitely more than 5 degrees!)

Maybe the 5 degree rule was to cater for the differences of some of the quadrant house systems. Maybe the moiety of the planet is about 5 degrees which makes the boundary of the orb of the planet touches the boundary of the following house cusp. Maybe because the position sun (whose light blots out everything near him) can only be determined within 5 degrees of a cusp (which then used for other planets) - Ptolemy did give 5 degrees allowance for sun within ascendant in his Hyleg calculation. Maybe some other arcane reason that I am not privy to.

You are right in saying that the primary motion carries the planets into the previous houses. In fact the sequence of the houses (that follows the sign of the zodiac) is the reverse of the primary motion. The ancients would say that the primary is not the natural motion of the planets. The primary motion (the Monad) is the natural motion of the Primum Mobile. The secondary motion (the Dyad) is the natural motion of the planets, hence when planets move in the direction of the Monad (when a planet retrogrades) it is in debility. So, when a planet is near the cusp of the following house, its natural motion will bring him forward (not backward). Before the discovery of the precession of the equinox, the really ancient ones would have equated the motion of the fixed stars (fixed because they seemed to be fixed when you discount the precession of the equinox) to the motion of the Monad (primary motion). Hence, fixed stars follow the Monad and the planets follow the Dyad. BTW, these two motions are not really exactly reverse to one another - less they cancel each other out (according to some astrologers). This is also why the "destinies" plotted out by the fixed stars are different from the "destinies" plotted out by the planets due to their different motions. Hence, the reason for treating Primary Direction and Secondary Progression differently.

Excellent explanation by Astrojin-as usual!! I myself-even in the old days when I used Placidus (before my conversion to exclusively Whole Sign)-have never considered (or applied) the 5 degree rule in any form of astrological delineation. And (in my mind, at least!) I have been generally well satisfied with my results over the decades.

Hi Astrojin,

thanks for your detailed reply! Your explantions are really very interesting.

Do you really want to worry about the 5 degree rule when different quadrant house systems (each claimed to have some merits) produce such different cusps?

No, not really . And I do not follow this rule very strictly because I`m aware of the differences between the various house systems. That`s why I`m also very reluctant in delineating intercepted signs as it is common in modern astrology. I just mentioned this "rule" to make clearer where my problem is and why it occured.

The ancients would say that the primary is not the natural motion of the planets. The primary motion (the Monad) is the natural motion of the Primum Mobile. The secondary motion (the Dyad) is the natural motion of the planets,...

So could this be understood as an agreement or convention between the ancient astrologers and could it have been the other way round just as well? By what reasons did they consider the secondary motion as the natural one (are there any sources I could refer to)?

It is totally self-evident that we regard a planet on the cusp of an angle/house or even a few degrees in front of it as being placed in that house - but nobody seems to know the proper reasons behind this approach; at least no author that I have read until now. And as I understood you so far we probably have to accept that it is like it is

Hi Jogi

One of the reasons why the cusps are the most important and powerful positions of the houses, is because these are the places which (theoretically) have the greatest aspectual sympathy with the ascendant - hence the cusp of the 7th house falls into the correctly proportioned opposition; the cusp of the 5th and 9th makes the trine and the 4th and 10th the square, etc. So if you consider the ascendant to be a more 'piviotal' placement than the 1st house generally, then it follows that the cusps of the houses are also more significant. The question you are asking is similar to the one concerning aspects that fall over sign boundaries: to what extent do we allow the influence of an aspectual connection to express itself? I use quadrant houses and apply the 5? cusp value in horary and all my other charts too. I have found that cuspal connections are very important for showing where the strongest focus falls.
It is true that traditional authors sometimes talk about planets entering and leaving houses as if they are following diurnal revolution, and I believe this relates to the ancient origin of houses as markers of areas of sky that will rise over the ascendant according to the division of time (remember that the horoscope is the 'hour marker'). However, in astrology charts we freeze-frame the sky for a particular moment in time, and when we do, the symbolism of the houses relates to the aspectual connections to the ascendant - the cusps being the most significant places as I explained above.

Hope this gives you something else to think about,
Deb

I may also add to this topic pertaining to houses, although maybe not directly related to house issues in a convential sense-- the importance of Cyril Fagan?s invention of the Mundoscope. Even though the mundoscope is not a direct house system traditionally, I think astrologers could seriously consider the mundoscope in relationship to correct planetary positions, at times, related to houses. Fagan introduced the mundoscope, after a decade of working with it, in an American Federation of Astrologers monograph published in 1947. There are many ways to describe Fagan?s Mundoscope but I think the best way is to simply say that when we astrologers compute a scope either by hand or with the computer, at times, we are not actually seeing the planets in the correct astronomical house positions pertaining to the scope wheel, particularly regarding the eight houses that touch the four angles of a scope. To illustrate this better, consider the fact that on occasion a planet could be VISIBLY (if we were outside viewing the planet on an unobstructed plane) above the horizon (12th house) at a moment where our STANDARD astrological charts places the same planet below (1st house) the horizon. Are we to believe what our eyes are actually seeing outside viewing the heavens or should we believe what our eyes are seeing viewing the scope on our computer monitors. I would think this would be of great importance to an astrologer who relies heavily on HOUSE delineations; because, at times this would mean we could actually be delineating false astrological data pertaining to precise astronomical planetary placements with houses 1&12, 9&10, 4&5, and 6&7. Depending on which house system you use-- this could also mean false astronomical data pertaining to all houses.

Among Fagan?s numerous astrological heresies (sidereal zodiac, precession corrected Returns,) perhaps the worst heresies innovated by Fagan was his introduction of the Mundoscope. The mundoscope grew directly out of Fagan?s interest in the earth?s daily rotation as a frame of reference. When we refer to ?houses? and the planets in the ?houses?, we?re referring to a function of the earth?s daily rotation; whereas, when we view the standard drawn scope we are looking at a frame of reference with the ecliptic and ?signs??not solely a frame of reference with the earth?s daily rotation. The mundoscope is a house system which does away with the ecliptic reference system. In other words, according to Fagan, all house systems are wrong as the houses should be directly related to the Earth?s daily rotation?rather than ecliptically related. Fagan realized that most astrologers practice astrology without awareness of the pure natural laws of astronomy pertaining to the motions of celestial spheres. Ask yourself this question. What?s more true, the actual astronomical placement of a planet above the horizon (something you can see verify with your own eyes) or the standard generated scope wheel that does not account for all the pure mathematical laws of astronomy. Even if Fagan had never used the word ?Sidereal? he would not have been welcomed into the mainstream of astrology for suggesting that the ecliptic has nothing to do with planetary measurements related to the earth?s daily rotation which dictates the true astronomical planetary measurement in relationship to houses. Anyone interested in Fagan?s mundoscope and who has Solar Fire 6.0 or higher versions, here is Solar Fire mundoscope instructions and a chart example which actually shows the correct planetary position verse our standard generated scopes. I will try to give more chart examples where a planetary house position is different with a mundoscope verses our standard generated scopes.

George W. Bush birth data AA Rated: July 6th 1946, 7:26 AM EDT, New Haven, CN. 41N18, 072W56.

1: Calculate Bush?s Natal Chart in Solar Fire 6.0 or higher.
2: With Bush?s Natal Chart calculated and highlighted in blue keystroke F6.

3: Then Scroll down and select Z-Analogue Prime Vert.

4: Then Click OK?This will compute Bush?s Natal Mundoscope.

Comparing the Standard Wheel of Bush?s Natal Chart to his Natal Mundoscope we notice Bush?s Standard Wheel Natal shows to our eyes a Natal Pluto 3+ degrees below the Horizon in the 1st House. This is a false mundane (house) placement of Bush?s Natal Pluto. Looking at Fagan?s Mundoscope, we see with our eyes, Bush?s Natal Pluto has moved from the 1ST House to a partile Rising into the 12th House. This is the correct astronomical mundane placement for Bush?s Natal Pluto. In other words, if an astronomer/astrologer was outside with a clear sight to the Horizon and if Pluto was bright enough to be seen with the naked eye?the astronomer/astrologer would actually see that Pluto was partile rising the moment Bush was born. The astrologer who had studied Fagan?s works would immediately recognize that the symbolism of Pluto was powerfully placed in Bush?s Natal Chart.

?Astrological evidence would also seem to support, for the birth chart of a leader becomes a working horoscope for the collective of the nation itself, a fact which may easily be tested. Events which may affect the collective may be reflected in, and predicted by, the horoscope of the leader.? ?Mundane Astrology,? page 109.

Astrologers who have worked closely with accurate timed birth charts of Presidents have verified that the main symbolism in the President?s birth chart manifests itself while in office. This powerful placed Natal Pluto in Fagan?s Mundoscope certainly was reflected with Bush?s Presidency.

?Pluto?s effects when angular (in this case it was partile angular with Fagan?s Mundoscope for Bush?s Natal Chart) are swift, sensation ?creating and record breaking (an understatement pertaining to Bush?s Presidency). It denotes ?firsts? in the life; the native usually plays the leading role in the drama which transpires.? ?Solar and Lunar Returns,? by Donald Bradely, page 56.

As we can NOW clearly see Bush Presidency produced two ?Firsts?! His first term of office was decided by the Federal Judges?A ?First?. And his Presidency produced the ?First? time in US History that a foreign attack occurred inside the original borders of the continental US.

Ancient astrologers paid very close attention to any heavenly body that was bodily on the Horizon. Without Fagan?s Mundoscope the astrologer would not have known Pluto was bodily on Bush?s Natal Ascendant. Fagan?s Mundoscope may one day play an important role to astrologers who pay very detailed attention to house placements of planets in their practice.

Regards, Steve.

P.S. also note in Bush?s Natal Mundoscope that his Moon-Jupiter is now seen by the astrologer eyes as a partile conjunction; whereas in Bush?s Standard Natal Scope, the astrologer?s eyes sees Bush?s Natal Moon-Jupiter as a non-partile conjunction. I think this actually means that Bush?s Natal Moon occulted Bush?s Natal Jupiter. Some astrologers allow much more potency to an occultation.

Steve wrote: Ancient astrologers paid very close attention to any heavenly body that was bodily on the Horizon. Without Fagan?s Mundoscope the astrologer would not have known Pluto was bodily on Bush?s Natal Ascendant. Fagan?s Mundoscope may one day play an important role to astrologers who pay very detailed attention to house placements of planets in their practice .

We should maybe mention Placido

This is Placido from Sibly translation of Coelestis Philosophia:
"there are two motions of the stars whereby they influence those inferior, that is under the primum mobile and round the world...it necessarily follows that there are two kinds of familiarities in the stars; the one under the Zodiac and the other round the world: these two kinds of familiarities are delivered by Ptolemy in several places. "

So with semiarc method Pluto (just for sake of calculation):

semiarcus= 112.40' Diurnal
meridian distance=112.29'

(from Morinus software and CieloeTerra calculation method from Fumagalli"I moti del cielo")

hourly distance= 5.99 (decimals) ie on the Ascendant

Please notice that Pluto in mundo is not below the horizon, is just risen, in fact it's a DIURNAL semiarcus

margherita

Hi Deb,

yes indeed, you gave me something to think about - thank you.
Your explanation with the freezing of the sky is very helpful and it really could be the solution. Transits are also delineated in that way as they move counterclockwise through the signs. What you said about the realtionship of the angles and houses to the ASC was something I became aware of when I first read your book two years ago.
I think I have to dig deeper into astronomy - something I neglected a little bit lately. But ultimately it seems to me that the problem is not entirely solved yet.


Hi Steve,

thank you too. A very interesting viewpoint although I`ve never heard of Fagan before. But on the other hand astrological experience proved the hitherto existing approach.

Jogi wrote:
I think I have to dig deeper into astronomy - something I neglected a little bit lately. But ultimately it seems to me that the problem is not entirely solved yet.

Very well stated Jogi. Personally, I have always been astronomically challenged to clearly understand certain aspects of astronomy that is behind astrology. However, the more I study the motions/math behind the natural laws of astronomy?the more light it sheds on my study of astrology.

Regards, Steve

This topic is still bothering me and I?m not totally satisfied yet Thus I still could need your help.

Since in early astrology a sign became a topos/place I suppose it was self-evident for the ancients to number and count the topoi/places in the counterclockwise direction of the signs.

What confuses me is the idea that a good portion of the house significations arose due to the diurnal (and thus clockwise) motion of the sun - something I first read in Deb`s book about the houses (other house meanings were due to the chaldaen order, the joys of the planets or the relationships to the ASC).

But when the first quadrant house system came up the ancients actually must have seen the houses as fixed or frozen, like Deb said before, and only concentrated on the secondary motion of the planets through the signs when delineating them in the places.

And my thought was that there must have been a good reason for the decision to emphasize this secondary motion of the planets and to carry it over to the delineation of the places too - because it is this decision that makes us say that e.g. a planet directly on the cusp of an angle is very strong, whereas according to his diurnal motion it is going to enter the cadent house (because it already made its way through this house).

In the meanwhile I found something in Bonatti (Ben`s translation, Book I, p. 135). Here is what Bonatti says:? The reason why this was [to number the houses in a counterclockwise direction], is this: because even though the heaven turns from the east to the west by means of the first motion, still the planets (which imprint in inferior bodies) are moved from the west to the east by means of the second motion (which is from the right to the left) in contrary direction of the first motion, wherefore it is against the succession of the signs. For the signs ascend from under the earth (which is left of heaven) to that which is above the earth (which is its right).?

Now, English is not my native language and maybe that`s the reason why this explanation sounds to me as if Bontatti is saying ?it is like that because it is like that?.

Are there really no ancient sources that could bring some light into this question?

Hello Jogi,
I?ll try to answer your question with an analogy (don?t know if it helps ? more like to explain it to myself than to you!).

Imagine that you are outside a merry-go-round train (a long train whose head and tail are joined together and the train moves clockwise). The train consists of 12 carts and each cart contains 30 compartments. There are 7 tenants inside the train that moves in counter-clockwise direction (most of the time) at different speeds. Sometimes the tenants move in clockwise direction. I think you know where I am heading. The train is the celestial sphere and its motion is the primary motion. The carts are the zodiacal signs and the compartments are the degrees of the zodiac. The 7 tenants are the 7 planets. Most of the times the tenants/planets move in direct motion but sometimes they move in retrograde motion.

When you are outside the train, you?ll see two motions i.e. the clockwise motion of the train that carries its tenants (Primary Motion ? the Monad) and the counter-clockwise motion of the tenants themselves (Secondary Motion ? the Dyad). Imagine that you are being ?dropped? into this train. You?ll be entering the train at a certain cart (zodiacal sign) and compartment (degrees of the zodiacal sign). This entry point will be the ascendant. As there could be only one point you entered from, there is only one ascendant for you [of course different people will enter at different points and hence, have different ascendant].

Once you are inside the train you will be moving with the train (the train carries you) and hence, you do not feel the motion of the train (as much as we do not feel the motion of the earth even though the earth is rotating because of its size). However, you will get visitations from the tenants inside the train (the planets) because you are inside the train. When Saturn or Mars visit you, you?ll be stressed and when Jupiter and Venus visit you, you?ll be blessed (or something to these effects!). Conclusion: When you are in the train, the motion of the train is not important but the movements of the tenants are. Hence, the secondary motion of the planets is the one we look to for the planets themselves. No matter how fast the motion of the train (primary motion), it will not in any way make the motion of the tenants (planets) any faster or slower for them to move from one cart to another in the train! So, if a tenant (planet) is within 5 compartments (degrees) from the following cart (sign), some astrologers would say that the planet has influence on (or is influenced) by the following cart (A concept that I do not agree).

The ancients would say that the motion of the Monad (the Primary Motion) is the motion of the outermost ?sphere? following the spheres of the planets. The motion of the planets i.e. the motion of the Dyad (the Secondary Motion) is the motions of all the planets. We have the sphere of the Moon (the nearest to earth), followed by the sphere of Mercury, then the sphere Venus, and so on and so forth (following the reverse Chaldean order). All of the spheres of the planets move according to Secondary Motion. Hence, it is the Secondary Motion that we ascribe to the planets themselves and they are important because their "spheres" are nearer to earth. In fact, the importance of the Moon in all types of astrology is due to her "sphere" being nearest to earth (among other things!). So, the planet would "want" to be in the following house (by its own motion) rather than the house before. [Don't think that this explanation satisfies you! For me, I do not advocate the 5 degree rule, so not a problem to me!].

Astrojin: excellent illustrative analogy!