When a chart is all cusp-y...

Hi, All--

I came up with a new question in reviewing the chart of someone close to me... As it turns out, this person has three separate planets that are each less than one full degree into Signs. None of these are on House cusps, but they're all barely out of one Sign and into the next. This makes for some extremely tight aspects joining all of them together -- a square, a trine, and an inconjunct (which I have to admit is a type of aspect I still don't fully understand) -- and I have to wonder if the fact that she has no less than three of these cusp-y planets in her chart has some added layer of meaning...? Does she have extra affinity (according to the astrologer) for things like transitions, thresholds, in-between states, blended states...? Will each of these planets retain a lot of the characters of the Signs they've just left, or does it not work that way? Or is this just another of those interpretive issues that will vary widely from one astrologer to the next? I could see that maybe her Moon, for example, less than a degree into Aries, could still have a lot of Piscean energy about it, having just barely emerged from that Sign...but then again, maybe that's not how cusps operate...? Any input on this issue would be most welcome -- thanks!

I think opinions will vary. For example, I've developed for myself some understanding that a person with personal planets in last degrees of important houses tends to get what they want from this house later than desired, or often when they already do not desire it so much. Kind of "too late". As with the example with the Pisces/Aries Moon, I'd take it as a transitional planet, merging the two signs which may sound nice but may actually be quite problematic. Think Pisces, water, sensitivity, withdraw, deep and think Aries, fire, boldness, action. It also depends on what they rule and their aspects, IMHO.

Thanks for your reply, Ronia. You know, I've never yet heard your notion about how personal planets in the final few degrees of a House might be guilty of chronic late deliveries on things having to do with that House -- it's a really fascinating idea, though! Thanks for sharing.

I think the approach you described with that Pisces/Aries Moon is essentially how I'd been viewing it, too...and with the person in question, it makes sense, too, and I can easily see her deep-rooted emotional/security needs manifesting as Piscean and Arian both, and maybe causing a lot of tension because of this difficult arrangement.

I do also agree that this will probably be one of those Astro-concepts where respondents will vary a lot in their feelings on the matter...

Firstly it depends what planets are involved here. If there are more than one outer, then this would be a configuration which is shared by many, many people. If it's Moon, Venus and Mercury then it's likely to be confined to your friend and others born that day.

Secondly, house positions do matter, they would give an indication as to how this configuration would show up, assuming it is significant.

I agree with Ronia, in that you will find quite a bit of diversity, with some Astrologers, seeing a gradual decrease in the influence of one sign and an increase in the influence of another as the planet crosses the 'boundary'. Others will insist that the situation changes fundamentally at 0 degrees. As I use the full range of essential dignities, I can see that it's not (for example) either all Pisces or all Aries, nor is it a blend of only these two signs. Exaltation rulers, Triplicity, Term and Face rulers will all play a part in the transition. Furthermore retrogradation and/or the imminence of a station (i.e. change of direction) will have an influence.

Start by taking the sign only and keep to the meaning of the planet in that sign. As you go through many charts, you might begin to modify your interpretation in the light of experience but keeping it simple to begin with is always the best way. You will miss some subtlety but that will come in time.

Thanks for your input, Minderwiz! Yes, I'd suspected that opinions on this would differ greatly from one astrologer to the next, but I figured gathering some thoughts here would still be helpful (or, at least interesting!).

The chart in question that prompted me to raise this issue has the Moon, Saturn, and Uranus all on cusps. I don't know if you consider Saturn inner or outer for these purposes (or both? neither?). This triple cusp thing still seems like a striking feature to me, but that's not based on hardcore mathematical analysis or anything...

That full range of essential dignities that you mention is still a bit beyond me. Kevin Burk gets pretty into it in his Understanding the Birth Chart book, which is a book I mostly like, but that particular material still makes my brain glaze over a bit, I'm afraid. It's not that I don't want to get it, or see no value in it, but I think it's just too much data of what seems to me to be a very technical nature, and I don't process that kind of thing well without doing a lot of homework on it first (which I clearly haven't done yet!). I do appreciate your input, though, and it helps me to know what more experienced astrologers look to, even when they might be using material and skills I haven't gotten to yet...

I have a few chart elements close to sign divisions and so have found myself having to consider the other sign. The question of how much orb to use is difficult and has wide variations. I knew an astrologer who used 30 degree orbs for everything which I thought was just ridiculous and leading to huge ambiguities.

Considering that the tropical zodiac sign divisions are an artifice linked to seasonal markers - the equinoxes and solstices - what can we say about the way that seasons overlap or are sharply demarcated? In my experience, bits of winter often show up after a warmer bit of spring but eventually the warmer weather predominates with bits of summer invading the last month or so of spring and so on for all the seasons in my temperate climate.

When faced with many different opinions we are forced to form our own conclusions and these become more definite the more we exercise our mind on the problem. My desire is to have certainty but I aspire to remain open to the other factors at play and decide how much weight I want to apply of their validity.

I personally think that a 'cusp-y' chart is not particularly significant in itself (unless maybe it was almost everything was on a cusp) and I wouldn't attempt to interpret 'cusp-iness' because I'd be too busy trying to work out the meanings presenting from the whole chart.

I was reading an article some time ago where the author (sorry I forget who) said that the concept of the sign cusp was a modern one and not found in earier texts. I must admit that I have not seen any reference to sign cusps in my rather limited reading of ancient texts, from the Hellenistic period to the Seventeenth century. So I suppose we should ask, precisely what is a meant by a planet on the cusp and why is it only comparatively recently we have begun to see it as significant.

The first part is relatively easy - the cusp is the point where one sign yields to another - 0 degrees. That being said, some Astrologer see this more as something of a continuum. rather than a point (though the word 'cusp' is derived from the Latin for the point of a sword)

Precisely when a planet is 'cuspal' seems to be much more difficult to pin down. The discussion here is taking it as being a degree or two either side of the 0 point. However there's a more precise meaning as which shows why 'cuspal' is seen as important.

I'll use the Sun as my example, as it's the most likely 'cuspal' planet. As seen from Earth, the Sun is not a point in the sky but a disc. That is it has width. Indeed the estimate is the Sun's disk covers 0.55 degrees of the zondiac at any one point in time.

Now if you consider the Sun's centre to be at say 29 degrees 45 minutes of Libra (my Sun position). The Sun's disc would extend just over 15 minutes of arc either side. That means that part of the Sun's disc projects into Scorpio. So does Scorpio have any significance for my Sun?

The argument about being cuspal, seems to have originated with discussions about this phenomenon with the Sun but can be easily extended to the Moon, which has an observed disc (when full) of 0.54 degrees (which is why we get total eclipses when the Moon passes in front of the Sun).

With the other planets the situation is much less clear - although they have discs, rather than points, the discs are only just visible as such, so we're talking very small expanses perhaps of around 5 minutes or less of arc. With the outers they can't be seen so there's the obvious question as to whether they can ever be called cuspal, in this sense. My Jupiter at 29 degrees 59 minutes of Scorpio might possibly be cuspal under this definition, actually projecting into his own sign of Sagittarius.

This is a very tight definition of 'cuspal' but perhaps one which brings out the key issue of a planet sharing in two signs. The Sun, even at 1 degree Scorpio would not be cuspal but entirely in that sign.

Now the Hellenisitic Astrologers 2,000 years ago knew the Sun's disc had width, yet they don't talk about 'cuspal' as in important concept. So perhaps zhan.thay is right and we now attribute too much significance to it.

frac_ture said:

Hi, All--

I came up with a new question in reviewing the chart of someone close to me... As it turns out, this person has three separate planets that are each less than one full degree into Signs. None of these are on House cusps, but they're all barely out of one Sign and into the next. This makes for some extremely tight aspects joining all of them together -- a square, a trine, and an inconjunct (which I have to admit is a type of aspect I still don't fully understand) -- and I have to wonder if the fact that she has no less than three of these cusp-y planets in her chart has some added layer of meaning...? Does she have extra affinity (according to the astrologer) for things like transitions, thresholds, in-between states, blended states...? Will each of these planets retain a lot of the characters of the Signs they've just left, or does it not work that way? Or is this just another of those interpretive issues that will vary widely from one astrologer to the next? I could see that maybe her Moon, for example, less than a degree into Aries, could still have a lot of Piscean energy about it, having just barely emerged from that Sign...but then again, maybe that's not how cusps operate...? Any input on this issue would be most welcome -- thanks!

Click to expand...

I only consider Sun and Moon to possibly be "on the cusp" between two signs. However, I use dwadasamas to further elucidate a planet's energy in its sign. For example, I have Pallas (creative intelligence) at 0 degrees 39 minutes Scorpio. This placement is in the Scorpio dwad, making the placement very intense and the 'lilt' of energy in addition to the home sign is also Scorpio. The first few degrees of a sign are very fresh and intense for a planet or object and the energy expressed via the sign is very purely of that sign, according to dwadasamas.

Thanks for the responses here, everyone -- zhan.thay and Minderwiz, I apologize for not answering your posts sooner! I strayed from the boards for a while due to increased busy-ness in the physical world out here, and apparently I missed your replies until econdude bumped the thread...

zhan.thay said:

I knew an astrologer who used 30 degree orbs for everything which I thought was just ridiculous and leading to huge ambiguities...

Considering that the tropical zodiac sign divisions are an artifice linked to seasonal markers - the equinoxes and solstices - what can we say about the way that seasons overlap or are sharply demarcated? In my experience, bits of winter often show up after a warmer bit of spring but eventually the warmer weather predominates with bits of summer invading the last month or so of spring and so on for all the seasons in my temperate climate.

When faced with many different opinions we are forced to form our own conclusions and these become more definite the more we exercise our mind on the problem. My desire is to have certainty but I aspire to remain open to the other factors at play and decide how much weight I want to apply of their validity.

I personally think that a 'cusp-y' chart is not particularly significant in itself (unless maybe it was almost everything was on a cusp) and I wouldn't attempt to interpret 'cusp-iness' because I'd be too busy trying to work out the meanings presenting from the whole chart.

Click to expand...

Wow, using 30-degree orbs sounds like opening the information valve way too wide for my tastes! If anything, I currently lean toward requiring tighter orbs for everything (I'm still learning, and I find that even just focusing on the very tightest aspects gives me more than enough factors to consider in a chart...).

I agree with your point about how the seasons work, and I likewise feel that House and Sign cusps maybe shouldn't be viewed as functioning like airlocks or something -- that is, I currently don't see how if a Planet falls only a few minutes on one side of a cusp, it should be viewed as 100% strictly in that House or Sign, with no influence at all flowing into the House or Sign adjacent to it just on the other side of that cusp.

And I guess I differ from you (so far...) in that I see consideration of cusp-iness to be exactly an integral part of "trying to work out the meanings presenting from the whole chart" -- it might have just as much meaning as any other component part of a given chart, as far as I'm concerned at this point in my development. I'm still trying to sort out exactly where I stand on a lot of astrological principles, actually, although asking questions and discussing them here on this board helps a lot!

Minderwiz said:

I was reading an article some time ago where the author (sorry I forget who) said that the concept of the sign cusp was a modern one and not found in earier texts. I must admit that I have not seen any reference to sign cusps in my rather limited reading of ancient texts, from the Hellenistic period to the Seventeenth century. So I suppose we should ask, precisely what is a meant by a planet on the cusp and why is it only comparatively recently we have begun to see it as significant...

Now the Hellenisitic Astrologers 2,000 years ago knew the Sun's disc had width, yet they don't talk about 'cuspal' as in important concept. So perhaps zhan.thay is right and we now attribute too much significance to it.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your input, Minderwiz! I'm barely a fraction as well-read on the subject of Astrology as you are, so I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this. I probably have to admit that my own apparent need to allow for the possibility that cusp divisions are more "gauzy" and ephemeral, and less akin to closed bank vault doors, is almost certainly an intuitive thing not stemming from logic or math or even based on the chart analyses I've done so far for people I know and can reality-check with. It could be that the more I continue to study and work, the more I'll let go of this notion, and will start to see cusps like the ancient astrologers did: as you say, "not super-important." I will say that as I read various books and websites -- all of them modern, thus far -- I have, in fact, come across the same idea that Planets can sort of project their influences across cusp divisions and into that next Sign or House, so I know I'm not the only one who entertains at least the possibility that this can happen. I only have one Planet in my own chart that truly seems "cusp-y" to me -- Neptune sits in my Twelfth House, less than a degree above the Ascendant -- and I do believe that I can feel and perceive Neptune's presence very strongly in ways that would be attributed to both the Twelfth and the First Houses...but even if that's totally true, I realize that I can't then apply the same principle to the whole universe of charts out there! Just gathering information still, I suppose, and working on firming up my own take on the matter...

econdude said:

I only consider Sun and Moon to possibly be "on the cusp" between two signs. However, I use dwadasamas to further elucidate a planet's energy in its sign. For example, I have Pallas (creative intelligence) at 0 degrees 39 minutes Scorpio. This placement is in the Scorpio dwad, making the placement very intense and the 'lilt' of energy in addition to the home sign is also Scorpio. The first few degrees of a sign are very fresh and intense for a planet or object and the energy expressed via the sign is very purely of that sign, according to dwadasamas.

Click to expand...

I had honestly never heard of a dwadasama before, and at first thought it must be an acronym of some sort! I looked it up, though, and find the concept pretty intriguing, so thank you for bringing it to my attention (it reminds me of the notion of decans, in that they both subdivide a Sign...). I went and figured out all of my own dwads, and while I don't yet know what to make of all of the results, I do intend to ponder them further...

Ronia said:

I think opinions will vary. For example, I've developed for myself some understanding that a person with personal planets in last degrees of important houses tends to get what they want from this house later than desired, or often when they already do not desire it so much. Kind of "too late". As with the example with the Pisces/Aries Moon, I'd take it as a transitional planet, merging the two signs which may sound nice but may actually be quite problematic. Think Pisces, water, sensitivity, withdraw, deep and think Aries, fire, boldness, action. It also depends on what they rule and their aspects, IMHO.

Click to expand...

Hi Ronia,

Interesting. Do you think this would apply if they were outer planets but conjunct the Angles in last degrees? Did you mean "important houses" to be the angulars?

Also, by "last degrees"....how late? Past degree 25, 26? Or are we talking 28,29,30...?