A question about exaltation

[gaer]

I have some questions about exaltations

I'll start with just one.

How did the planet Mercury come to be exalted in Virgo?

Of the severn planets considered by Plolemy, all except the Sun and Moon were linked to day and night (diurnal, nocturnal) rulership through signs:

Mercury: Gemini, Virgo—exaltation Virgo
Venus: Libra, Taurus—exaltation Pisces
Mars: Aries, Scorpio—exaltation Capricorn
Jupiter: Sagittarius, Pisces—exaltation Cancer
Saturn: Aquarius, Capricorn—exaltation Libra

The remaining two, the Sun and Moon, are linked to only one sign, and the reasoning behind this is also obvious:

Sun: Leo—exaltation Aries
Moon: Cancer—exaltation Taurus

Mercury: Gemini, Virgo—exaltation Virgo is an anomaly.

It means that Mercury is in detriment AND in fall in the same sign, pisces.

Does anyone know the reasoning or history behind this?

Gaer

[johnmike59]

It's an interesting question, with no simple answer. One tradition maintains that Mercury has NO sign of exaltation, while another tradition gives it solely to Virgo, the same applies to Pisces, regarding its fall. One source I've come upon puts Mercury in Detriment in Pisces and Sagittarius.

From "The Instant Astologer" --

Sagittarius/Pisces (Detriment) Mercury sits uneasily in flighty Sagittarius and nebulous Pisces. Both signs, ruled by Jupiter, present a too unruly and unstructured environment for Mercury, who is more concerned with detailed breadth of knowledge than the depth of understanding sought by both of these signs.

As for the history, I am sure someone here can answer your great question. Hope this help, just a bit.

[gaer]

It's an interesting question, with no simple answer. One tradition maintains that Mercury has NO sign of exaltation, while another tradition gives it solely to Virgo, the same applies to Pisces, regarding its fall. One source I've come upon puts Mercury in Detriment in Pisces and Sagittarius.

Sorry. My fault. I should have mentioned that I was specifically referring to Ptolemy's chart.

Obviously if a planet is not exalted in a sign, it can't be in its fall in the opposite sign. :)

Mercury has to be in detriment in Pisces and Sagittarius because it is dignified in Virgo and Gemini!


As for the history, I am sure someone here can answer your great question. Hope this help, just a bit.
I appreciate your reply, and I also hope someone can give me an answer as to the origin of this placement used by Ptolemy. :)

g.

[Mr. Conjunct]

Isn't Mercury exalted in Aquarius? If it isn't then what is exalted in Aquarius?

[astro.teacher]

http://www.antiquus-astrology.com/Chap2-10.html

That will explain why the Planets are in their chosen Exaltations according to Ptolemy.

Mr. Conjunct,

No Planets are exalted in Aquarius.

[NicholasH]

i agree with mr. conjunct. i think mercury is exalted in aquarius.


agree to disagree i guess

or

astro teacher, do u have any idea why some believe its exalted in aquarius. mr. conjunct and myself cant be the only ones to think that.

[gaer]

http://www.antiquus-astrology.com/Chap2-10.html

That will explain why the Planets are in their chosen Exaltations according to Ptolemy.

That link was very helpful. I had scanned through it before, but the pattern went right over my head. This would have been very helpful to me as I was learning the exaltations:

1) The planets are paired…

Sun/Saturn
Mercury/Venus
Mars/Jupiter
Moon/***

Out of planets. :)

So:

Sun Leo/Saturn Libra
Mercury Virgo/Venus Pisces
Mars Capricorn/Jupiter Cancer
Moon/Taurus/??/??

Add to that:

NN Gemini/SN Sagittarius

This immediately shows why nothing is exalted in Scorpio. There was nothing left to link it to. :)

It also shows that nothing is exalted Leo and Aquarius.

My next question is about how the degrees were picked for exaltation.

Some are easy to remember, since the degree 3 is linke to the Moon and both nodes.

Degree 15 is easy to remember because the are linked to both Jupiter and Mercury.

The others, however, seem like pure rote memory:

Aries 19 (Sun)
Libra 21 (Saturn)
Pisces 27 (Venus)
Capricorn 28 (Mars)

Again, if I knew WHY those degrees were chosen, I would never forget them. Without some kind of pattern that makes sense (to me), they are disconnected numbers and much, much harder to remember.

G.

[astro.teacher]

NicholasH,

astro teacher, do u have any idea why some believe its exalted in aquarius. mr. conjunct and myself cant be the only ones to think that.

There is no justification for why Mercury would be exalted in Aquarius. Why believe in something that isnt supported?

gaer,

My next question is about how the degrees were picked for exaltation.

Exaltation simply means ascending towards the highest point. Exaltation in Astrology is the degree in which is the highest degree a Planet reaches in a certain sign in the sky. For example the Sun has an exaltation in Aries, when he is in Aries he is ascending in the sky. His highest ascension peak is 19 degrees and thus he is in dignity in that peak. After 19 degrees he starts descending.

[gaer]

Exaltation simply means ascending towards the highest point. Exaltation in Astrology is the degree in which is the highest degree a Planet reaches in a certain sign in the sky. For example the Sun has an exaltation in Aries, when he is in Aries he is ascending in the sky. His highest ascension peak is 19 degrees and thus he is in dignity in that peak. After 19 degrees he starts descending.
I can't believe I wrote:

Capricorn 28 (Libra)

I meant:

Capricorn 28 (Mars)

At any rate, from what you're saying I would assume that you are talking about astronomical facts. Where I live I can't even see the stars (too many lights except in a blackout), and I don't even know how to find the constellations in the sky.

So I have to assume that IF I could find Capricorn and IF I could find Mars, it could only ascend to the 28th degree.

I hope this does not sound like a stupid question. Am I on the right track?

I should not be surprised at the amount of misinformation, but I am.

I found this on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaltation_(astrology)

After the discovery of the three outer planets--Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto--modern astrologers sometimes speculated on possible domicile and exaltation rulerships for these planets. It was suggested, for example, that Neptune was the "true" domicile ruler of Pisces (usurping one of Jupiter's two domicile rulerships) and that Neptune was exalted in Cancer, or possibly in Scorpio (which had no traditional exaltation.) Similarly, as the idea became popular, the third degree of Gemini was postulated as the exaltation of the north lunar node and the third degree of Sagittarius as the exaltation of the south lunar node.

That is wrong, isn't it? The NN and SN exaltations are in Ptolemy's chart, or did I misread something?

G.

[astro.teacher]

At any rate, from what you're saying I would assume that you are talking about astronomical facts.

That I am. Its important to know both Astronomy and Astrology as they are sisters.

I hope this does not sound like a stupid question. Am I on the right track?

Yes you are.

That is wrong, isn't it? The NN and SN exaltations are in Ptolemy's chart, or did I misread something?

No, this is right. The NN has his exaltation in the 3rd degree Gemini and opposite for the SN.

[gaer]

No, this is right. The NN has his exaltation in the 3rd degree Gemini and opposite for the SN.
I was about 99.9% sure this was correct.

This was my reason for pointing out this:


Similarly, as the idea became popular [referring to ADDING new exaltations for the planets Uranus, Neptune and Pluto], the third degree of Gemini was postulated as the exaltation of the north lunar node and the third degree of Sagittarius as the exaltation of the south lunar node.

This is terribly misleading. It makes it appear as if the exaltation of the nodes is a relatively new idea, which is totally wrong. I was pointing out that the Wiki article is a mixture of correct and incorrect information. :)

G

[astro.teacher]

This is terribly misleading. It makes it appear as if the exaltation of the nodes is a relatively new idea, which is totally wrong.

I found that misleading as well. The Nodes are however quite ancient (being called the Head and Tail of the Dragon in the past) and all the traditional authors I have read who speak of the Exaltations of the Nodes state that specific exaltation.

[gaer]

I found that misleading as well. The Nodes are however quite ancient (being called the Head and Tail of the Dragon in the past) and all the traditional authors I have read who speak of the Exaltations of the Nodes state that specific exaltation.
I don't want to be over-critical of Wikipedia, because it got most of the facts right, and everything is "a work in progress".

I'm moving step by step through Ptolemy's chart, because I want to make sure I absorb the principles. The next thing I'm looking at is "triplicities", and I'll open a thread about that. :)

Gaer

[wayne penner]

I have some questions about exaltations

I'll start with just one.

How did the planet Mercury come to be exalted in Virgo?

Of the severn planets considered by Plolemy, all except the Sun and Moon were linked to day and night (diurnal, nocturnal) rulership through signs:

Mercury: Gemini, Virgo—exaltation Virgo
Venus: Libra, Taurus—exaltation Pisces
Mars: Aries, Scorpio—exaltation Capricorn
Jupiter: Sagittarius, Pisces—exaltation Cancer
Saturn: Aquarius, Capricorn—exaltation Libra

The remaining two, the Sun and Moon, are linked to only one sign, and the reasoning behind this is also obvious:

Sun: Leo—exaltation Aries
Moon: Cancer—exaltation Taurus

Mercury: Gemini, Virgo—exaltation Virgo is an anomaly.

It means that Mercury is in detriment AND in fall in the same sign, pisces.

Does anyone know the reasoning or history behind this?

Gaer

You might consider exaltations to be the best expression of the planet essential nature. Undoubtedly Sun is powerful in Aries and Moon expresses herself best through Taurus. The strongest signs for Mercury are Capricorn, Aquarius and Libra. And so on.

Note that in all cases the traditional exaltation of a planet is in a sign that is trine or sextile to the sign it rules.

[gaer]

Note that in all cases the traditional exaltation of a planet is in a sign that is trine or sextile to the sign it rules.
This is true for:

Sun Leo/Aries (trine)
Saturn Aquarius/Libra (trine)
Jupiter Pisces/Cancer (trine)
Venus Taurus/Pisces (sextile)
Moon Cancer/Taurus (sextile)
Mars Scorpio/Capricorn (sextile)

It is not true for Mercury, which is traditionally exalted in 15 degrees Virgo.

That's what makes the exaltation of Mercury an anomaly. :)

Gaer

[gaer]

Even many sources that support the use of modern rulerships (Pluto for Scorpio, Uranus for Aquarius and Neptune for Pisces) continue to show Virgo as the sign of exaltation for Mercury.

Here is an example of a strange mixture of the old and new:

http://www.astrologycom.com/exalt.html

An attempt has been made to give exaltations to the newer planets outside the original seven planet scheme.

This particular source suggests Scorpio for Uranus and Leo for Pluto, using two of the signs that have traditionally had no planets exalted.

Neptune is then given to Cancer, which is quite strange. No other sign has two planets exalted in the same sign.

Note: I don't use exaltations. I merely think about where planets seem strong or most at home to me. I think Aquarius is an excellent placement for Mercury. However, I don't do horary charts. My way of looking at things is personal and relates only to natal charts, and only to those I have personally examined and studied.

Gaer

[Kingsley]

Yes it is strange about exhaltations and I know Rob Hand has written about the history involved in this however I can't remember the full story and all the reasons for allocations but I will open up some files later and find it. Its about where they are most "happy" beyond there Rulership sign. Mercury rules both Gemeni and Virgo so it would seem that Merc is most welcome in the land of Virgo no matter what his debility. He is honoured their and has power in the sign.

With regard to triplicity rulers Mars has been noted especially by Lilly to have that dignity in Cancer. Why? Because the waters of Cancer have have a cooling effect on him.

There are Dorethean and Eygyptian variations and Ibnez ezra and a few others different ones. I tend to use Lillys versions of Dignities because he studied the great "ancients" and made the best of the best. A mixture of Egyptian and Dorothean.

kingsley

For instance re

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

It's based off of the year, in a way. :-S That's the best way I can really explain it. This is what Ptolemy's reasonings, verbatum.

Sol:
"Since the Sun, when he is in Aries, is making his transition to the northern or higher semicircle, and in Libra is passing into the souther and lower one, they have fittingly assigned Aries to him as his exaltion, since there the length of the day and the heating power of his nature begin to increase, and in Libra as his depression for the opposite reasons."

Modern speak: Since the Vernal Equinox (in the first degree of Tropical Aries) marks the beginning of the lengthening of the day, Aries is assigned as Sol's exhaltation, while the Autumnal Equinox (first degree of Tropical Libra) marks the shortening of the day and is thus Sol's depression as his domination of the sky is reduced from hereon after.

Saturn:
"Saturn again, in order to have a position opposite to the Sun, as also in the matter of their houses, look, contrariwise, Libra as his exaltation and Aries as his depression. For where heat increases there cold diminises, and where the former diminishes cold on the contrary increases."

Modern Speak: Since Saturn is the enemy and opposite of Sol, he's going to receive the opposite in these Signs, exaltation in Libra and depression in Aries as Saturn (contary to Sol) delights in the increase in the cold of the days throughout the "dark half" of the year which begins at the Autumnal Equinox on the first day of Libra.

Luna:
"And since the Moon, coming to conjunction in the exaltation of the sun, in Aries, shows her first phase and begins to increase her light and, as it were, her height, in the first sign of her own triangel, Taurus, this was called her exaltation, and the diametrically opposite sign, Scorpio, her depression."

Modern Speak: Luna's exaltation appears to be based off of that as Sol's, just like her phases are based on her position in relation to Sol, so when she comes in a conjunction with him in his exaltation Sign of Aries, she begins to wax and gain power ever after in the Sign Taurus, and then begin to wane after approaching the status of Full (which would happen opposite the New phase in Libra) and begin to wane in that of Scorpio, the opposite and her Fall.

Jupiter:
"Then Jupiter, which produces the fecund north winds, reaches farthest north in Cancer and brings his own power to fullness; they therefore made this sign his exaltation and Capricorn his depression."

Modern speak: Jupiter likes the north as he signifies the northern winds, and Cancer is the northern-most Sign as co-signifying the North Angle of the Fourth house, and so is thus very happily placed therein. He does not appreciate the power of the south and is thus Fallen in the southern-most sign of Capricorn who co-signifies the South Angle of the Tenth house.

Mars:
"Mars, which by nature is fiery and becomes all the more so in Capricorn because in it he is farthest south, naturally received Capricorn as his exaltation, in contrast to Jupiter, and Cancer as his depression."

Modern Speak: Okay, just the opposite of Jupiter. Mars is fiery and delights in the southern-most Sign of Capricorn as Capricorn co-signifies the South Angle of the Tenth. Mars doesn't like the North, so is depressed in the northern-most Sign of Cancer as co-sign of the North Angle of the Fourth House.

Venus:
"Venus, however, as she is moist by nature and increases her own proper power all the more in Pisces, where the beginning of the moist spring is indicated, has her exaltation in Pisces and her depression in Virgo."

Modern Speak: This is where it starts to become more based off the year. Venus' humor is phlegmatic, cold and moist, like the time of year when Sol is in Pisces. However, since Venus is near the orb of the Sun, she is considered 'warming', which is the state of the climates when Sol is in the mutable Sign of Pisces (mutable Signs dicate a changing of the climate through the seasons, Pisces marks the warming and moistening of Spring, Venus' humor).

Mercury:
"Mercury, on the contrary, since he is arier, by contrast naturally is exalted, as it were, in Virgo, in which the dry autumn is signifed, and is depressed in Pisces."

Modern Speak: Again, the time of the year is emphasized here with Mercury. Mercury's humor is cold and dry, melancholic. Since he is near the orb of Luna, he is considered cooling and dry, which describes the climate during the time of Sol's transit through Virgo. Virgos mutability is signified in the changing of the climate from the dry heat of summer to the dry cold of autumn, Mercury's humour.

Hope that helps.

This particular source suggests Scorpio for Uranus and Leo for Pluto, using two of the signs that have traditionally had no planets exalted.

Neptune is then given to Cancer, which is quite strange. No other sign has two planets exalted in the same sign.

I, personally, don't feel the Outers are bound by such rules as Dignity, Exaltation, Triplicity, Face, Term, Peregrine, Fall, and Detriment. They're bigger than that, so to speak.

[gaer]

Yes it is strange about exhaltations and I know Rob Hand has written about the history involved in this however I can't remember the full story and all the reasons for allocations but I will open up some files later and find it. Its about where they are most "happy" beyond there Rulership sign. Mercury rules both Gemeni and Virgo so it would seem that Merc is most welcome in the land of Virgo no matter what his debility. He is honoured their and has power in the sign.

That same argument could just as well be made for any of the planets that are given a day and night rulership. Venus could have been exalted in Taurus, Mars in Aries, Jupiter in Sagittarius, Saturn in Capricorn.

It just wasn't done that way. There are many explanations, and I believe you can find just about all you need in one place or another on the Net.

Regardless, the classical scheme is:

Dragon's Head and Tail exalted in opposite signs.
Sun and Saturn exalted in opposite signs.
Mars and Jupiter exalted in opposite signs.
Mercury and Venus exalted in opposite signs.
Moon and oops—out of planets. :D

With only 7 planets, 5 signs would have been "slighted". By giving exaltation to the nodes, that took care of 9. This left Scorpio out, no planet to pair with the moon, and poor Leo and Aquarius got *******. ;)

It appears to me that "modern" astrologers had hoped that two more planets would be discovered. This would have allowed a new planet to be assigned to Libra (if we think of Venus as feminine and most fitting for Taurus) and a new planet for Virgo (if Mercury is most fitting for Gemini). Many people try to "neuter" Mercury, saying it is neither masculine nor feminine, but how many people in the ancient world associated reason and logical thinking with femininity? So I think people were hoping for a new planet for Virgo too.

12 signs, 12 planets. It was a nice thought, but it just didn't work out.

We're still missing two. So we'd have to give the whole asteroid belt to Libra, perhaps, and Chiron to Virgo.

Which would TOTALLY tick off traditional astrologers, causing them to stone the "new age freaks".

Off with their heads!

Now, please don't burn me at the stake for injecting a little humor into this topic, okay? :)

With regard to triplicity rulers Mars has been noted especially by Lilly to have that dignity in Cancer. Why? Because the waters of Cancer have have a cooling effect on him.

All these different ways of measuring or assigning dignity can get quite confusing.

Take a look at this, from Skyscript:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aries.html

Planets Dignifed in Aries:
Mars by sign
Sun by exaltation and as day-time triplicity ruler
Mars in nocturnal charts as night-time triplicity ruler.

I'm almost positive this is a mistake. In all other places on the site, Jupiter is listed as the "night-time triplicity ruler". It conflicts with every chart I've seen of Ptolemy and Lilly's work.

There are Dorethean and Eygyptian variations and Ibnez ezra and a few others different ones. I tend to use Lillys versions of Dignities because he studied the great "ancients" and made the best of the best. A mixture of Egyptian and Dorothean.

I read that too. For instance, Dorothea used Venus as the day-time triplicity ruler for water. Ptolemy and Lilly agreed on Mars for both day and night, but I believe Lilly also included a third planet (participatory ruler?). There are subtle differences between different "old masters"!

Gaer

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

Many people try to "neuter" Mercury, saying it is neither masculine nor feminine, but how many people in the ancient world associated reason and logical thinking with femininity? So I think people were hoping for a new planet for Virgo too.

Apparently several, as they all agreed to it! :D Mercury's only masculine when in conjunction with a masculine planet, and feminine when conjoined with a feminine. Mercury is androgenous (sp?), as he technically signifies the life force (Ether) as opposed to Earth (Saturn), Fire (Sol, Mars), Air (Jupiter), or Water (Luna, Venus).

Now, please don't burn me at the stake for injecting a little humor into this topic, okay?

*BURNS* :D Oops! :P

I'm almost positive this is a mistake.

It is. :-S Someone dropped the ball on that one.

...but I believe Lilly also included a third planet...

Really? I must never have noticed...in C.A. Lilly says:

"He [Mars] governs wholly the Watery Triplicity, viz, Cancer, Scorpio, Pisces."

[gaer]

Apparently several, as they all agreed to it! :D Mercury's only masculine when in conjunction with a masculine planet, and feminine when conjoined with a feminine. Mercury is androgenous (sp?), as he technically signifies the life force (Ether) as opposed to Earth (Saturn), Fire (Sol, Mars), Air (Jupiter), or Water (Luna, Venus).

Right, although the planets all get a bit "metrosexual", with Venus going to Libra, a "masculine" sign, and to Taurus, "feminine earth".

For me there are a lot of interesting links. Jupiter (Air) is linked to fire (night-time triplicity ruler). Mars (fire), linked to water. I know the logic behind the latter (throw a bucket of water on Mars to stop the fires). :D

Seriously, as I keep saying, it's necessary to carefully study the logic from the point of view of the people we are studying!
Really? I must never have noticed...in C.A. Lilly says:

"He [Mars] governs wholly the Watery Triplicity, viz, Cancer, Scorpio, Pisces."

Right. Here is where it gets interesting though:

Each group of triplicities has its own set of planetary rulers. Lilly mentioned two for each triplicity - a day ruler and a night-time ruler - but originally there were three rulers for each sect. The list of triplicity rulers given by Dariot in the 16th century [2] is a more faithful reproduction of the earlier scheme used by the likes of Vettius Valens and Dorotheus in the classical period. In this system each triplicity has two rulers which exchange priority according to whether the chart is diurnal or nocturnal, plus a third ruler which is common to both sects. 'Know the lords of the triplicities of the signs' said Dorotheus, 'the lords of the triplicity of Aries by day are the Sun, then Jupiter, then Saturn. By night Jupiter, then the Sun, then Saturn'. [3] d to the nocturnal sect and this triplicity is diurnal. Saturn is therefore substituted for Mars and acts as a co-ruler for the triplicity both day and night.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/triplicities.html
See? Saturn is the third ruler for fire in that system. And I should learn to spell "Dorotheus".

I BELIEVE that this system shows Jupiter as the third ruler for air, Mars as the third for earth, and the Moon as the third for water.

In this system, each planet is used twice except for the Sun and Moon, total of 12, three for each element. Probably why Dorotheus used Venus and Mars for the first two planets for the water triplicity!

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

Hm, definately did not know that.

Crafty creatures those ancient astrologers.

[Caprising]

The ancient astrologers wern't as well equipped as we are. consider that they didn't know about the outer planets for a start, where does this leave them when trying to find the effects of for instance moon conj. pluto! They did the best they could with what they had, I believe that it's up to we "modern" astrologers to sort through the puzzle , using our computer programs to make this easier is a bonus, as is being allowed to study the subject without being burnt alive!

[Kingsley]

The ancient astrologers didn't need to know about the other planets. In their time the reality of Saturn and dealing with life was rough enough without transformations of Pluto in their charts. They got what they needed and after the 1930's when Pluto was discovered it seemed that society required a greater depth in viewing life. Psychology and nuclear science began investigating inwardly for aspects of reality within the subconscious realms. Perfect timing and a perfct universe.

kingsley

[wayne penner]

Wayne, this has nothing to do with what I believe.

I started this thread to explore what the exaltations are according to Ptolemy and Lilly. I'm sorry if I did not make that clear.

This is about a traditional system of astrology.

Even many sources that support the use of modern rulerships (Pluto for Scorpio, Uranus for Aquarius and Neptune for Pisces) continue to show Virgo as the sign of exaltation for Mercury.

Here is an example of a strange mixture of the old and new:

http://www.astrologycom.com/exalt.html

An attempt has been made to give exaltations to the newer planets outside the original seven planet scheme.

This particular source suggests Scorpio for Uranus and Leo for Pluto, using two of the signs that have traditionally had no planets exalted.

Neptune is then given to Cancer, which is quite strange. No other sign has two planets exalted in the same sign.

Note: I don't use exaltations. I merely think about where planets seem strong or most at home to me. I think Aquarius is an excellent placement for Mercury. However, I don't do horary charts. My way of looking at things is personal and relates only to natal charts, and only to those I have personally examined and studied.

Gaer

Gaer, I have never thought that the outer planets "rule" any sign, and it is obviously a fairly recent phenomenon.

Undoubtedly Neptune has some affinity with Pisces, and Pluto with Scorpio, but rulership is something else. It seems to me that Uranus is far too quixotic and violent for Aquarius and the natives of that sign, while they can be a little off-beat and certainly independent, do not ususlly display the eccentricities of Uranus.

I think there is some desire for there to be 12 planets so that each sign has one planet as ruler. So far this does not seem to be the case, and even if you include the mythological Vulcan it still only adds up to 11 bodies, and with the recent "demotion" of Pluto (which I completely disagree with) to a minor we are stuk with 10 at most. Some have attempted to include Chiron as a sign ruler, although there is debate as to what sign it would rule, with no consensus at all. I would have thought that by now, with the massive advances in astronomical observation, we would know all the planets in the solar system - if there is a trans-Pluto planet we should have identified it by now.

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

I think there is some desire for there to be 12 planets so that each sign has one planet as ruler.

Most likely only because the system we have now seems incomplete and off balance. Every planet except for two have only one Sign of domicile (going uber-modern here), so it's to be expected that everyone is on the lookout for two others to take Gemini, Virgo, Taurus, or Libra.

So far this does not seem to be the case, and even if you include the mythological Vulcan it still only adds up to 11 bodies, and with the recent "demotion" of Pluto (which I completely disagree with) to a minor we are stuck with 10 at most.

Well, Vulcan is another subject entirely. We don't even know if it exists, and at this point it's nothing more than an unproven theoretical planet. However, being so close to Sol would have it eternally Combust, so I definately feel sorry for such an object. I don't feel the demotion of Pluto extends beyond word meanings and social connotations with titles.

I would have thought that by now, with the massive advances in astronomical observation, we would know all the planets in the solar system - if there is a trans-Pluto planet we should have identified it by now.

We have found her, her name is Eris. She rules the Scattered Disk like Pluto rules the Kuiper Belt and Ceres the Main Asteriod belt, I believe that would make twelve. This, again, is just a system of names to define them as 'dwarf planets', but perhaps, still rulers in their own right. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all have asteriodal belts rung around their orbits; Trojans. So, it doesn't really seem that there is such a difference between the 'dwarf' and 'giant gas', save the size difference between the rulers and subjects.

[lillyjgc]

I'm just wondering what would happen if we didn't divide the sky into 12 equal segments.? What if it was divided in the way it actually exists.?
For example, pisces would take up 38 deg, cancer 20 deg etc....How many slices of the pie would there be then?:eek:
It seems to me we have more *signs* than planets for them to rule and be exalted, or otherwise in...(of course we could always knock off a couple of signs and solve the problem that way!)
I am just curious as to what sort of map we would be looking at if it was mapped *mathematically* instead of according 30 deg to every sign, when that's not the reality.
cheers,
lillyjgc

[Kingsley]

I like the system we have, the old system that is. It has survived in tact 2000 plus years. The system was devised on the basis of what was 'seen' in the sky. I kind of like that system even with the modern planets and asteroids etc.

kingsley

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

I'm just wondering what would happen if we didn't divide the sky into 12 equal segments.? What if it was divided in the way it actually exists.?

Well, I think there are 118 constellations, so that divided by 360 is just over 3°, but we'd probably take declinations more seriously as the North our South position of the planet would probably put it in a different constellation.

I like the system we have, the old system that is. It has survived in tact 2000 plus years.

Me too, me too.