Why does Mercury and Venus rule two signs?

Taurus9

Well-known member
Hi,

I am quite new to this and I was wondering if someone could explain a little more why these two planets rule two signs and others only rule one.

Take Venus for example. It rules Taurus and Libra but Taurus is not like Libra. Some say Earth really rules Taurus instead, and some say a different side of Venus rules it.

As an example, I was also wondering why the Sun, the Moon, and Mars don't rule 2 signs as well.

Thanks in advance for any help regarding this.
 

Rawiri

Well-known member
Traditionally, the main starry planets we can see with our eyes (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) each ruled two signs. One of these signs reflected the "passive" nature of a planet and the other the "active" nature of the planet. Mercury ruled Gemini and Virgo, Venus ruled Taurus and Libra, Mars ruled both Aries and Scorpio, Jupiter ruled both Sagittarius and Pisces and Saturn ruled both Capricorn and Aquarius.

The "lights", the sun and moon, being the essential "King and Queen" represented the purely active nature, and purely passive nature and thus ruled only one sign each - Leo and Cancer, respectively.


blank-astrology-wheel.jpg


You might note how they also follow what is known to be the order of the planets, starting from the King and Queen (the moon is lumped with the sun as they are both luminaries) we move outwards to Mercury ruled signs (one on either side), then Venus ruled signs, Mars ruled signs, Jupiter ruled signs and lastly Saturn ruled signs. It is really quite symmetrical and beautiful, IMO.

However, with the discovery of the outer planets a "problem" occurred because now there were planets which didn't rule signs. Some modern astrologers decided that these outer planets also must rule signs, and thus Aquarius was "taken" from Saturn and given to Uranus, Pisces was "taken" from Jupiter and given to Neptune and Scorpio (or for some Aries) was "taken" from Mars and given to Pluto.

I think that was a mistake and that the outer planets do not rule signs at all. Thus as far as I'm concerned, all the original planets each own two signs - one which represents a more passive quality and another a more active quality...and the newly discovered planets do not rule any signs. But that is me.
 

Taurus9

Well-known member
Many thanks for your reply and great information Rawiri!

I think that was a mistake and that the outer planets do not rule signs at all. Thus as far as I'm concerned, all the original planets each own two signs - one which represents a more passive quality and another a more active quality...and the newly discovered planets do not rule any signs. But that is me.

Intuitively I have to agree with you here.

This has made me particularly interested in Leo and Cancer though... Do you think these signs differ significantly to the rest due to being ruled by the Sun and the Moon?
 

Rawiri

Well-known member
Sorry for the delay in replying.

I haven't found them to differ in any significant way to other signs (other than how the signs differ to each other). Although there is philosophical importance to them - but practically I haven't seen anything.
 

tikana

Well-known member
taurus - fertility - venus - motherhood
libra- beauty - venus
gemini -thinker
virgo -planner
both need merc
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member

Taurus that is an awesome question. I have wondered this too. Thanks.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF SIGN RULERSHIP http://www.skyscript.co.uk/rulership.html :smile:


Book I Tetrabiblos Ptolemy gives basis for sign rulership as
the symmetrical pattern that extends from the luminaries.
Pivotal point is the relationship of the Sun to the Earth.
Hence distribution of planets to signs begins at the cusp between Cancer and Leo
where the power of the Sun is greatest
(at least in the northern hemisphere where astrology evolved).


Since the most productive of heat and warmth are Cancer and Leo,
these were assigned to greatest and most powerful heavenly bodies,
the luminaries, as houses.
Leo, which is masculine, to the Sun
and
Cancer, which is feminine, to the Moon.



The five visible planets are distributed between ten remaining signs
in such a way that each has a 'day house' in a masculine sign
and
a 'nocturnal house' in a feminine sign.
(It is, of course, fitting that the luminaries rule only one sign each since the Sun loses its power in a feminine sign,
just as the Moon loses its potency in masculine signs.)

sign_rulers.gif

The androgynous planet Mercury
governs those signs - Gemini and Virgo
- that adjoin the home of the masculine Sun
and
that of the feminine Moon,
in keeping with its asexual nature.
Ptolemy pointed out that Mercury is never further from the Sun than one sign in either direction
so it is appropriate that the cusps of its signs preserve this relationship with the cusp of the sign of the Sun.


Following Mercury is Venus,
the fertility goddess,
governing signs which Ptolemy described as 'extremely fertile': Taurus and Libra.
Venus is a benefic planet
the friendly sextile between the beginning of Leo and the cusps of her signs
again preserve the astronomical relationship between Venus and the Sun
by keeping them within the distance of two signs.


Next comes Mars, designated to Aries and Scorpio because,
according to Ptolemy, they are agreeable to its destructive and inharmonious nature,
and form a hostile square aspect to the 'houses' of the luminaries.


Jupiter, the 'Greater Benefic', governs the signs that form a harmonious trine aspect to the luminaries
- Sagittarius and Pisces.


Saturn, the furthest visible planet from the Sun,
is given rulership of the signs that are most distant from the Sun's 'home': Capricorn and Aquarius.
These are the signs of the coldest, wintry weather,
their unfriendly aspect to the signs of the luminaries
befitting the destructive nature of the 'Greater Malefic'.Deborah Houlding
 

david starling

Well-known member
Hi,

I am quite new to this and I was wondering if someone could explain a little more why these two planets rule two signs and others only rule one.

Take Venus for example. It rules Taurus and Libra but Taurus is not like Libra. Some say Earth really rules Taurus instead, and some say a different side of Venus rules it.

As an example, I was also wondering why the Sun, the Moon, and Mars don't rule 2 signs as well.

Taurus9, there's a straightforward explanation for why the Moon and Sun were originally ("Traditionally") each given Rulership over one Sign,
and the Planets were each given 2 Signs to Rule: The Moon and Sun move in only ONE direction around the Zodiac, whereas the Planets move in 2 ways, Direct and Retrograde. As for why your question is so astute, as far as which Planets you chose to ask about: Modern Astrologers have broken with the Traditional view (so ably explained by JUPITERASCENDING) by giving only one-Sign Rulership to all Planets EXCEPT Mercury and Venus.This is done by including the 2 Planets, Uranus and Neptune, and the MUCH smaller Astrological Planet Pluto (now classified by most Astronomers as a "dwarf-planet"), which are outside of Saturn's orbit, as Sign-rulers. The reason Mercury and Venus differ from the rest is that their orbits are INSIDE Earth's orbit, so they remain close to the Sun and appear as both Morning and Evening Celestial bodies. So, appearing in these 2 guises, they continue to Rule 2 Signs each in Modern Astrology, (the Same 2 Signs they Rule Traditionally).:cool:
 
Last edited:

CapAquaPis

Well-known member
Mercury and Venus should also represent androgyny: although Mercury is a god (male) and Venus a goddess (female). Mercury in Gemini (masculine sign) is of communication, Mercury in Virgo (feminine) one of vanity. Venus in Taurus is feminine (an earth sign like Virgo related to fertility, so is Capricorn), Venus in Libra is masculine (the scales shifting balance, air signs like Gemini and Aquarius are about spiritual dual nature). Mercury sometimes cannot be seen when the Sun blocks it when the closest planet is on the other side of the Sun, and Venus has "morning star" and "evening star" phases, some ancients felt Venus was really two planets until proven to be false. David starling, traditional astrologers still use Mars as the ruling planet of Scorpio instead of Pluto.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
.........Modern Astrologers have broken with the Traditional view
by giving only one-Sign Rulership to all Planets EXCEPT Mercury and Venus.

Modern Astrologers state that Mars continues to rule the two signs Aries and Scorpio
and
dwarf planet pluto being considered an astrological planet
means
for modern astrologers
dwarf planet pluto has co-rulership of Scorpio

This is done by including the 2 Planets, Uranus and Neptune,
Modern Astrologers rulership of Aquarius is given to Saturn with co-rulership by Uranus
Modern Astrologers rulership of Pisces is given to Jupiter with co-rulership by Neptune

and the MUCH smaller Astrological Planet Pluto
(now classified by most Astronomers as a "dwarf-planet"),
size of dwarf planet pluto illustrated in comparison with planets


hqdefault.jpg
which are outside of Saturn's orbit, as Sign-rulers.
The reason Mercury and Venus differ from the rest is that their orbits are INSIDE Earth's orbit,
so they remain close to the Sun and appear as both Morning and Evening Celestial bodies.
So, appearing in these 2 guises, they continue to Rule 2 Signs each in Modern Astrology, (the Same 2 Signs they Rule Traditionally).:cool:
the fact is
that no Modern Astrologer has crammed any newly discovered planets :smile:
into the two thousand year old PLANETARY DIGNITIES TABLE
http://gregoryrozek.com/en/astrology/astrological-tables/
 

CapAquaPis

Well-known member
Out of interest, has anyone here actually experienced seeing the 'newly discovered' outer planets?

Yes, the discovery of Eris (bigger than Pluto) and reclassification of Ceres (a spherical asteroid) can determine a whole new way to examine the relationship of planets with zodiacal signs in astrology. Some astrologers place Ceres as a co-ruler of Taurus and Virgo (maybe Cancer), and Eris a co-ruler of Gemini and Libra (maybe Leo). There are a few who believe the Sun may co-rule Cancer, while the Moon may co-rule Leo. The discovery of Sedna (farthest celestial object in our solar system) is up for debate. And there's the rearrangement of planetary rulers in this new "Millennial Astrology" listing I will share below:
Sun-Aries, Mercury-Taurus, Venus-Gemini, Moon-Cancer, Mars-Leo, Jupiter-Virgo, Saturn-Libra, Uranus-Scorpio, Neptune-Sagittarius, Pluto-Capricorn, Eris-Aquarius, Sedna-Pisces.
Then you have to consider Ophiuchus, probably have Chiron as the ruler planet of the 13th sign. And my personal belief Orion can be an additional sign (making the astrological zodiac have 14), how about Lilith as it's ruler? Lilith is the Earth's other natural satellite, but very small compared to the Moon in size and diameter.
All I know is both traditional and modern astrologers agree Mercury and Venus each rules two signs of the zodiac.
 

david starling

Well-known member
CapAquaPis, I started a Thread in the Modern Astrology section where your post would fit right in. Great Forum for innovative ideas like yours on "Sign Rulership" (the title of the Thread) . It's about sharing, and where there are differences of opinion, friendly disagreement with reasons given. Please check it out, and maybe even join in.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Years ago,

I viewed Neptune

at the Mt. Palomar Observatory.

Very impressive.
The cost of the equipment
with which you viewed Neptune from Mt. Palomar Observatory
is very impressive as well
i.e.
millions of dollars
:smile:


Summer of 1903
encouraged by reports
Hale visited Mt. Wilson
a 5700 foot peak overlooking relatively unpopulated cities of Los Angeles and Pasadena.

Hale was so encouraged by the possibilities of the mountaintop site
he relocated his family to Pasadena
and later played a prominent role in the establishment of the California Institute of Technology there
and began to make plans for what would become
Mount Wilson Observatory https://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/cosmology/tools/tools-rebirth.htm

Hale's first action was to build a telescope
especially designed for solar observing on Mt. Wilson
aided by a $300,000 grant from the Carnegie Institution in December 1904
that would be roughly ten times as much in modern dollars

 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Out of interest,
has anyone here actually experienced seeing the 'newly discovered' outer planets?
Most would have viewed the 'newly discovered' outer planets
using artificial aids to vision such as expensive telescopes
sometimes costing millions if not billions of dollars

Although it is THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE to view the 'newly discovered' outer planets 'from ones own back yard'
the fact is
due to light pollution in cities and towns
as well as the vast distances from the sun of the 'newly discovered' outer planets
in reality
unless one is located rurally
with optimum viewing conditions
clear skies
accompanied by a map of the current approximate location of the particular 'newly discovered' outer one is interested to view
and unless one is expert at locating the 'newly discovered outers'
as well as having a telecope costing several thousand dollars
one is unlikely to see them


The most visible of the 'newly discovered outers' is Uranus
and I have quite by change seen Uranus one clear night :smile:
scanning the skies for interesting phenomena
when located rurally
skies were clear, weather was fine, I was not looking for Uranus
but noticed Uranus by chance
when viewing another planet close by in the same area of the skies
 
Top