Talk:Exaltation (astrology)

Degree
I was wandering how important the degree within the signs listed actually is. I understand that a planet is considered strongest when it happens to exactly coincide with that degree of its exaltation. Now if its position is just a little removed, I assume it means it is still stronger, but not as strong as it would be if it was exactly there. Now what orbis does one assume ? How many degrees distance from the precise d. of ex. still means some additional strength (compared to another horoscope where it is far away) ? And is it decreasing exactly by distance, like in a regular curve; or does it matter (more), if it is still in the same sign "of exaltation"?

- That did not become clear to me from the article; perhaps someone who knows could add and clarify that.147.142.186.54 13:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong values cited for the exaltations
What is the source for the cited values of the planetary exaltations? Some are wrong - that of the Sun is in 19 Aries, Jupiter is in 15 Cancer and Saturn is in 21 Libra (cf. Bouche-Leclercq, l'Astrologie grecque (Paris, 1899), p. 195; Neugebauer & van Hoesen, Greek Horoscopes (Philadelphia, 1959), p. 7). In Islamic astrology the lunar nodes were also recognized as planets - their exaltations are 3 Gemini (ascending node) and 3 Sagittarius (descending node). AstroLynx (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There are lots of sources for this information. Not sure if you need another since you've referred to one that agrees with the principle of what is generally taught, so the figures are now correct.  I am going to remove the references to Neptune and Uranus having exaltations because that is not a mainstream view, as the commentary at the end of the page explains.


 * Should we then not also remove the alternative value cited for Jupiter with an obscure reference to 'Vedic astrology'? I would also suggest adding the values for the lunar nodes as they play an important role in Islamic and medieval European astrology. AstroLynx (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Didn't notice that one. I'll add the reference to the node's with a citation. Cheers --  Zac   Δ talk! 07:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Exaltations are not my speciality nor part of my practice, so my comments may not be helpful. I am glad there is mention of Rochberg's analysis of the 'secret houses' as I think this thread from Babylon is significant and interesting.  However, though exaltation was originally based on degree points, modern textbooks by historians (e.g. Campion, Ultimate Astrologer, 2002 p.29) refer to a sign of exaltation (while in many cases acknowledging the degree).  Hone (1951) only refers to signs.  It seems that while this modern concept of sign exaltation is mentioned in the article, it is not made clear. I am not sure whether this can be done - maybe a table like this:-


 * etc...   Robert Currey   talk  08:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)