271
Michael Sternbach wrote:
I extend this scheme to include Uranus as the co-ruler of Capricorn, and for the other trans-Saturnians likewise, as I have demonstrated above.
From a completely different angle I can see where one could argue an association between Uranus and Capricorn. While I went with the notion of a Mars-Sun association here and a corresponding hot/dry nature taking me to Aries one could take a contrary view. In particular, if you view Uranus as of a cold/dry nature we come back to Saturn. Capricorn is a cardinal sign and as I have suggested earlier Uranus seems to resonate with that quality of sign.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

273
Charles Carter says that Uranus, to him, has special affinities with evem Scorpio and Sagittarius and Capricorn.
He doesn't specify why it should be with Capricorn (but it seems like it is a very popular point of view: just as Mark said, probably is because the cardinal mode is nearest to Uranus).
About Scorpio, he tells about a tendency to resentment and generally to the intensity of feeling.
About Sagittarius, he speaks of something quite nervous in the sign that it is quite un-Jovian.
Personally I think, that to try to classify the transsaturnians with precise theoretical structure is a waste of time. We can speak about the special affinity between those planets and the zodiac signs, but not with the domicile-exile thing: why should Uranus be antisolar, if the Sun has great similarities with it? Just because someone said that Uranus is ruler of Aquarius?

274
As others have said on this long thread, Uranus basically works as the modern ruler of (or watered-down, as having a special affinity with) Aquarius within a modern astrology framework. If one could shoehorn it into a more traditional framework of essential dignities or the four humours, it wouldn't be Uranus.

Too often, astrologers focus merely on the disruptive or sudden change nature of Uranus, without considering pragmatically how it functions in horoscopes, or its modern rulerships of science, aviation, and electricity.

275
francescomanfredi wrote:Charles Carter says that Uranus, to him, has special affinities with evem Scorpio and Sagittarius and Capricorn.
Uranus having a special affinity with Scorpio is in line with its exaltation in that sign, a thesis widely accepted in modern astrology.
He doesn't specify why it should be with Capricorn (but it seems like it is a very popular point of view: just as Mark said, probably is because the cardinal mode is nearest to Uranus).
I am not aware that this is a "very popular point of view", in fact Carter is the first astrologer (other than myself) that I hear proposing the Uranus/Capricorn connection.

I have summarized a number of reasons why Uranus could qualify as the co-ruler of Aquarius here:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... &start=240

See my post of Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:59 pm
About Scorpio, he tells about a tendency to resentment and generally to the intensity of feeling.
About Sagittarius, he speaks of something quite nervous in the sign that it is quite un-Jovian.
Let's however not forget that Sagittarius is one of the mutable signs. In human expression, they all tend to make for a sensitive nerve system.

More prominently, Uranus and Jupiter (and their corresponding signs, respectively), share things like higher aspirations and idealism, each in their particular ways.
Personally I think, that to try to classify the transsaturnians with precise theoretical structure is a waste of time. We can speak about the special affinity between those planets and the zodiac signs, but not with the domicile-exile thing: why should Uranus be antisolar, if the Sun has great similarities with it? Just because someone said that Uranus is ruler of Aquarius?
According to the traditional "domicile-exile thing", Saturn in Aquarius is placed opposite to the Sun in Leo, but he is not really "antisolar" because of that; in fact he was seen as "another Sun" or "a Sun in disguise" (Franz Boll: Sternglaube und Sterndeutung).

There is indeed great symmetry underlying both the ancient and the modern domicile scheme. What hinders its recognition is the two still missing sign rulers they apparently haven't been discovered yet by the astronomers.

276
I am not aware that this is a "very popular point of view", in fact Carter is the first astrologer (other than myself) that I hear proposing the Uranus/Capricorn connection.
According to the traditional "domicile-exile thing", Saturn in Aquarius is placed opposite to the Sun in Leo, but he is not really "antisolar" because of that; in fact he was seen as "another Sun" or "a Sun in disguise" (Franz Boll: Sternglaube und Sterndeutung).

There is indeed great symmetry underlying both the ancient and the modern domicile scheme. What hinders its recognition is the two still missing sign rulers they apparently haven't been discovered yet by the astronomers.[/quote]



The guy who popularized Uranus as affinity with Capricorn, if I remember correct, is called Semetovsky. Andr? Barbault as well. And here in Italy, the idea of Uranus affinity with Capricorn is widely accepted today.

277
Uranus and Scorpio are a terrible match. I don't see too many modern astrologers making use of modern exaltations. As a sign Scorpio is watery, emotional, secretive, retaliatory. While the modern rulership of Uranus for Aquarius works just fine in chart interpretation, there is at least some commonality with Aries.

Exaltations are older than rulerships, and they have a sextile or trine relationship with one another, thusly:

Aries--sun--trines Leo
Taurus--moon--sextiles Cancer
Gemini--N/A
Cancer--Jupiter--trines Pisces
Leo--N/A
Virgo-- (Mercury--but also ruler)
Libra--Saturn--sextiles Aquarius
Scorpio--N/A
Sagittarius-- N/A
Capricorn--Mars--sextiles Scorpio
Aquarius-- N/A
Pisces--Venus-- sextiles Taurus

To get a Scorpio exaltation in Scorpio using this scheme, you'd be looking for a Uranus rulership of an earth or water sign, minus Taurus which is in opposition.

278
Exaltations are older than rulerships, and they have a sextile or trine relationship with one another, thusly:

Aries--sun--trines Leo
Taurus--moon--sextiles Cancer
Gemini--N/A
Cancer--Jupiter--trines Pisces
Leo--N/A
Virgo-- (Mercury--but also ruler)
Libra--Saturn--sextiles Aquarius
Scorpio--N/A
Sagittarius-- N/A
Capricorn--Mars--sextiles Scorpio
Aquarius-- N/A
Pisces--Venus-- sextiles Taurus

To get a Scorpio exaltation in Scorpio using this scheme, you'd be looking for a Uranus rulership of an earth or water sign, minus Taurus which is in opposition.[/quote]


For such mutable expressions as Mercury and Jupiter, I really don't get why they should have exaltations. Exaltation is supposed to be the most desiderable dignity (Carter explains why), but for such shapechange planets as Mercury and Jupiter there can't only be just one form.
The guy who made manifest the exaltation theory is called Porfirio da Tiro. He explains that diurnal planets are exalted in the sign of trine from their domicile-rulership, while the nocturnal ones are exalted in the sign of sextile.
But no one said if Mercury is nocturnal or diurnal (they say neutral-double-convertible), and Jupiter, that is supposed to be diurnal, receives exaltation by its "nocturnal" rulership (trine from Pisces).
With Uranus, the thing gets even more complicate: do we really know if it is diurnal or nocturnal?

279
Waybread wrote:
As others have said on this long thread, Uranus basically works as the modern ruler of (or watered-down, as having a special affinity with) Aquarius within a modern astrology framework.
I dont deny there are loads of astrologers out there who would agree with you in the wider astrological community. However, as the thousands of words on this thread shows this remains a contested view not a fact.

Waybread wrote:
If one could shoehorn it into a more traditional framework of essential dignities or the four humours, it wouldn't be Uranus.
I dont recall any contemporary astrologers suggesting an attempt to link Uranus into essential dignities in this thread. Although, I know such ideas cropped up in the early 20th century. But it is a very ,very long thread! I picked up Bernadette Brady's idea of an 'association' or affiliation at the start of the thread which is not linked to rulership or dignity in any way.

But I make no apology as a modern astrologer heavily influenced by the traditional sources for seeking to use the system of Aristotelian qualities we apply to all the other planets. Its a pointless quest for you since you dont use that approach to astrology in general. But I find it quite presumptuous of you to seek to close off such exploration for astrologers who dont share your basic preconceptions.

Waybread wrote:
Too often, astrologers focus merely on the disruptive or sudden change nature of Uranus, without considering pragmatically how it functions in horoscopes, or its modern rulerships of science, aviation, and electricity.
I would agree it probably more instructive to exhaustively study Uranus than seek to close down research by assigning it a particular sign at the outset. My reference to Aries in this thread was to challenge some entrenched preconceptions that everything is settled and agreed. It is rather like putting the cart before the horse. But that also applies to the modern astrological assumption that Uranus must rule Aquarius too.

Mark
Last edited by Mark on Sat Apr 25, 2015 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

280
Do we really disagree, Mark?

The last I noticed, exaltations and sign rulerships (domiciles) were part of the essential dignities table.

Yes, apparently the rulership/affinity of Uranus is contested-- by some people on this thread. I've not seen it so contested by more than a tiny minority modern astrologers. Keeping in mind that some of the older 20th century astrologers published ideas that were not subsequently widely adopted.

Please do not misunderstand me. Disagreeing with what a few members post is not tantamount to attempting to "close off discussion." Indeed, alternative view points make for a more lively and interesting discussion than monolithic agreement.

I don't think "exhaustive study" is required to look up Uranus's modern rulerships. Probably most of us own copies of Rex E. Bills, The Rulership Book, as well as multiple "planets in signs," "planets in aspect," and "planets in houses" books. Possibly starting with those modern classics by Robert Hand.

In modern astrology, Uranus by its very nature relates to novelty, breaks with entrenched customs of the past, and innovation. So this thread would seem Uranian in that regard!

281
Waybread wrote:
Do we really disagree, Mark?
Obviously, in practical terms yes. We differ a lot in technique and underlying assumptions. You see Uranus (and as I recall Saturn too) as ruling Aquarius while I see Saturn as its sole ruler. So just as I would fundamentally, differ with a siderealist on how to delineate a chart I similarly dont concur with those using modern rulerships.

Waybread wrote:
The last I noticed, exaltations and sign rulerships (domiciles) were part of the essential dignities table.
Yes. But I never suggested Uranus would ever have a place there.

Waybread wrote:
Yes, apparently the rulership/affinity of Uranus is contested-- by some people on this thread. I've not seen it so contested by more than a tiny minority modern astrologers. Keeping in mind that some of the older 20th century astrologers published ideas that were not subsequently widely adopted.
I intend to take this issue back into the heart of the modern astrological community if I can by writing and hopefully speaking on this topic.

Waybread wrote:
Please do not misunderstand me. Disagreeing with what a few members post is not tantamount to attempting to "close off discussion." Indeed, alternative view points make for a more lively and interesting discussion than monolithic agreement.
Well yes. That we do agree on!

Waybread wrote:
I don't think "exhaustive study" is required to look up Uranus's modern rulerships. Probably most of us own copies of Rex E. Bills, The Rulership Book, as well as multiple "planets in signs," "planets in aspect," and "planets in houses" books. Possibly starting with those modern classics by Robert Hand.
Interesting that Robert Hand himself challenges this rulership today and sees it as a wrong turn for astrology. But I think you may have misunderstood my use of the term research. I am doing research into Uranus in key historical events in history.

Waybread wrote:
In modern astrology, Uranus by its very nature relates to novelty, breaks with entrenched customs of the past, and innovation. So this thread would seem Uranian in that regard!
Perhaps I am trying to start a Counter-Revolution!

I do have Uranus trine my ASC, MC, Jupiter, Venus and Mercury!

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

282
Hi, Mark-- if you would like me to leave this thread, please just say so and I will. I do find this thread fascinating, however-- possibly due to my sun, Mercury, and Venus in Aquarius, and sun-Mars trine Uranus conjunct my MC. Then there's Uranus and Mercury in mutual reception, if we go by Aquarius as the modern ruler of Uranus. Uranus-R-Us!

I still recommend those older books by Robert Hand for beginners learning modern astrology. No doubt Shakespeare regretted how he published some of his earlier plays, yet they stand alone on their own merits independently of the author's own evolving career trajectory.

The qualities he ascribed to Uranus then, however, were typical of a much greater community of astrologers. Interestingly, in his Horoscope Symbols, he was pretty negative towards Aquarius as a sign, but admitted this was primarily to counter the Age of Aquarius mythology.

There has been a recent discussion on this thread about an exaltation sign for Uranus.

Mark, I look forward to whatever you might have to say about Uranus. Counter-Revolution is right up his alley. Challenge the norm, whatever one perceives it to be.

And hey-- on Planet Uranus, people like us are the normal ones.