skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
The Life & Work of Vettius Valens
by Deborah Houlding
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Is Pluto the Ruler of Aries?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Michael Sternbach
Moderator


Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 643
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2021 11:40 pm    Post subject: Is Pluto the Ruler of Aries? Reply with quote

Hi Skyscribes

When with the improvement of astronomical instruments and computational methods Uranus and Neptune were discovered, astrologers reached a consensus to attribute them to Aquarius and Pisces respectively - abandoning or extending the traditional domicile scheme.

In consequence of the modified scheme, it would have made sense to consider the next newly found planet the ruler of Aries. While some astrologers indeed reached that conclusion, Pluto was in fact assigned to a variety of signs over time.

Interestingly, much of that discussion occurred before the planet was actually discovered, and more than one astrologer even correctly foretold its name. This article by Skyscript member Philip Graves gives an excellent overview of the different views presented back then:

https://www.astrolearn.com/astrology-articles/astrologers-on-pluto-1897-1931/

As we all know, Pluto's nomination as the Lord of Scorpio predominated and is accepted by most (although by no means all) astrologers today. This is also the view adopted by yours truly during most of the time that I occupied myself with the art of stargazing, however, I currently reconsider the alternative of seeing this planet as having his domicile in Aries.

While Pluto's character as dark and gloomy seems well established, he is also a force that tends to bring things out in the open (sometimes violently so), not unlike the way shoots break through the soil and grow up into the sunlight with the arrival of spring.

Moreover, Pluto is an essentially solar force in the mind of some notable practitioners and occasionally said to be exalted in Leo, both of which seems quite in line with his potential rulership of Aries, where the Sun has his exaltation.

In the context of this thread, I would love to hear from those of you who are interpreting Pluto in that fashion (or who are at least open to the possibility) the arguments you may have in support of it - be they empirical, mythological, historical or whatever.

Thanks!

Michael
_________________
_________________

Visit my blog:
https://michaelsternbach.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cruiser1



Joined: 27 Sep 2017
Posts: 69
Location: Seattle, WA

Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2021 4:50 am    Post subject: Re: Is Pluto the Ruler of Aries? Reply with quote

Michael Sternbach wrote:
Uranus and Neptune were discovered, astrologers reached a consensus to attribute them to Aquarius and Pisces respectively - abandoning or extending the traditional domicile scheme.
Extending seems more comprehensive than abandoning. Thumbs up Co-rulerships are a thing, and we shouldn't have to limit ourselves to one or the other. As astrologer Steven Forrest wrote in his classic book "The Inner Sky":

"The old rulerships make sense. They work. No need to do away with them. And yet each of the three invisible planets also has an obvious, face-value connection with a particular sign. No need to deny that either."

Michael Sternbach wrote:
Interestingly, much of that discussion occurred before the planet was actually discovered, and more than one astrologer even correctly foretold its name.
The main planets are named after Roman gods, and some of the most major gods are the three brothers (Jupiter/Zeus, Neptune/Poseidon, and Pluto/Hades). Since we already had two of the three godly brothers covered when Pluto was discovered, it makes sense that Pluto would be the one of the main names considered for it, and more importantly Pluto was a missing archetype not yet covered by the other planets.

Astrologers (and astronomers) indeed sometimes consider planets before they're discovered. For example, the eight theoretical Uranian bodies have orbital distances very similar to the Dwarf planets discovered beyond Pluto. None of the Uranian orbits (which are often exactly on the ecliptic) exactly match any real discovered bodies, but the Hamburg School had the right idea of there being additional astrological energies in that area.

Michael Sternbach wrote:
As we all know, Pluto's nomination as the Lord of Scorpio predominated and is accepted by most (although by no means all) astrologers today. This is also the view adopted by yours truly during most of the time that I occupied myself with the art of stargazing, however, I currently reconsider the alternative of seeing this planet as having his domicile in Aries.
The way I learned it, "rulership" just means where a planet's energy is stronger and more intense (although not necessarily easier to deal with). In contrast, an "exalted" sign placement means the planet's energy is more smoothly or easily expressed (although it isn't necessarily stronger than other placements). A person struck with a ruling sign placement can be a something like "driven artist" who's famous but has the potential to be semi-unstable or not always happy. A person infused with an exalted sign placement is more like someone who you might overlook at first, but it turns out they have a happy, balanced, and harmonious life. For example, rulership placements such as Mars in Aries or Moon in Cancer can potentially be "too much of a good thing", and be explosive or otherwise overwhelming to themselves or those around them. However, exalted placements like Mars in Capricorn or Moon in Taurus provide an easy way to manifest and express the Mars or Moon energies, providing balance but also without putting a damper on the potential.

Therefore, it's perfectly ok for any body (even minor bodies like asteroids) to have a "rulership". It's also ok for a body to have multiple signs that it rules (e.g. Mars in Aries and Mars in Scorpio can both be rulerships). That means a sign can have any number of bodies which "rule" it, or express strongly in it. However, one can also define a "primary rulership" for a sign, which is generally the most major body that rules that sign, or has the strongest connection with it. This "main rulership" is needed when drawing dispositor graphs, to decide which planet to go to next, such as seen in Astrolog's Dispositor chart: http://www.astrolog.org/astrolog/screen/disposit.png

Also, rulerships and exaltations don't have to be a strictly black/white yes or no thing, in which a body either rules or doesn't rule a sign. (Although many like to classify things that way, because it makes them easier to think about.) Given the definitions of where a planet expresses more strongly or intensely (rulership) or more smoothly and easily (exaltation), that means for any planet or other body it could potentially be assigned a unique number (say a percentage) for exactly how strongly or smoothly it expresses in each of the 12 signs. If that percentage is high enough, then label it as "ruling" or "exalted" there. That means depending on where one draws the line, a planet or other body can rule zero, one, or multiple signs. A "primary rulership" is simply which planet has the highest percentage for that sign. Asteroids and such that don't resemble any of the major planets are more likely to have meanings that align with multiple signs more equally (and perhaps multiple signs in a weaker manner, since a single sign is less likely to be overly dominant).

Because of this, depending on exactly how strongly one considers Pluto to express in Aries, one might consider that Pluto rules Aries by itself, that Pluto co-rules Aries along with other sign(s) such as Scorpio, that Pluto has a somewhat weaker secondary ruling of Aries, or that Pluto doesn't rule Aries at all.
_________________
Astrolog 7.30 freeware downloads: http://www.astrolog.org/astrolog.htm Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Michael Sternbach
Moderator


Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 643
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cruiser1 wrote:
Michael Sternbach wrote:
Uranus and Neptune were discovered, astrologers reached a consensus to attribute them to Aquarius and Pisces respectively - abandoning or extending the traditional domicile scheme.
Extending seems more comprehensive than abandoning. Thumbs up Co-rulerships are a thing, and we shouldn't have to limit ourselves to one or the other. As astrologer Steven Forrest wrote in his classic book "The Inner Sky":

"The old rulerships make sense. They work. No need to do away with them. And yet each of the three invisible planets also has an obvious, face-value connection with a particular sign. No need to deny that either."


I most certainly agree. The classical rulership scheme with its dipolar symmetry no doubt has a comprehensive coherency and a timeless beauty to it. Moreover, countless generations of astrologers worked with it successfully! Thumbs up

That being said, some modern authors indeed traded in the old scheme for the new one. Consequently, many a modern astrologer tends to neglect the former altogether - most of all when it comes to practical application.

Personally, I like to use the traditional and the modern system in tandem, while I realise that the introduction of the trans-Saturnian planets raises questions yet to be conclusively answered.

E.g., it could be argued that, if some of the signs would have two rulers assigned to them, this should be the case for all of them! Extending the most common modern scheme, this would mean that Uranus would additionally be the co-ruler of Capricorn, Neptune of Sagittarius and - hey! - Pluto of Aries. Very Happy

Depending on how nitpicking you are, you may even want to let the Sun co-rule Cancer, and let the Moon co-rule Leo.

Quote:
Michael Sternbach wrote:
Interestingly, much of that discussion occurred before the planet was actually discovered, and more than one astrologer even correctly foretold its name.
The main planets are named after Roman gods, and some of the most major gods are the three brothers (Jupiter/Zeus, Neptune/Poseidon, and Pluto/Hades). Since we already had two of the three godly brothers covered when Pluto was discovered, it makes sense that Pluto would be the one of the main names considered for it, and more importantly Pluto was a missing archetype not yet covered by the other planets.


That's a viable argument, but along those same lines, it would also have made sense to integrate yet another Olympian - which Hades/Pluto (unlike his brothers Zeus/Jupiter and Poseidon/Neptune and most of the other planetary gods as well) is not.

As a note of historical interest, assigning the twelve Olympians to the twelve sign is just what Marcus Manilius did in his 1st century book Astronomica, although without having the celestial bodies in mind, presumably.

Talking about equating the latter with mythological entities: While Ganymede has reason to be rather content with his jumbo-sized Jupiter moon, I hope that a deity of the prominence of Pallas-Athena/Minerva would be equally satisfied with having no more than an asteroid assigned to her (although one of the bigger ones, to be sure).

But this might actually serve to remind us not to underestimate the influence of the "minors"...

Anyway, I just can't help being impressed with the intuition of those astrologers who evidently knew about Pluto well ahead of his discovery - and also with the power of an archetype to announce itself in such a way before fully taking form in perceived astronomical reality.

Quote:
Astrologers (and astronomers) indeed sometimes consider planets before they're discovered. For example, the eight theoretical Uranian bodies have orbital distances very similar to the Dwarf planets discovered beyond Pluto. None of the Uranian orbits (which are often exactly on the ecliptic) exactly match any real discovered bodies, but the Hamburg School had the right idea of there being additional astrological energies in that area.


Yes, even though the eight Uranian bodies seem to belong more into the realm of "etheric planets" that certain esoteric astrologers (e.g. Alice A. Bailey) talked about.

A similar case, although predicted by astronomers this time, is the elusive 'planet' that became known in astrology as Bacchus and Isis respectively. It stubbornly resists physical detection, even though its effect is pronounced enough, according to my continuing observation thereof.

Quote:
Michael Sternbach wrote:
As we all know, Pluto's nomination as the Lord of Scorpio predominated and is accepted by most (although by no means all) astrologers today. This is also the view adopted by yours truly during most of the time that I occupied myself with the art of stargazing, however, I currently reconsider the alternative of seeing this planet as having his domicile in Aries.
The way I learned it, "rulership" just means where a planet's energy is stronger and more intense (although not necessarily easier to deal with). In contrast, an "exalted" sign placement means the planet's energy is more smoothly or easily expressed (although it isn't necessarily stronger than other placements). A person struck with a ruling sign placement can be a something like "driven artist" who's famous but has the potential to be semi-unstable or not always happy. A person infused with an exalted sign placement is more like someone who you might overlook at first, but it turns out they have a happy, balanced, and harmonious life. For example, rulership placements such as Mars in Aries or Moon in Cancer can potentially be "too much of a good thing", and be explosive or otherwise overwhelming to themselves or those around them. However, exalted placements like Mars in Capricorn or Moon in Taurus provide an easy way to manifest and express the Mars or Moon energies, providing balance but also without putting a damper on the potential.

Therefore, it's perfectly ok for any body (even minor bodies like asteroids) to have a "rulership". It's also ok for a body to have multiple signs that it rules (e.g. Mars in Aries and Mars in Scorpio can both be rulerships). That means a sign can have any number of bodies which "rule" it, or express strongly in it. However, one can also define a "primary rulership" for a sign, which is generally the most major body that rules that sign, or has the strongest connection with it. This "main rulership" is needed when drawing dispositor graphs, to decide which planet to go to next, such as seen in Astrolog's Dispositor chart: http://www.astrolog.org/astrolog/screen/disposit.png


Yes, it seems like you do have to be quite discerning there, after all. Wink

For me, what this boils down to is the question of how astrology ties in with Sacred Geometry and Pythagorean based numerology. The way I look at it, those are the very foundations of our ancient science, after all.

Which happens to be the topic of my forthcoming book, BTW. Very Happy

Quote:
Also, rulerships and exaltations don't have to be a strictly black/white yes or no thing, in which a body either rules or doesn't rule a sign. (Although many like to classify things that way, because it makes them easier to think about.) Given the definitions of where a planet expresses more strongly or intensely (rulership) or more smoothly and easily (exaltation), that means for any planet or other body it could potentially be assigned a unique number (say a percentage) for exactly how strongly or smoothly it expresses in each of the 12 signs. If that percentage is high enough, then label it as "ruling" or "exalted" there. That means depending on where one draws the line, a planet or other body can rule zero, one, or multiple signs. A "primary rulership" is simply which planet has the highest percentage for that sign. Asteroids and such that don't resemble any of the major planets are more likely to have meanings that align with multiple signs more equally (and perhaps multiple signs in a weaker manner, since a single sign is less likely to be overly dominant).


I find your idea of assigning multiple rulerships to a celestial body - albeit of individually varying degrees - quite interesting. Especially in regards to the minor bodies that don't fit into the zodiacal rulership scheme easily. But this view might actually also help clarify the very question I raised in the OP. Confused

Quote:
Because of this, depending on exactly how strongly one considers Pluto to express in Aries, one might consider that Pluto rules Aries by itself, that Pluto co-rules Aries along with other sign(s) such as Scorpio, that Pluto has a somewhat weaker secondary ruling of Aries, or that Pluto doesn't rule Aries at all.


That suggestion seems fair enough. Along those lines, which attributes of Pluto's would you see as supportive of his potential rulership of Aries, if any?
_________________
_________________

Visit my blog:
https://michaelsternbach.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated