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?
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
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: 649
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: 649
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
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1797
Location: California, USA

Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2021 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

May I contribute the sidereal perspective on Aries and Pluto?

Tropical Aries is said to be daring, energetic, rash and impulsive. These traits don’t match Pluto’s observed character. Modern Jyotish astrologers very mistakenly copy these tropical traits to sidereal Aries. The early Fagan sidereal school astrologers knew better. They insisted that the sidereal zodiac must display the traits of the so-called tropical signs in the same area of the ecliptic. (These early astrologers such as Cyril Fagan himself came to believe that the tropical zodiac was an illusion.)

Sidereal Aries (which underlies tropical Taurus in the sky) displays Taurus traits that can be related to an internally directed Mars: will power sometimes expressed as a tenacious stubbornness, as well as a quiet determination and resolve. (Consider that the lord of Taurus, Venus, and the exalted planet, Moon, are anything but stubborn and tenacious.)

We see this tenacity and single-minded concentration in the late race car driver Dale Earnhardt, who had Mercury, Sun and Mars in sidereal Aries in the 10th house. With Earnhardt we also see the sidereal Aries rulership of Mars in his career choice of racing vehicles.

Western sidereal astrologers of the Fagan school suggest Pluto as the new co-ruler of Aries. It's interesting that the ancient Zoroastrian Fragment derived from Gregory of Nicaea assigned Pluto as the co-inhabitant of Aries along with Mars. (Project Hindsight reference posted on request; I don't have it on hand at the moment.)

As a plausible co-lord of Aries, Pluto’s history is particularly interesting. Called Hades in ancient Greece, he was given the portion of the underworld as his domain. The one-eyed cyclops (an interesting reference to the numeral One—Aries is the first sign of the zodiac)—presented Hades with the cap of invisibility, a symbol that his realm was not visible to mortal eyes. It can be noted that those with many planets in Aries often don't feel the need to share thoughts or feelings with other people. They can be maddingly uncommunicative.

The role of Hades became greatly expanded as the link formed between Greece and Rome. Re-named Pluto, the god of the underworld was called the all-receiver, who gave rest to those who had toiled for a lifetime on earth. People prayed to Pluto to bless the seed placed in the earth, and depended on his help for plentiful crops. (I call sidereal Aries the ‘seed state’ of the zodiac whereas Taurus–with traits of tropical Gemini–is the rushing forth of spring growth and energy.)

Virginia Beach clairvoyant Edgar Cayce made the thought provoking statement that "Pluto and Vulcan are one and the same." If so, then Pluto may also be related to volcanic eruptions and underground explosions. Vulcan was the smith for the Olympian gods and worked daily at his fiery forge beneath the earth.

These notes primarily from: http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/AAries.htm
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Michael Sternbach
Moderator


Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 649
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2021 8:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese Hamilton wrote:
May I contribute the sidereal perspective on Aries and Pluto?


Of course you are welcome to do so, Therese. Smile

Quote:
Tropical Aries is said to be daring, energetic, rash and impulsive. These traits don’t match Pluto’s observed character.


Well, Pluto is usually seen as the ruler of tropical Scorpio, a sign that actually shares the gist of these traits with Aries, although mostly in a muted, internalized kind of way - in line with it being a fixed and a water sign. By contrast, Pluto in cardinal fire would be far more expressive.

So I wonder if our perception of the planet has been somewhat biased towards its 'yin' side due to our preconceived notion of Pluto being (just) the lord of Scorpio.

That said, just drive that Scorpio friend or relative of yours over the edge one day and you will henceforth remember how explosive they can actually be! Shocked

Quote:
Modern Jyotish astrologers very mistakenly copy these tropical traits to sidereal Aries. The early Fagan sidereal school astrologers knew better. They insisted that the sidereal zodiac must display the traits of the so-called tropical signs in the same area of the ecliptic. (These early astrologers such as Cyril Fagan himself came to believe that the tropical zodiac was an illusion.)

Sidereal Aries (which underlies tropical Taurus in the sky) displays Taurus traits that can be related to an internally directed Mars: will power sometimes expressed as a tenacious stubbornness, as well as a quiet determination and resolve.


But I thought you consider sidereal Aries to be ruled rather by Pluto than by Mars? Confused

Or was it both Pluto and Mars?

Quote:
(Consider that the lord of Taurus, Venus, and the exalted planet, Moon, are anything but stubborn and tenacious.)


Except when Venus has set her heart on someone she is deeply in love with! Wink

At any rate, again we need to consider that, in the case of tropical Taurus, we are talking about Venus' traditional domicile in a fixed and an Earth sign. As you know, every planet (except the Luminaries, of course) is allocated to two signs in the traditional scheme. And at the end of the day, the same may hold true for the trans-Saturnians as well.

Personally, I consider the hypothetical planet Bacchus (also called Isis and whatnot by others) to be the primary ruler of Taurus - at least until further notice. And I seem to remember that you assign a hypothetical planet to (sidereal) Taurus yourself.)

Quote:
We see this tenacity and single-minded concentration in the late race car driver Dale Earnhardt, who had Mercury, Sun and Mars in sidereal Aries in the 10th house. With Earnhardt we also see the sidereal Aries rulership of Mars in his career choice of racing vehicles.

Western sidereal astrologers of the Fagan school suggest Pluto as the new co-ruler of Aries. It's interesting that the ancient Zoroastrian Fragment derived from Gregory of Nicaea assigned Pluto as the co-inhabitant of Aries along with Mars. (Project Hindsight reference posted on request; I don't have it on hand at the moment.)


Awesome. I would appreciate that reference, Therese.

Also, some references to those Fagan school representatives you mentioned would be good to have.

Quote:
As a plausible co-lord of Aries, Pluto’s history is particularly interesting. Called Hades in ancient Greece, he was given the portion of the underworld as his domain. The one-eyed cyclops (an interesting reference to the numeral One—Aries is the first sign of the zodiac)—presented Hades with the cap of invisibility, a symbol that his realm was not visible to mortal eyes. It can be noted that those with many planets in Aries often don't feel the need to share thoughts or feelings with other people. They can be maddingly uncommunicative.

The role of Hades became greatly expanded as the link formed between Greece and Rome. Re-named Pluto, the god of the underworld was called the all-receiver, who gave rest to those who had toiled for a lifetime on earth. People prayed to Pluto to bless the seed placed in the earth, and depended on his help for plentiful crops. (I call sidereal Aries the ‘seed state’ of the zodiac whereas Taurus–with traits of tropical Gemini–is the rushing forth of spring growth and energy.)


I see Aries and Pluto as 'seminal' forces too.

Quote:
Virginia Beach clairvoyant Edgar Cayce made the thought provoking statement that "Pluto and Vulcan are one and the same." If so, then Pluto may also be related to volcanic eruptions and underground explosions. Vulcan was the smith for the Olympian gods and worked daily at his fiery forge beneath the earth.


Indeed, Pluto seems related to volcanic activity and to the Graeco-Roman deity in charge of the latter respectively.

BTW, 'Vulcan' was the name proposed by William Shattner for one of Pluto's smaller moons, supported by some 100k tweeting Trekkies. It was not officially accepted, though, which I am kind of glad about, as I am still hoping for at least a vulcanoid in the vicinity of the Sun to be detected one day, worthy of the name 'Vulcan'.

However, there is a large plain on Pluto's major moon Charon called 'Vulcan Planum'; it contains four craters named after Star Trek characters. Laughing

Quote:
These notes primarily from: http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/AAries.htm

_________________
_________________

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



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1797
Location: California, USA

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2021 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael, thanks for your reply! I'll answer your post in sections as you touched on a number of different concepts.

Michael wrote:
Quote:
But I thought you consider sidereal Aries to be ruled rather by Pluto than by Mars? Confused
Or was it both Pluto and Mars?

I accept the classical rulerships of signs, but I think there is wisdom in the Hellenistic triplicity assignments. So Jupiter and the Sun are given to Aries, but not Mars as Mars is a nocturnal planet and (sidereally) is more outwardly expressive in Scorpio (traits of tropical Sagittarius). Mars, of course, is the primary triplicity lord of Cancer, Scorpio, Pisces. This is one planetary explanation of the observed traits of those sidereal signs: sidereal Mars as triplicity lord; zodiac area of tropical 'fire' signs.

Sidereal Aries partakes of Pluto's symbolism, but the ancient Mars rulership still holds. We perhaps are evolving to apply the new planets as co-sign rulers, but I'm not sure how far we have traveled in that direction. From observation, I'd say that characteristics of Uranus/Aquarius, Neptune/Pisces and Pluto/Aries can be observed in the (sidereal) signs, but to consider using those planets as actual rulers needs a lot more research.

Quote:
Therese wrote:
Western sidereal astrologers of the Fagan school suggest Pluto as the new co-ruler of Aries. It's interesting that the ancient Zoroastrian Fragment derived from Gregory of Nicaea assigned Pluto as the co-inhabitant of Aries along with Mars. (Project Hindsight reference posted on request; I don't have it on hand at the moment.)

Michael replied:
Awesome. I would appreciate that reference, Therese.

Also, some references to those Fagan school representatives you mentioned would be good to have.

I appreciate the request for references! The Zoroastrian quote is below. It will take more effort to find specific quotes from the early sidereal astrologers because the tropical overlay of sidereal signs is a general tone throughout the early writings. It's interesting that as far as I know, today the two primary advocates of the Fagan sidereal school, Kenneth Bowser and James Eshelman, don't take this approach to signs. This is why we have to go back to the early writings.

The Zorastrian Fragment:

Quote:
And concerning zodiacal habitation, they say that it is divided into six houses in the following fashion: the houses of Kronos are Capricorn and Aquarius; of Zeus, Sagittarius and Pisces; of Ares, Scorpio and Aries; of Aphrodite, Libra and Taurus; of Hermes Virgo and Gemini; of the Sun, Leo and Cancer.

The coinhabitants of these: Apollo with the Sun; Muse with Hermes; Anteros with Aphrodite; Ate with Ares; Hera with Zeus; Rhea with Kronos. These are the coinhabitants for the six zoidia Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn. And next, Poseidon is the coinhabitant with Zeus, Pluto with Ares; Imeros with Aphrodite; [Kronos] with Artemis [Nephele] with Hermes;...And these are the coinhabitants for the other six zoidia, Pisces, Aries, Taurus, Cancer, Gemini, Aquarius.

The Astrological Record of the Early Sages in Greek, translated by Robert Schmidt, Project Hindsight Greek Track, Volume X, The Golden Hind Press, 1995, p. 25.

It's interesting that long before the discovery of Neptune and Pluto, Poseidon was given as co-inhabitant of Pisces and Pluto was given to Aries. Artemis (Diana) was given to Aquarius. Artemis lived remote from mankind on mountain tops and in forests. In mythology Uranus, now given to Aquarius, is the most remote of all the gods.

Michael, I'll reply to other parts of your message in another post.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm


Last edited by Therese Hamilton on Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:36 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 989
Location: Canada

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eris, a dwarf planet and trans-Neptunian, does have interpretive meaning. See Henry Seltzer's book on The Tenth Planet. At times, the orbit of Eris swings in between Neptune and Pluto, so if one follows the logic of:

Capricorn: Saturn
Aquarius: Uranus
Pisces: Neptune

There is a logic in assigning Eris to Aries.

The evolutionary astrology assignment of Eris to Libra makes no sense to me. Mythological Eris was the sister of Ares (Mars) and was pretty bloodthirsty.

However, I think a modern sign ruler has to work well as a house cusp ruler. Otherwise a mere affinity doesn't make much sense to me.

In modern chart interpretation, Pluto does work well as the co-ruler of Scorpio.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1797
Location: California, USA

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Continuing my reply to Machael's post:

Quote:
Therese wrote:
(Consider that the lord of Taurus, Venus, and the exalted planet, Moon, are anything but stubborn and tenacious.)

Michael replied:
At any rate, again we need to consider that, in the case of tropical Taurus, we are talking about Venus' traditional domicile in a fixed and an Earth sign.

And here we have a perfect example of why the two zodiacs continue to exist with firm believers on both sides. Siderealists align sign traits with ruling and exalted planets. With Taurus, Tropical astrologers conveniently ignore traits of Venus and the Moon and default to the so-called elements and qualities.

Quote:
Therese wrote:
Western sidereal astrologers of the Fagan school suggest Pluto as the new co-ruler of Aries.

Michael replied:
Also, some references to those Fagan school representatives you mentioned would be good to have.

The problem with finding multiple references to the writings of the original sidereal astrologers is that many articles and much of the discussion appeared in American Astrology magazine through the years, and is no longer accessible. In the age before instant publishing we are left with only a few difficult-to-find books dating from the 1960s and 1970s. Since I'm a compulsive collector of books, I have those faded tomes in my library.

Pluto-Aries association:

The Solunars Handbook (1970-76) with Cyril Fagan as author re-prints some of the American Astrology articles. On page 32 Fagan states: "Although the sages likened the influence of this constellation [Aries] to that of the warlike Mars, its nature appears to be more akin to Pluto."

In Astrological Origins (1971-73) on page 6 Fagan states that in order to accommodate the outer planets the rulership scheme needs to be expanded. He lists Uranus with Aquarius, Neptune with Pisces and Pluto with Aries.

This Pluto-Aries connection was generally agreed to by the converts to Fagan's sidereal zodiac. James Eshelman's The New Instant Astrologer (1976) on page 19 lists Pluto-Mars as rulers of Aries.

Tropical traits as belonging to underlying sidereal signs:

In The Origin of the Zodiac on page 42 Rupert Gleadow gives an example of how traits of ancient sidereal Leo are now given to tropical Virgo. He quotes from Vivian Robson's Students Textbook of Astrology (1922). He gives these traits of Virgo given in Robson's book as traits of Leo from centuries past:

Critical, often destructively so
Impassive
(Often servile) to rich and distinguished people
Fond of telling people their faults
Brave in emergency
Insist on respect

Note: We have David Roell of The Astrology Center of America to thank for attractive reprints of noted tropical texts from past ages such as Robson's and Charles Carter's books.

Here is one of Fagan's comments where he lists inappropriate traits given to tropical Taurus.

Quote:
The meek and mild Moon is exalted in Taurus which is the nocturnal house of the peace-loving and amorous Venus. Such being the case, is it not obvious that the vision of the tropical Taurus as "...a confident, proud and bold man, fond of opposition and proud of his strength..." (Lilly) totally belies the essential natures of those two "boudoir" bodies?

Cyril Fagan, Astrological Origins, Llewellyn Publications, 1973, p.97.

The general tone through these early writings is that many traits of tropical signs in textbooks are better suited to the previous (in the zodiac) underlying sidereal sign. Sometimes historical texts by Valens and others are cited, especially by Rupert Gleadow in Your Character in the Zodiac (1968). Today, as I mentioned earlier, Jyotish astrologers simply copy traits of tropical signs to sidereal signs of the same name. Of this policy, Fagan says:

Quote:
But the influences of the tropical signs must never be identified with their namesakes of the sidereal zodiac. To do so is to fall foul of the homonymous error. Those who dispute the validity of the sidereal zodiac are usually beguiled by the homonymous fallacy.

Cyril Fagan, The Solunars Handbook, Clancy Publications, 1970-76, p. 27.

_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1797
Location: California, USA

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Waybread wrote:
Quote:
In modern chart interpretation, Pluto does work well as the co-ruler of Scorpio.

I agree that in the Tropical zodiac, Pluto has much more affinity with Scorpio than Aries. That's why I introduced the sidereal perspective which (as I see it) is the only way that Pluto makes sense as associated with Aries. I like the Zorastrian word 'co-inhabitant' of associated Gods in the signs. This seems to say 'living or residing there' rather than as rulers in the classical sense.

As I said, I clearly see the mythological connection of the Gods Uranus, Neptune and Pluto to the sidereal signs of Aquarius, Pisces and Aries. And I very much welcome the opportunity to present the sidereal view here on Skyscript!

But if we're talking about the co-rulership of signs, I think these need to be drawn from the main pantheon of Greek gods, and Eris is not among them. These twelve gods are discussed in a paper by Ken Gilman: "Planetary Gods: Twelve Gods and Seven Planets." I have this article in hard copy, and hope that it's still posted on the Internet.

Checking: Yes!! It's still here: http://cura.free.fr/decem/10kengil.html
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1797
Location: California, USA

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2021 3:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just very belatedly realized that if what Edgar Cayce said is true: "Pluto and Vulcan are one and the same." (reading #826-eight), I at least have been confusing Pluton/Hades with Hephaestus/Vulcan, the smith god for the Olympians. They both have realms under the earth. If the new planet we call Pluto is actually related to fire (Vulcan was the God of Fire), then the name 'Pluto' may be misleading.

Then it's interesting that the sign opposite to Aries (Libra) is ruled by Venus who was married to Hephaestus/Vulcan. So Hades/Pluton isn't really the god related to the planet we call 'Pluto' if we equate Pluto to Hades, the god who ruled the Underworld.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 989
Location: Canada

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually, from a mythological perspective it is hard to make a case for Uranus and even Saturn as major gods. Uranus was an undifferentiated sky god, as consort to Gaia, Mother Earth. Saturn usurped Uranus's supremacy, just as Jupiter ousted Saturn. Uranus and Saturn were not Olympians.

The sun was originally ruled by the minor god Phoebus, but the sun became increasingly assimilated to Apollo in late Antiquity.

Then we have a problem with some really major Greco-Roman gods not being represented by planets, such as Athena/Minerva and Ceres/Demeter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
annadeer



Joined: 25 Jun 2020
Posts: 33

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Simply sticking to their mythological characteristics, Mars as a ruler of Aries and Pluto as ruler of Scorpio is the only interpretation that makes sense to me.

Ares/Mars was impulsive, fiery, explosive, angry, with no self-control, unable to keep things hidden -- think of the story in which Hephaistos captures him in a net while he was making love to Hephaistus' wife

Pluto ('the wealthy one or giver of wealth')/Hades ('the unseen one'), lord of the underworld, of death and abundance, is all about control and mystery.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Sternbach
Moderator


Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 649
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2021 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Michael, thanks for your reply! I'll answer your post in sections as you touched on a number of different concepts.

Michael wrote:
Quote:
But I thought you consider sidereal Aries to be ruled rather by Pluto than by Mars? Confused
Or was it both Pluto and Mars?

I accept the classical rulerships of signs, but I think there is wisdom in the Hellenistic triplicity assignments. So Jupiter and the Sun are given to Aries, but not Mars as Mars is a nocturnal planet and (sidereally) is more outwardly expressive in Scorpio (traits of tropical Sagittarius).


Mars is indeed a nocturnal planet according to the ancients - which could be seen as an argument in support of his primary rulership over Scorpio, while Pluto would be the primary ruler of Aries.

Quote:
Mars, of course, is the primary triplicity lord of Cancer, Scorpio, Pisces. This is one planetary explanation of the observed traits of those sidereal signs: sidereal Mars as triplicity lord; zodiac area of tropical 'fire' signs.

Sidereal Aries partakes of Pluto's symbolism, but the ancient Mars rulership still holds. We perhaps are evolving to apply the new planets as co-sign rulers, but I'm not sure how far we have traveled in that direction. From observation, I'd say that characteristics of Uranus/Aquarius, Neptune/Pisces and Pluto/Aries can be observed in the (sidereal) signs, but to consider using those planets as actual rulers needs a lot more research.

Quote:
Therese wrote:
Western sidereal astrologers of the Fagan school suggest Pluto as the new co-ruler of Aries. It's interesting that the ancient Zoroastrian Fragment derived from Gregory of Nicaea assigned Pluto as the co-inhabitant of Aries along with Mars. (Project Hindsight reference posted on request; I don't have it on hand at the moment.)

Michael replied:
Awesome. I would appreciate that reference, Therese.

Also, some references to those Fagan school representatives you mentioned would be good to have.

I appreciate the request for references! The Zoroastrian quote is below. It will take more effort to find specific quotes from the early sidereal astrologers because the tropical overlay of sidereal signs is a general tone throughout the early writings. It's interesting that as far as I know, today the two primary advocates of the Fagan sidereal school, Kenneth Bowser and James Eshelman, don't take this approach to signs. This is why we have to go back to the early writings.

The Zorastrian Fragment:

Quote:
And concerning zodiacal habitation, they say that it is divided into six houses in the following fashion: the houses of Kronos are Capricorn and Aquarius; of Zeus, Sagittarius and Pisces; of Ares, Scorpio and Aries; of Aphrodite, Libra and Taurus; of Hermes Virgo and Gemini; of the Sun, Leo and Cancer.

The coinhabitants of these: Apollo with the Sun; Muse with Hermes; Anteros with Aphrodite; Ate with Ares; Hera with Zeus; Rhea with Kronos. These are the coinhabitants for the six zoidia Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn. And next, Poseidon is the coinhabitant with Zeus, Pluto with Ares; Imeros with Aphrodite; [Kronos] with Artemis [Nephele] with Hermes;...And these are the coinhabitants for the other six zoidia, Pisces, Aries, Taurus, Cancer, Gemini, Aquarius.

The Astrological Record of the Early Sages in Greek, translated by Robert Schmidt, Project Hindsight Greek Track, Volume X, The Golden Hind Press, 1995, p. 25.

It's interesting that long before the discovery of Neptune and Pluto, Poseidon was given as co-inhabitant of Pisces and Pluto was given to Aries. Artemis (Diana) was given to Aquarius. Artemis lived remote from mankind on mountain tops and in forests. In mythology Uranus, now given to Aquarius, is the most remote of all the gods.


Thank you Therese, your reference enabled me to locate the passage in my own set of Project Hindsight translations. Smile

In a footnote, Robert Hand calls the sentence in question 'corrupt' and had a go at fixing it as best he could. Still, it seems rather jumbled.

At any rate, it's really fascinating that Poseidon joins Zeus and Pluto (more properly Pluton) joins Ares as the rulers of Pisces and Aries, respectively.

Also, I am intrigued by the assignment of Imeros (the god of erotic craving) to Taurus; not only was he one of Aphrodite's twin companions right from her birth from the seafoam (other sources say she was born already pregnant with him), he is also frequently associated with Dionysos/Bacchus, as evidenced by numerous artistic depictions.

https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/himeros-e513720#

This I find remarkable in light of Taurus' assignment to hypothetical Transpluto/Bacchus, co-ruling the sign along with Venus/Aphrodite - a theory that holds up well in my personal research.

On top of that, Dionysos/Bacchus was a partner of Aphrodite's and had (depending on the particular source) one or several children with her.

Quote:
Michael, I'll reply to other parts of your message in another post.

_________________
_________________

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


Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 649
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2021 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

waybread wrote:
Eris, a dwarf planet and trans-Neptunian, does have interpretive meaning. See Henry Seltzer's book on The Tenth Planet. At times, the orbit of Eris swings in between Neptune and Pluto, so if one follows the logic of:

Capricorn: Saturn
Aquarius: Uranus
Pisces: Neptune

There is a logic in assigning Eris to Aries.

The evolutionary astrology assignment of Eris to Libra makes no sense to me. Mythological Eris was the sister of Ares (Mars) and was pretty bloodthirsty.


This I would subscribe to anytime. However...

Quote:
However, I think a modern sign ruler has to work well as a house cusp ruler. Otherwise a mere affinity doesn't make much sense to me.

In modern chart interpretation, Pluto does work well as the co-ruler of Scorpio.


If Eris were the ruler of Aries, and Pluto the ruler of Scorpio, where are you going to put Mars? Confused
_________________
_________________

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



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1797
Location: California, USA

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2021 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Waybread wrote:

Quote:
Actually, from a mythological perspective it is hard to make a case for Uranus and even Saturn as major gods. Uranus was an undifferentiated sky god, as consort to Gaia, Mother Earth. Saturn usurped Uranus's supremacy, just as Jupiter ousted Saturn. Uranus and Saturn were not Olympians.

This is all true. I was thinking in terms of the pantheon of Gods, and of course both Uranus and Saturn are progenitors of the Olympians, so above (or behind) them genealogically. I suppose what I meant was that I'd want to see planetary co-rulers high on the pantheon list.

Quote:
Then we have a problem with some really major Greco-Roman gods not being represented by planets, such as Athena/Minerva and Ceres/Demeter.

Well, there just aren't enough planets to go around!
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
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