13
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:
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.
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.
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:
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. :)

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/ ... os-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.
Michael, I'll reply to other parts of your message in another post.
_________________

Visit my blog:
https://michaelsternbach.wordpress.com/

14
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...
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? :???:
_________________

Visit my blog:
https://michaelsternbach.wordpress.com/

15
Waybread wrote:
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.
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

16
Michael wrote:
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.
I agree that this is an intriguing assignment, especially when compared to the assignment of Anteros (God of mutual love, but also avenging love) to Libra, the other sign of Venus. So Taurus may be more related to sensuality and a freer type of love (Venus combined with exalted Moon??) while Libra is the actual sign of marriage (Saturn exalted, responsibility and social commitment).

The assignment of a god who can also be avenging would go along with some traits of tropical Scorpio (which is in the sky area of sidereal Libra). Somewhere in my library I have a small book by Zip Dobyns where where she mentions the importance of relationships to tropical Scorpio. This is an example of sidereal Libra showing through in the sky area of its tropical Scorpio cousin. In theory, a sign ruled by Mars, the war lord, shouldn't have anything to do with relationships (except breaking or dissolving them).
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

17
Annadeer wrote:
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.
In light of observing how Pluto acts (and considering several psychic readings by Edgar Cayce), I am REALLY wondering now if the planet we call Pluto isn’t related to Hades/Pluton at all, but is instead associated with Vulcan. Because Hades’ realm was the underworld, he wasn’t usually considered one of the Olympians. But Hephaestus/Vulcan was a child or Zeus and Hera (or some say Hera alone).

Therese wrote:
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.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

18
="Therese Hamilton"
In light of observing how Pluto acts (and considering several psychic readings by Edgar Cayce), I am REALLY wondering now if the planet we call Pluto isn’t related to Hades/Pluton at all, but is instead associated with Vulcan. Because Hades’ realm was the underworld, he wasn’t usually considered one of the Olympians. But Hephaestus/Vulcan was a child or Zeus and Hera (or some say Hera alone).
Therese wrote:
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.
[/quote]

good thinking therese - or perhaps good thinking edgar cayce! that would certainly clear up a lot of thoughts around the topic of vulcan that would be cleared up in one feel swoop! i think this has a lot of merit.. thanks for stating all this...

20
Therese, we are not going to change the International Astronomical Union's naming procedures. What we can do is better inform ourselves about mythology and cultural practices from the perspective of scholarship and translations from classical studies. (Vs. from watered-down modern re-tellings.)

This has some relevance for Hellenistic astrology. A planet named Zeus or Jupiter actually meant something in Antiquity in ways often ignored or even belittled today.

Just a great site for English translations of myths from the ancient Greek is www.theoi.com. We may have to look further for Latin authors like Ovid and Virgil but many English translations of Latin authors are now on line.

Eris, BTW is a Greek name. The Roman name is Discordia.

In some sources Eris is depicted as an anthropomorphic goddess. In others she is essentially a personification of strife and warfare. This, BTW, is pretty much the status accorded Uranus/Ouranos, who personifies the starry heavens.

Eris is described in some detail in both Homer (ca 750 BCE,) Hesiod (ca. 700 BCE,) Quintus Smyrnaeus (4th century CE.) The "good" Eris simply stirs men to action, whereas the "bad" Eris is a bloodthirsty war goddess. However, soldiers might worship Eris to request victory in battle. Her parentage differs between sources, but Homer gives it as Zeus and Hera.
https://www.theoi.com/Daimon/Eris.html

If we look at the genealogy of the Roman gods, we get:

Jupiter as the father of the inner planetary gods like Venus and Diana (moon,) with Apollo fathering Mercury. Saturn fathered Zeus, and Uranus fathered Saturn. This theogony sort of accords with distance from the sun.

Mythological Pluto (Hades) is of the same generation as Jupiter. With Scorpio adjacent to Jupiter's sign of Sagittarius, the genealogy works out well enough to assign Scorpio to Pluto.

With Eris as the mythological sister of Mars and with the orbit of astronomical Eris sometimes dipping in between Pluto and Neptune, she fits the orbital schema of planetary rulerships well enough to be assigned to Aries.

21
Therese Hamilton wrote:Continuing my reply to Machael's post:
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.
Not so.

We tropical astrologers recognize the Taurean personality as being exceptionally loyal, caring and devoted in a relationship. And this happens to be how you would expect love planet Venus to express herself in the Earth element/Fixed quality. As a goddess, Venus is not just associated with transient affairs, but also with long-lasting marriage.

However, Taurus is also a pleasure seeking sign, and that most certainly includes sexual pleasures - Venus again.

In keeping with that planet's nature, Taurus folks are also known for their great aesthetic sense and artistic inclinations.

As to the lunar association, Taurus loves tradition, cooking and baking, and is home oriented. These are traits they share with Cancer.

Also, Taureans tend to be a bit lazy and lethargic. The upside of that is that, under most circumstances, they are patience incarnate. Not very reminiscent of the war god, IMHO...
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.
Very interesting. Thanks!
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
Some of these traits (such as "brave in emergencies" and "insists on respect") would actually characterize Leo (i.e., in the modern tropical view) rather well.

Nevertheless, the question of how the perception of the signs shifted over the ages is interesting and warrants further attention.
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.
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.
I doubt that many modern astrologers would characterize Taureans quite that way.

That said, it is well known that they can indeed turn into the human equivalent of a raging bull when sufficiently angered - typically when their sensitive emotions are hurt in context with a love relationship. ;) (Three cases from my personal counselling experience come to mind right away.)
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:
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.
Therese, I just realized that we are about to turn this thread into another 'sidereal vs. tropical' debate. I really appreciate your various valuable contributions to my actual query so far, and I would ask you to re-direct your focus accordingly. Thanks!

Michael
_________________

Visit my blog:
https://michaelsternbach.wordpress.com/

22
I also really need to stress that affinity alone is inadequate for any assignment of a planet to a domicile.

A planet has serious work to do as a house cusp ruler. (lord) It either functions well in that capacity or it is meaningless as a sign ruler.

I think the majority of horary astrologers stick with traditional sign rulerships but modern western astrologers do use the modern outers for this purpose. House cusp rulers by sign are the foundation of horary astrology.

Similarly, if less dramatically in natal chart interpretation. To paraphrase Karen Hamaker-Zondag: "the house over which a planet rules serves the purposes of the house in which that planet stands."

Demetra George states that a house cusp ruler would like to help out the affairs of its house. Whether it can do so effectively or helplessly depends on that planet's situation.

With the modern outers we cannot do a run-down of essential dignities but we can look at their situation by aspect, angularity, and house.

Is this something everyone can agree on?

23
Michael-- re: your OP.

So no to Pluto as ruler of Aries. If we want a candidate for Aries, dwarf planet Eris is a much better fit.

Pluto has an inexorable quality to it. A hard Pluto transit will kill off anything metaphorically dead or dying in one's life. It does have an underworld quality to it. It does have the quality of the Phoenix, but the death in the ashes part is essential and not to be circumvented.

In temperate climates of the northern hemisphere, the month of Scorpio coincides with deciduous trees losing their leaves, frost hitting the planets, the sun well to the south, shorter days, and a sort of "death" or under-ground period of nature.

In the Mediterranean region, autumn is a time for the fall planting of winter wheat and barley, with the seeds going underground, Persephone-like, to e-emerge with the winter rains.

Our zodiacal month is derived from the Babylonian calendar, with early spring being the time for the new crop of lambs.

As Geoffrey Chaucer put it in the 14th century:

"Whan that Aprille with his shoures sote

The droghte of Marche hath perced to the rote,

And bathed every veyne in swich licour,

Of which vertu engendred is the flour;

Whan Zephirus eek with his swete breeth

Inspired hath in every holt and heeth

The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne

Hath in the Ram his halfe cours y-ronne,


And smale fowles maken melodye....

Than longen folk to goon on pilgrimages...:

24
Waybread wrote:
With Eris as the mythological sister of Mars and with the orbit of astronomical Eris sometimes dipping in between Pluto and Neptune, she fits the orbital schema of planetary rulerships well enough to be assigned to Aries.
One difference I did note just now (doing some research on Eris) is that there is a difference in orbits between Eris and Pluto. Pluto stays in the Kuiper belt, but the orbit of Eris goes way outside. Should that be considered as to whether a body is named as a solar system planet or not? I don't know the orbits of other Kuiper belt bodies.

Image
Last edited by Therese Hamilton on Wed Dec 08, 2021 12:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm