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.

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?

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

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!

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

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.

Waybread wrote:

Hi, Mark-- if you would like me to leave this thread, please just say so and I will.

I'm sorry if you got that impression. The fact we disagree on certain areas doesn't prevent an interesting exchange of ideas does it? And in any case I have no authority to do anything of the sort here!

Waybread wrote:

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!

Maybe we should form a Facebook group?

Waybread wrote:

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.

Its quite funny that many modern astrologers seem still seem totally unaware that Hand has steered a different route for literally decades! But yes I still think all of Hand's books are a great read. For example his book 'Planets in Transit' was one of my favourites for years. I do wonder how he had such wisdom at such a young age. He surely cant have had enough consulting experience for all of it surely?

Waybread wrote:

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.

Aquarius gets an terrible write up by Valens. Its right up there with Scorpio. You cant help feeling some Aquarian woman has crossed him somewhere! And Ibn Ezra calls it the sign of the devil. But temperament theory seems to have helped the makeover of Aquarius with its association with the generally positive, sanguine, humane temperament. And then modern astrology came along and made it a sign of eccentric, genius.

Waybread:

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

Yes I did notice. Just nothing much to add except perhaps the historical context of some of this which is quite old.

Waybread wrote:

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.

Indeed! I think I have largely exhausted what can be done on a forum like this but it has been interesting. I would like to write a piece on this at some point when my responsibilities with my Association diminish.

Mark

francescomanfredi wrote: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.

Thank you, Francesco, it's good to know that others share my conclusions regarding the affinity between Uranus and Capricorn.

If we accept both the classical and the modern rulership schemes, the only way to keep the symmetry is to assign to each of the trans-Saturnian planets two signs, just like we do in the classical scheme. Thus, Uranus becomes the co-ruler of Capricorn, and Saturn the co-ruler of Aquarius.

Michael, I think there are good reasons for the affinity of Uranus with Capricorn (because to be a earth sign, it is for me a quite bizzarre one, even if I can't precisely say why apart from an Uranus affinity). But I would avoid the rigid hierarchy of sign-rankings for the three trans-saturnians, because with unbelievably coup-de-scene, they reveal great similarities to other signs that technically should have been exiles or falls, or something of a poor placement (while using that rigid hierarchy).
The Morpurgo school of thought, which as a dogma declare the theory of symmetry, say that Uranus has a pretty poor placement in fire signs of Aries, Leo, Sagittarius, and because of the "un-saturninity" of their nature. I frankly believe that not only is this one mistake, but that this is a big one. Most of all, Uranus has similarity with fire, and a martial-like propensity to incidents.

waybread wrote: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.

Underlying the exaltation of Uranus in Scorpio, there seems to be a theme of alchemical transformation of the instinctual forces represented by Scorpio to their sublimed forms as symbolized by Uranus/Aquarius with their correspondences of birds and angels.

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.

The thing to realize here is that the exaltations of the classical planets are occurring in signs that are sextile or trine their secondary domiciles (from the perspective of modern astrology).

This pattern is indeed continued exactly by the outers if we consider their secondary domiciles too (Uranus/Capricorn, Neptune/Sagittarius, Pluto/Aries). Thusly:

Leo--Pluto--trines Aries
Scorpio--Uranus--sextiles Capricorn
Aquarius--Neptune--sextiles Sagittarius

I am grateful to our member James M who pointed out this link on the early 20th century Swiss astrologer Karl Ernst Krafft who proposed a modified system of rulerships that included Uranus ruling Aries. He seems to have proposed this in the 1930s:

http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl ... rev=search

Mark

Michael, here's the thing. To show that an exaltation, rulership, or what-have-you has any legitimacy whatsoever, you need to be able to use it pragmatically in horoscopes, where this really matters. Try your proposed exaltation in lots of horary, natal, electional, or predictive charts, and see if it improves your interpretive capabilities.

Then let us know your results.

No "birds and angels" about this.