Minderwiz
I've started this thread primarily for those following the analysis of Martha Stewart's chart. From now on in there will be issues relating to the rulership of the Ascendant, and any planets or houses in Scorpio, Aquarius and Pisces.
Modern Astrologers tend to award the rulership of Scorpio to Pisces, Aquarius to Uranus and Pisces to Neptune. However for obvious reasons that has not always been the case - we've only known about Uranus for around 250 years, and Neptune and Pluto for much shorter periods of time.
There are still a substantial minority of Astrologers who do not accept the modern rulerships, and I'm one. Therefore I want to indicate where my contributions may be out of line with others and the reasons why.
It's always dangerous to treat history as a unified body of previous experience but to keep things manageble I'll do that.
So here goes. Historically Astrology placed great importance on not only the equinoxes but also on the Sostices in Summer and Winter, that is the Cancer / Capricorn axis. This marked the start of Summer and Winter respectively in the Northern Hemisphere. If we move one sign on to the Leo / Aquarius axis we reach the height of Summer and 'depth' of Winter respectively. Rulership of Leo goes to the Sun, which is at its hotest and strongest during the month of Leo (again in the Northern hemisphere) and in Aquarius the Sun is at its weakest (in 'detriment' to use the Astrological term). These two states of the Sun can easily be inspected by looking outside in August and February respectively. In Aquarius the Sun is weakest but Saturn - the planet furthest from the Sun, the coldest and most inhospitable is strongest - Saturn rules Aquarius. Saturn is also taken to rule the Winter Solstice - in essence Saturn rules Winter.
The remaining rulerships are attributed by using Chaldean order, that is from the slowest to the fastest moving planet. This assignment of rulerships moves in two directions from Winter - the first of these is backwards through Autumn - Jupiter rules Sagittarius, Mars rules Scorpio, Venus rules Libra and Mercury rules Virgo. The only exception here is the Sun which is out of turn ruling Leo.
The second allocation of rulerships is forward through late Winter and Spring. So Jupiter rules Pisces, Mars rules Aries, Venus rules Taurus, Mercury rules Gemini and the Moon rules Cancer.
This order is one of the most fundamental of our daily lives because it literally rules the hours of the natural day and through them the days of the Week.
The allocation of rulerships is not on the basis of 'similarity between sign and planet - that's a relatively modern concept. Mars does not rule Aries because Aries is Martial in nature but Aries in Martial in nature because it's ruled by Mars.
If we say that Pluto is very Scorpionic and therefore should rule Scorpio we not only take away Mars' traditional rulership of Scorpio but we also take away any valid reason for it ruling Aries - the system is broken.
I'll post on individual signs as these arise in the discussion but I simply want to make two further points.
Lee Lehman makes a good distinction between two ways that Astrologers use the word rulership. The first is the sign rulership mentioned above - what she calls Type I rulership. The second is through affinity - Type II rulership - thus Mercury may rule communciations media such as the Newspapers or TV and it can rule the Central Nervous System of our body (which is a communications network). Only in this latter sense will I talk about Uranus and co being rulers. However, that rulership may well be very important for our discussion. I will never attribute sign rulership to these outer planets but I will recognise that they may have affinities which are relevant.
Secondly, It is not my aim to convert anyone to my way of thinking and I welcome any debate or discussion in this thread - I simply want to make clear the basis on which I am using the word ruler in my contributions.
Modern Astrologers tend to award the rulership of Scorpio to Pisces, Aquarius to Uranus and Pisces to Neptune. However for obvious reasons that has not always been the case - we've only known about Uranus for around 250 years, and Neptune and Pluto for much shorter periods of time.
There are still a substantial minority of Astrologers who do not accept the modern rulerships, and I'm one. Therefore I want to indicate where my contributions may be out of line with others and the reasons why.
It's always dangerous to treat history as a unified body of previous experience but to keep things manageble I'll do that.
So here goes. Historically Astrology placed great importance on not only the equinoxes but also on the Sostices in Summer and Winter, that is the Cancer / Capricorn axis. This marked the start of Summer and Winter respectively in the Northern Hemisphere. If we move one sign on to the Leo / Aquarius axis we reach the height of Summer and 'depth' of Winter respectively. Rulership of Leo goes to the Sun, which is at its hotest and strongest during the month of Leo (again in the Northern hemisphere) and in Aquarius the Sun is at its weakest (in 'detriment' to use the Astrological term). These two states of the Sun can easily be inspected by looking outside in August and February respectively. In Aquarius the Sun is weakest but Saturn - the planet furthest from the Sun, the coldest and most inhospitable is strongest - Saturn rules Aquarius. Saturn is also taken to rule the Winter Solstice - in essence Saturn rules Winter.
The remaining rulerships are attributed by using Chaldean order, that is from the slowest to the fastest moving planet. This assignment of rulerships moves in two directions from Winter - the first of these is backwards through Autumn - Jupiter rules Sagittarius, Mars rules Scorpio, Venus rules Libra and Mercury rules Virgo. The only exception here is the Sun which is out of turn ruling Leo.
The second allocation of rulerships is forward through late Winter and Spring. So Jupiter rules Pisces, Mars rules Aries, Venus rules Taurus, Mercury rules Gemini and the Moon rules Cancer.
This order is one of the most fundamental of our daily lives because it literally rules the hours of the natural day and through them the days of the Week.
The allocation of rulerships is not on the basis of 'similarity between sign and planet - that's a relatively modern concept. Mars does not rule Aries because Aries is Martial in nature but Aries in Martial in nature because it's ruled by Mars.
If we say that Pluto is very Scorpionic and therefore should rule Scorpio we not only take away Mars' traditional rulership of Scorpio but we also take away any valid reason for it ruling Aries - the system is broken.
I'll post on individual signs as these arise in the discussion but I simply want to make two further points.
Lee Lehman makes a good distinction between two ways that Astrologers use the word rulership. The first is the sign rulership mentioned above - what she calls Type I rulership. The second is through affinity - Type II rulership - thus Mercury may rule communciations media such as the Newspapers or TV and it can rule the Central Nervous System of our body (which is a communications network). Only in this latter sense will I talk about Uranus and co being rulers. However, that rulership may well be very important for our discussion. I will never attribute sign rulership to these outer planets but I will recognise that they may have affinities which are relevant.
Secondly, It is not my aim to convert anyone to my way of thinking and I welcome any debate or discussion in this thread - I simply want to make clear the basis on which I am using the word ruler in my contributions.
