Waybread wrote:

Astrological rulerships can be explained astronomically (cf. Ptolemy) but doing so creates a kind of astrological Rubic's Cube. We have hot, dry, manly Mars ruling a feminine water sign, Scorpio. We have Venus ruling both a cardinal air and a fixed earth sign. And so on. So we cannot make too much of a sign's cardinality or gender in matching it with a planet that shares these characteristics.

Keep in mind Ptolemy never used the elements at all in discussing the signs!

The domicile rulerships long predated the assignment of elements to each zodiacal triplicity.

Hence, Ptolemy regards both Aries and Scorpio as dry signs due to their association with Mars.

More generally though ancient sources regarded Mars as more compatible in a feminine, nocturnal sign like Scorpio as its dry, hot nature is tempered by the moisture and cool of the night. Hence the ancients said Mars had its 'joy' in Scorpio not Aries.

The Robert Zoller article I mentioned yesterday is now online at
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/zoller1.html

Deb wrote:

The Robert Zoller article I mentioned yesterday is now online at http://www.skyscript.co.uk/zoller1.html

Thanks Deb! I will stick a note up on the Mundane Forum.

Mark

thanks for your post deb. i don't have time to respond today, but will do so by monday.

Hi Mark-- no Punch and Judy intended! I just thought that if I claimed that Uranus works as a ruler of Aquarius, I should back it up with some chart interpretation. Perhaps another thread sometime could focus on taking a problem like, "Why were these men great scientists?" and then having different participants apply their own methodologies to the natal data, because I think we would see areas of overlap as well as difference. I find Uranus to be extremely helpful, but I acknowledge good astrology where I find it.

I'll come back to Aquarius momentarily.

I agree with most of your long post to me. Notably:

I think the Ptolemaic tradition with its naturalistic, aristotelian approach tended to sideline the Sun as a natural significator of the higher mind or creative spark.

It was of course Ptolemy's view that went on the dominate Perso-Arabic, Latin and renaissance astrology.

In Ptolemaic astrology the Sun becomes like the Director behind the camera but seldom in view

My particular interest in traditional astrology is in ferreting out some of its origins, notably the transitions from ancient cultural astronomy to astrology proper.

It is in these earlier cultural contexts that you will see extra-astrological ancient sources describing a link between the sun and the intellect. Apollo for the Greeks was the clearest example, after he historically became assimilated to the earlier Greek sun god Helios. Apollo was the god of prophecy, the medical arts (pre-Aesclepius) and a bunch of traits that today seem very 9th house (where the sun joys, perhaps not coincidentally.) He had these connotations chronologically prior to the Greeks giving him the sun-god role. (Cf. our current distinctions of Apollonian vs. Dionysian.)

Previously we find the Mesopotamian sun god Shamash having some associations with intellect, but perhaps more powerfully with associations of the sun as king, judge, and authority. (Rochberg, The Heavenly Writing.)

I took the Avelar and Rebeiro description of the sun as metaphorical, or based upon current understandings of the astronomical sun. It seems almost like it came out of a science textbook.

The Egyptian sun gods (on whom the astrological house system was probably based) don't seem intellectual at all. They do appear as kings (pharoahs) and judges; which seems to be the main use of the sun in Hellenistic cookbook delineations. Thoth, the original Egyptian god of the mind, was originally a moon god. He got assimilated to Hermes under the Greek influence.

(The gospel according to John is another posssible mind-sun link.)

The following assessment has been really hasty, so feel free to catch me up on any of it:

What surprised me was how little I found about the qualities or character traits of the sun in the applied astrology handbooks, in doing a quick check of Aratus (treatise on cultural astronomy, 3rd century BCE, )Dorotheus, Manilius, Valens, Ptolemy, Firmicus Maternus, Rhetorius, and Al Biruni.

Valens was actually the only one who discussed the qualities of the sun-- and he was the one author who made the intellect connection. So little is known about him that we can't say whether he described a much more widespread astrological interpretation of the sun, or whether his was a one-off, possibly based on his equating the sun to Apollo.

Possibly the hermetic literature would give a different interpretation-- I didn't check it.

More could probably be gleaned from an in-depth scan of the cookbook sections of how the Hellenistic astrologers used the sun in chart interpretation, but so far as I can make out, they didn't say much if anything on the sun involved in intellectual matters.

Of course, the sun was and is just crucial for the diurnal and annual nature of the horoscope, plus other sorts of chart delineations, as you point out. It just didn't seem to relate much to the intellect.

I find it really helpful, in approaching a primary source, to consider what was the author's project in writing it. Ptolemy clearly wanted to strip away all of the magic, religion, mythology, and personalities out of his textbook Tetrabiblos. We can see Valens as the great compiler and practitioner, but Ptolemy essentially wrote a "science" textbook. Valens (notably in the Riley un-indexed translation) is difficult to read for quick referencing purposes; whereas for all its faults, Tetrabiblos is clear, systematic and very easy to follow. This probably accounted for a lot of Ptolemy's subsequent popularity.

So to come back full circle to the sun's domicile in Leo and detriment in Aquarius, I am not sure how much those ancient astrologers really used planetary detriments in chart interpretation.

Valens p. 40: "Let the sun, moon, Jupiter, Mercury be in Leo, Saturn, Ascendant in Libra, Mars in Gemini, Venus in Cancer. This person was fortunate, a leader, dictatorial, possed of royal fortune, and in sold possession of great property...."

"...sun, Mercury, Venus, Ascendant in leo, Saturn in Taurus, Jupiter in Sagittarius, Mars in Libra, moon in Capricorn. This person was a governor, a master of life and death because the stars were found in their own domains."

So in Valens's first example, we have a hyper-Leo, but his attributes were wealth and leadership, not intellect. In the second example, we have another Mister Big, but he's no philosopher-king. Significantly, having his Mars fall in Libra and his moon in detriment were apparently no hindrance to his success in life. Valens could still say that his stars were found "in their own domains," notwithstanding.

Intriguingly, the Roman emperor Augustus Caesar (63 BCE-14 CE, Barton, Ancient Astrology, 40) was so taken with his horoscope that he had coins struck with pictures of his moon in Capricorn. Apparently the astrologer didn't bother to tell Augustus that his moon was in detriment. Possibly because detriment wasn't in widespread use then.

I've probably missed something, but I couldn't find mention of detriment or falls in Dorotheus (1st cent. AD, but heavily glossed by a Muslim editor.)Manilius (1st cent. AD) talks about signs in antagonism to one another, but since he doesn't mention domiciles specifically and his sign-ruling gods were tutelary rather than planetary, we also don't get an Aquarian detriment for the sun. Surprisingly I couldn't find detriment in Ptolemy. did I miss something?

The exaltations are apparently much older than domiciles, showing up in Mesopotamian and Egyptian sources long before the development of Hellenistic astrology. Initially exaltations seemed to refer to specific degrees or small parts of a constellation where a planet should be extra-strong. Firmicus Maternus (280-360 CE, 2:3) doesn't seem to go by entire signs for exltations or falls, just specific degrees, one per sign. He gives domiciles but not detriments as the sign opposite the domicile, so far as I can tell.

So... the affiliation of the sun with intellect in Hellenistic astrological practice would seem marginal; and the idea that if planets have exaltations, they must similarily have falls ("depressions.") shows up as a worked-out system in Mr. Pt.

Ptolemy, intriguingly, associates Mercury, not the sun, with intellect in his section on astro-geography (II:3.) "The inhabitants of Hellas, Achaia, and Crete however, have a familiarity with Virgo and Mercury, and are therefore better at reasoning and fond of leanring, and they exercise the soul in preference to the body." He's got a few regions ruled by Leo and the sun, but these have no reference to higher learning.

Of course, Time Marches On, and significant developments in astrology occuring after the Hellenistic period might have stressed the points that I don't see (yet?) in earlier work, but I'll have to let someone else discuss them!

(p. s. Mark-- do you know who first introduced the 4 elements to astrology? Valens book I?)

Please, everyone, stick to the theme of this topic. If you want to discuss the qualities of the Sun or examine other points, its best to start a new thread.

deb,

in fairness - your post to me on thur feb 20th 11:45am is not staying on topic either. neither was mine pointing out how uranus didn't fit into some folks philosophical orientation towards astrology which is in part why you responded the way you did. while i enjoyed the zoller article, i felt there was a smugness to it that i didn't enjoy as well, which in fact is something i sometimes feel i am picking up when i engage in astro conversations around sensitive issues such as the nature of this thread - 'is uranus associated with aries?' regardless of my subjective impressions - here are some additional thoughts on this topic.

i don't know the basis for astrologers making a connection between uranus and aquarius, but i suspect it is based on a persons experience and attempt at drawing observations off the incorporation of uranus into the astrology. i note zoller included uranus and neptune in his commentary in the article you shared. it makes sense to have a rule book, or a recipe book for cooking something. however there is an art to astrology, or 'Art' to quote again from the article, which transcends the rule books that some may have for practicing astrology.

why would there be this connection with the order of the signs and the order of the planets? i am speaking of venus rules libra, mars rules scorpio, jupiter rules sag, and saturn rules capricorn? the next planet out from saturn is uranus and of course the next sign after capricorn is aquarius.. their is an obvious order here, but it does upset the apple cart established prior to uranus's discovery. the discovery of uranus seems have unsettled a few different established patterns of 'tradition'. a study and appreciation of history offers possible insight into the nature of this planet as i see it.

i do like the word 'association' as opposed to 'rulership' myself.. it seems to reflect a persons orientation towards astrology as well. i can see the wisdom in traditional astrology's use of the traditional rulers. at the same time, i see the wisdom in making associations with planets and signs, which includes uranus too..

i have noticed the relationship between saturn and uranus in a persons chart playing out as an easier ability to integrate the old with the new if they are in favourable aspect to one another.. in charts where these planets are in hard aspect typically what i see is a person who grabs onto 1 with general hostility expressed towards the other - a polarizing effect essentially between old and new - 2 simple words that are vague enough to not say that much i suppose... example - not meant to personalize anything other then to give an example along the lines i am trying to further.. zollers chart - saturn/uranus in a waxing 45 - again a polarizing dynamic, but of course the 135 and 45 aspects are also a polarizing aspect for those traditional astrologers who refuse to consider aspects outside the ptolemaic list handed down to them from the tradition - so a debatable or negate-able observation, depending on one's orientation here.

for me, the position of uranus further out from saturn doesn't imply anything to do with the sun.. i say this thinking of the sun and saturn as a type of polar opposite couple representing heat and light on the one hand and darkness and cold on the other.. the association of uranus to the middle of winter seems much more in sync then the beginning of spring for me. another way to think of uranus's connection to the 12 signs of the zodiac - which i already mentioned has to do with whether aries is the beginning of a new cycle or instead a re-run of the previous one.. in so far as it is a re-run and we learn nothing from the previous cycle this 12 sign cycle suggests, then turning back in from the cap/aq area to pisces and jupiter - the traditional rulership concept makes sense... i understand the difficulty for those who want to incorporate new ideas, but can't find a way to do it where they are philosophically comfortable.. i am just offering up some of my own ideas on this cycle and how the planets might relate to the signs depending on how we respond to these cycles, and can we perhaps view them as upward moving spirals instead?

nixx - thanks for your insights when you aren't offering some humour as well - your last post directed at me..

James wrote:in fairness - your post to me on thur feb 20th 11:45am is not staying on topic either.

I can't disagree more. My post [here] outlined my views, for the first time, on the topic of the thread: "Is Uranus Associated with Aries?". Maybe not every single word was strictly relevant, but anyone can see that the post as a whole was, and I declined to pick up and respond to some later comments raised in response to one of my remarks, because I knew that it would be off topic to this thread and require a more detailed discussion of its own.

I don't know why you have taken issue with the remark above - it was not aimed at anyone in particular, but given as a general reminder to everyone not to drift too far off topic in the detail being given to the signification of the Sun (it's an interesting discussion but if it is going to be continued it needs a thread of its own). With regard to the Zoller article, it is obviously not going to be to everyone's taste; hard to draw the line between where he is being smug and arrogant or simply aiming to be amusing and tongue-in-cheek; but at the end of the day that's not the focus of this thread either - Mark has created a thread for that so if you want to discuss your views on it there feel free.

From now on, if anyone has problems with comments in this thread, or comments I have made to try to keep the discussion civil and on track, direct them to me personally, as I have already asked everyone to keep this discussion respectful to alternate views and strictly focused on astrological points relevant to the title of the thread. Anything else is likely to be deleted.

Sorry that my points were so opaque. Let me clarify why I explored the sun theme so deeply on a thread focused on Uranus and Aries. My argument has six steps, so please bear with me.

1. A view expressed above seemingly found a negative correlation between the sun-as-intellect with the sun's detriment in Aquarius as, in part, justifying Uranus as a poor match with Aquarius. Since Aquarius is the well-established modern ruler of Aquarius, the solar argument is important for Mark's Uranus-Aries thesis.

2. My argument is that Aquarius seems a better match with Uranus than Aries. I felt I needed to substantiate that claim, just as Mark has reinforced his Aries claims.

3. I appreciate Mark's effort to see whether there are some ways in which Uranus might fit into a traditional astrology methodology. Following from his effort, however, I wanted to show that, depending upon which type of traditional astrology one uses, the sun (a) is not strongly associated with intellect, and (b) is not in its fall in Aquarius. If I can demonstrate these two points, then the solar argument seems less forceful as a means of arguing against a strong Uranus-Aquarian affiliation or modern rulership.

4. If we look at Hellenistic astrology, my recent focus, I am hard pressed to find the Hellenistic astrologers except Valens mentioning a (a) sun-intellect thematic rulership or (b) using the concept of detriment (and their concept of exaltation and fall commonly went by degree, not by an entire sign.) This really surprised me, but a cursory look through the above-named sources (plus Greenbaum's Paulus Alexandrinus translation) turned up empty.

Detriment (meaning a planet in a sign opposite its domicile sign) seems to be a post-Hellenistic development. Which is fine-- hopefully a student here of Muslim or later European astrology will chime in.

I further note that some signs have no planets in an exaltation or fall, notably Aquarius.

6. My argument doesn't leave an Aquarian-Uranus affinity as the true champion of tthe day, but I hope that it does clear out one of the arguments against it. It further concludes that the concept of detriment is not essential to a major branch of traditional astrology. And this, I think, has relevance for an exploration of ways to consider Uranus within a traditional astrology framework.

To wit: a neo-Hellenistic astrologer doesn't have to consider whether Uranus has a detriment, exaltation, or fall if the goal is to see whether it might fit into a traditional methodology.

Waybread wrote:

Let me clarify why I explored the sun theme so deeply on a thread focused on Uranus and Aries. My argument has six steps, so please bear with me.

1. A view expressed above seemingly found a negative correlation between the sun-as-intellect with the sun's detriment in Aquarius as, in part, justifying Uranus as a poor match with Aquarius. Since Aquarius is the well-established modern ruler of Aquarius, the solar argument is important for Mark's Uranus-Aries thesis.

Your are rather conflating the positions of Robert Schmidt (and possibly Paul) and myself here. My thesis isn?t that Uranus is simply synonymous with the Sun. If anything I give precedence to Mars. If we accept that affinity the link with Aries is obvious.

However, I have stated several times that I do not see the nature of Uranus as uniformly linked to one planet. Rather I see it as composite in planetary natures. I gave the analogy earlier of Ptolemy?s description of fixed stars which he gave as composite. In particular stars were described as having a primary and secondary planetary influence.

If we accept a hot+dry nature to Uranus (as Robert Hand and Lee Lehman have suggested) we have a shortlist of planets it may share its nature with: Mars, The Sun and Mercury. According to Ptolemy Mars is principally very dry but also hot. The Sun is moderately hot and dry. Mercury is seen as common in nature but basically dry (either hot or cold) affected by either planetary phase and/or its close aspects/sign position. However, to be totally inclusive lets also include the theory of Raphael (1828) that Uranus was dry but shared the nature of Saturn. According to Ptolemy Saturn is principally cold but also dry.

I don?t think anyone has to date suggested a link between Uranus and the nature of the Moon, Venus or Jupiter have they? Let me know if someone has!

Lets explore the possible sign associations based on all the potential planetary associations of Uranus. What signs does Uranus fit better with depending on its planetary nature?

1 Uranus=Mars nature only.
If Uranus has the sole nature of Mars the affinity to Aries is strong since Mars is domicile ruler in that sign. One would also expect an affinity with the signs of Scorpio and Capricorn. The link seems strongest to Aries if we accept Uranus is a hot and dry planet. Interestingly, before modern astrology plumped for Uranus as the ?ruler? of Aquarius several astrologers suggested it could be the ruler of Scorpio or the exaltation ruler in that sign ( Leo, Crowley etc). This view doesn't really support an Aquarius connection.


2 Uranus=Solar nature only
If Uranus has the sole nature of the sun the affinity to Leo and the fire signs in general is strong since the sun is the domicile ruler of Leo and the exaltation ruler of Aries. The sun is also day triplicity in the fire signs. The Hellenistic astrologer Robert Schmidt has proposed this association. Schmidt?s view is not that Uranus represents the everyday intellect but rather the transcendent mind or nous. This view doesn't really support an Aquarius connection.


3 Uranus=Mercury nature only
If Uranus has the sole nature of Mercury the affinity to Gemini and Virgo is strong. More generally, mercury is a triplicity ruler of the air signs. Many modern astrologers claim that Uranus represents the ?higher octave of Mercury?. Similarly, Neptune is seen as the ?higher octave? of Venus and and Pluto the ?higher octave? of Mars. Even modern astrologers that reject that specific theory seem to favour a ?mercurial? nature of Uranus with it seen as principally an agent of intellectual change and ideological break throughs.

The problem with this approach is that it provides no explicit explanation why Uranus should be associated with Aquarius rather than Gemini or even Virgo. While the linkage seems weak in terms of planetary associations Nixx has argued that the transpersonal nature of Aquarius fits better with a transpersonal planet like Uranus. However, this provides no explicit reason why Aquarius is linked explicitly to Uranus rather than any other outer planet. However, Nixx also suggests Uranus symbolises transpersonal thought and that this fit better to a human , collective orientated air sign like Aquarius.

4 Uranus=Saturn nature only
If Uranus has the sole nature of Saturn the affinity to Aquarius and Capricorn is strong as these signs are traditionally domiciles of Saturn. There would also be an association with Libra. This means Uranus would be associated with 2 out of the 3 air signs strengthening its position in this triplicity. The 19th century astrologer Raphael saw Uranus as principally Saturnian in nature as he saw its nature as dry and quite malefic. Its not clear why Raphael excluded Mars from consideration as it is traditionally the driest of the planets. This position makes it easier to see an association between Aquarius and Uranus. However, many of the modern views of Uranus such as Tarnas (1995) see Uranus as an intellectual catalyst. Its hard to reconcile this with an exclusively Saturnian view of Uranus.

As I suggested earlier we don?t need to be monolithic in our view of Uranus. We can take the view it contains the nature of more than one planet. My current position is that Uranus probably partakes in the nature of Mars but also the Sun. However, I am open to the possibility of a Mars-Mercury nature. I am suggesting the first planet listed as the primary influence.
Some examples:

Mars-Sun-This gives a focus on social disruption, rapid change but also creativity and inspiration. The affinity with Aries is especially strong in this instance since Aries is the domicile of Mars and the exaltation of the Sun. One would also expect a lesser association with Leo. Doesn't really support an Aquarius connection.


Mars-Mercury-The association is strongest to Aries and Scorpio but also includes Gemini and Virgo. Doesn't really support an Aquarius connection.

Mars-Saturn-Not a practical contender here so I omit discussion of this.

Sun-Mercury-This would give Uranus an exclusive focus on the intellect and higher mind (Nous). Strongest associations to Leo , Gemini, and Virgo. Doesn't fit well with the modern idea of Uranus linked to Aquarius.

Mercury-Saturn-this would give Uranus a focus on social structure and ideas. Links in Uranus to Aquarius, Capricorn and Libra through Saturn and Gemini and Virgo through Mercury. In combination Saturn and Mercury seem to have the closest affinity to Aquarius. Saturn is the domicile ruler of Aquarius and \mercury is a triplicity ruler of all the air signs. If I wanted to argue a Uranus-Aquarius association based on traditional principles this seems the most logical stance.

However, in modern astrology Saturn and Uranus are usually presented as opposing principles i.e. order vs change. Also how do we reconcile a planet associated with Saturn linked to flight? Also what about the violence that can accompany Uranus?

While you do not seem to accept a Mars association with Uranus(?) you seem to strongly support its connection to Mercury. Correct? While you reject the modern ?higher octave? theory you implicity seem to see Uranus as an agent of intellectual change.

Waybread wrote:

2. My argument is that Aquarius seems a better match with Uranus than Aries. I felt I needed to substantiate that claim, just as Mark has reinforced his Aries claims.

I would suggest you take a closer look at the comments of Nixx. I think s/he has made the strongest arguments in support of that position here.

Waybread wrote:

3. I appreciate Mark's effort to see whether there are some ways in which Uranus might fit into a traditional astrology methodology. Following from his effort, however, I wanted to show that, depending upon which type of traditional astrology one uses, the sun (a) is not strongly associated with intellect, and (b) is not in its fall in Aquarius. If I can demonstrate these two points, then the solar argument seems less forceful as a means of arguing against a strong Uranus-Aquarian affiliation or modern rulership.

I never suggested the Sun was linked to the intellect as such! Even Valens makes it clear this is associated with Mercury. I was discussing the Nous, or as Schmidt has described it as the transcendent mind.

I was suggesting a tripartite approach to 'the mind' or consciousness composed of
1.The instinctual mind=Moon
2. The rational mind=Mercury
3. The Transcendant Mind/Nous=Sun.

The concept of detriment only really became developed in Perso-Arabic astrology. In Hellenistic astrology there is no such explicit concept. Indian astrology received astrological ideas from the Roman empire and therefore never adopted the notion of detriment either. However, ancient sources such as Serapio of Alexandria do suggest a planet in a sign opposing its domicile was ?bad?.

Even if exclude the concept of detriment in Aquarius the Sun-Saturn principles are diametrically opposed in ancient and medieval astrology. So if Uranus is linked to the Sun it seems totally illogical to link it to Aquarius.

Waybread wrote:

4. If we look at Hellenistic astrology, my recent focus, I am hard pressed to find the Hellenistic astrologers except Valens mentioning a (a) sun-intellect thematic rulership or (b) using the concept of detriment (and their concept of exaltation and fall commonly went by degree, not by an entire sign.) This really surprised me, but a cursory look through the above-named sources (plus Greenbaum's Paulus Alexandrinus translation) turned up empty.

Detriment (meaning a planet in a sign opposite its domicile sign) seems to be a post-Hellenistic development. Which is fine-- hopefully a student here of Muslim or later European astrology will chime in.
I further note that some signs have no planets in an exaltation or fall, notably Aquarius.

I covered this point above. Quite surprised you were not aware of this.

More generally, how do we reconcile the opposing planetary principles of Saturn and the Sun?

6. My argument doesn't leave an Aquarian-Uranus affinity as the true champion of tthe day, but I hope that it does clear out one of the arguments against it. It further concludes that the concept of detriment is not essential to a major branch of traditional astrology. And this, I think, has relevance for an exploration of ways to consider Uranus within a traditional astrology framework.

I?m interested to know if you reject the planetary association idea altogether. From your frequent comments you seem to give it principally an intellectual i.e. Mercury like association.

Hi, Mark:

I don't think anyone, least of all myself, said that Uranus is the same as the sun; merely that some assumptions about the sun and Aquarius were made by others on this thread by way of deposing Uranus from its strong modern affiliation with Aquarius. I did not bring up this point initially but merely responded to it.

My point about Uranus and other planets in pairs is that it is very easy to identify commonalities between any two planets. We may have to get out of their foundational classification schemes to do so, but then astrology has gotten out of hard-and-fast allegiance to classification schemes to interpret horoscopes since ancient times--as a perusal of any Hellenistic astrologer's cookbook will show.

Overlaps between Uranus and all of the other planets are easy to discern. A very old understanding of the moon, for example, is that s/he changes rapidly; a commonality with Uranus. Venus and Uranus? I don't suppose anybody throughout history suggested that women are fickle, did he? The god Zeus/Jupiter was noted for his thunderbolts, whose sudden flashes of light seem Uranian in a modern context, due to our understanding of electricity. Mercury and Uranus and the "Eureka!" moment. Uranus and Saturn in the context of science is discussed above at length.

I think we are mostly on the same page with respect to your statement that Uranus is "composite in planetary natures." I take this to mean the foundational temperature/moisture scheme. I personally wouldn't use the word "composite," however, because I think Uranus also brings its own energy to the zodiac, which is what we would expect a new planet to do.

However, let us go back to your recommendation that traditional astrologers could understand Uranus in the context of traditional categories. A "hot" and "dry" planet stimulates and separates, a "cold" and "moist" planet does the opposite. The ancient Greeks did not see Mars as blood-red from what I understand, but they did view it as flame-coloured (as it appears to the naked eye today) long before the emergence of horoscopic astrology, so understandably something flame-coloured would be classified as hot and dry. The "hot and dry" connotation of the sun goes without saying.

The planet Mercury, as you point out, has multiple natures, consistent with this god's trickster personality.

Zeus/Jupiter initially was a rain god, so it makes more sense to attribute more moisture to him from an ancient Greek perspective, even though Jupiter was named for a male god. In ancient Greece, seeds were not seen as inherently fertile in themselves, but rather, in need of rainfall as the source of fertility. Consistent with the start of the Mediterranean rainy season beginning when the sun was in Sagittarius, and winding up during Jupiter's rulership of Pisces.

Never mind what we know today about astronomy, in which Venus and Mercury are both terribly hot: as traditional astrologers understand elemental terms, it does make sense to consider frigid, blue, lonely Uranus as hot and dry. due to the nature of its operation.

(to be continued)

(continued)

Hi again, Mark. Re: the latter part of your latest long post to me, in which you went through Uranus/other-planet comparisons in a workmanlike fashion.

I have to stress that there is more "left over." Surely Uranus shares commonalities with other planets, just as they all share some commonalities great or small with one another. However, Uranus is not 100% like any other planet, so we also have to look beyond simple binary comparisons of Uranus with one other planet at a time.

I've thought about what it is about Uranus that differentiates it from the traditional seven. Does it do anything that they do not do? I have come up with the following partial list:

1. Uranus as an agent of personal growth.

1. I can't speak for Muslim, medieval European, or renaissance astrology, due to my limited studies. My understanding from Hellenistic astrology, however, is that the Hellenists lacked the concept of personal evolution or social change. Individuals are born with a chart that obviously symbolizes only a potential at their birth. But grow into it they must and will.

The Hellenists did have a concept of individual evolution via some of their philosophies or mystery cults (like the Eleusinian mysteries,) with a god such as Demeter or Hermes (Mercury) at the helm, but much of the focus was on a hidden yet natural order with which humans could more beneficially align.

None of the traditional planets truly addresses the human potential to make more of one's self than a simplistic astral fatalism decrees.

2. Uranus as an agent of social evolution.

I don't get a feeling that traditional astrologers considered a society as a whole to have an evolutionary trajectory. In Antiquity, most major societies saw order as good and disorder as bad. More specifically, allegiance to a social heirarchy was good, and rebellion against it was bad. (We see this personified in goddesses like Themis and Ma'at.) Improvement to society consisted of making its unruly elements more aligned to the so-called Great Chain of Being.

We do get concepts of historical change like the Three (or four) Stages of Man, but the stages prior to the present one were embedded in legends. They were not a framework for the future.

Uranus confounds the idea of heirarchy, suggesting that disruption to the social order may have a beneficial impact. And most of us believe this, today. Otherwise Julian Assange and Ted Snowden would have no traction.

As a "boomer" I am of a generation and social class of women whose highest expectation in life, when we were girls, was to grow up to be housewives and mothers. I don't see a traditional planet explaining the dramatic changes in the status of western women that has occured since ca. 1970. We could equally consider other human rights movements, such as the current lgbtq movement, or the civil rights of ethnic minorities.

3. Uranus as a symbol of personal and social liberation.

4. Utanus as a symbol of scientific and technological innovation.

Electricity is sort of like fire, but it is a long, long road from the cooking hearth to modern cell phones. Aviation, let alone space travel, has some comparables with what was known prior to 1900, but not nearly of the same order of magnitude.

Most of the above begins with a shift in consciousness or ideology. To the extent that Uranus rules sudden change in one's personal circumstances, or profound evolutionary change in a society, it starts with innovative ideas.

The main thing about Uranus is that it breaks the mold: for good or ill, depending upon how people feel about change coming down the pike. There is, in fact, a paradox in attempting to classify Uranus according to a category or traditional planet pigeon-hole; because Uranus represents the antithesis to this very process.

If you can tame it, domesticate it, classify it, categorize it, define it, discipline it: can it really be Uranus?

Which is precisely why there is no one-to-one correspondence between Uranus and any traditional planet.

(to be continued tomorrow)