Uranus is exactly stationary in the sky at the moment (though some helio-centrists would say only apparently so), and I have been engaged in a debate on my Monday post as to whether or not he is a suitable ruler for Aquarius.
The latest comment (from jm) is as follows:
I just can't figure out you nutty Aquarians!
Father of the entire universe and you don't want him????
Actually I can go along with Uranus as ruler, and come to think of it I like the idea of him being father of the entire universe. And he does describe certain basic aspects of Aquarius better than any other mythic figure. Such as imprisoning his children in the bowels of the earth because they repelled him: the Aquarian tendency to be alienated from the earthy and instinctual realm, and to identify with progressive ideas in a one-sided way, is well-known. And for all its claims to universal brotherhood, Aquarius does a nice-line in dictators, like Ceaucescu of Romania. Or Jorg Haider (also born 26 Jan), a prominent politician with Nazi sympathies in Austria. Hitler became Chancellor on 30 Jan 1933, with the Sun in Aquarius. Ronald Reagan was an Aquarian, but he was merely very right-wing.
It’s just that Uranus doesn’t do a full enough job for Aquarius (see last post). In my opinion, this is also the case with Neptune for Pisces and Mercury for Virgo. The ruler needs to broadly characterise the sign, so that you can see the main traits of the sign in the ruler. Such as warrior Mars ruling Aries. Liz Greene (She Who Polarises Opinion) promotes Dionysus as a suitable mythic figure for Pisces. As for Virgo, Mercury clearly describes important parts of the sign, but there is far too much left out: Virgo the pure, Virgo the prostitute, Virgo the moral and Virgo the hypocrite, Virgo who serves and Virgo who heals.
Has anyone else got opinions on rulers? With Uranus stationing, it’s a good time for questioning the accepted canon.
I mean, let’s face it, the system of rulerships is a bit of a dog’s dinner these days. At least in the good old days, before the outer planets came along, there was a symmetry to the rulerships. We no longer have that symmetry, and we have 3 signs with co-rulers (Scorpio, Aquarius and Pisces). But at least more justice is now being done to some of the signs. So what co-ruler could we find for Virgo? Ceres?
I think there are good grounds for being less trustful of the modern names for astronomical bodies. In the good old days, there was not the modern divide between astronomy and astrology, and the planets would have been named with sensitivity to their astrological/mythic function. Remarkably, they seemed to do a good job with Pluto, maybe because the name was suggested by an 11 year-old schoolgirl with an interest in Classical Mythology.