What proof is there that pisces is co-ruled by jupiter?

[YonyGursho]

I know that in traditional astrology pisces is only ruled by jupiter, but in modern astrology it's ruled by both neptune and jupiter. My only question is what is the evidence that it is ruled by both neptune and jupiter?

I mean we know virgo and gemini are both only ruled by mercury and are both very intellectual signs, and they are opposite signs of pisces and sagitarrius, so it would make sense for pisces and sagitarrius to be ruled by the same planet?

I mean how can pisces be opposite virgo and have neptune and jupiter, but sagitarrius can be opposite gemini and have only jupiter? It's an uneven amount of planets per sign, and it would make most sense if just mercury and jupiter are opposite planets and thats all it takes for pisces and virgo to be opposites, instead of pisces needing an additional planet to be opposite of virgo lol.

 

[waybread]

You have to look at the history of astrology. He didn't invent this, but Ptolemy (150 CE) in his classic astrology text Tetrabiblos, set up the sun and moon as the main planets, with the subsequent planets' signs organized by spatial and temporal distance from the luminaries' summer months.

Moon = Cancer............Sun = Leo
Mercury= Gemini.........Virgo
Venus = Taurus............Libra
Mars = Aries................Scorpio
Jupiter = Pisces............Sagittarius
Saturn=Aquarius..........Capricorn

When Uranus was discovered, western astrology had nearly died out, but some of the remaining English astrologers started tracking its transits to see what effect it seemed to have. They thought it was malefic, as it seemed to coincide with disasters like house fires, thus working like Saturn. They were still working with the traditional table of essential dignities, and assigned it to Aquarius, as being further out than Capricorn. They gave it Saturn's essential dignities in Aquarius.

Modern astrology got started in the late 19th/early 20th century, with a bigger emphasis on human perfectability, via the theosophical movement.

When Neptune got included in the early 20th century, western astrologers also thought it was malefic, in creating a lot of confusion and deception. Watery Pisces was the next sign in line.

When Pluto was discovered in 1930 it made some kind of order to assign it to Aries, as the sign that comes up again after Pisces. However, by this time modern astrologers were doing more research on horoscopes and thought it was a better fit with Scorpio.

A sign ruler really needs more than just a simple affinity with its sign. It has to work well as a house cusp ruler, and then in different branches of astrology, not just natal chart reading.

 

[norbertsco]

Hello,

in traditional astrology Pisces is ruled by Jupiter and Sagittarius is ruled by Jupiter.

In modern astrology Pisces is only ruled only by Neptun and Sagittarius is only ruled by Jupiter.
In old times astrologers did not know Neptun.
Sagittarius has a total other temperament than Pisces.
Jupiter has a total other temperament than Neptun.
A Jupiter transit to the sun makes a total different occurence than a Neptun transit.

Generally it can be, that one sign has two rulers.
But that is theoretically not so elegant.
And the most important argument against two rulers for one sign is the fact, that it is not in that way.

Beste regards
norbertsco

 

[petosiris]

Hello,

in traditional astrology Pisces is ruled by Jupiter and Sagittarius is ruled by Jupiter.

In modern astrology pisces is only ruled only by Neptun and Sagittarius is only ruled by Jupiter.
In old times astrologers did not know Neptun.
Sagittarius has a total other temperament than Pisces.
Jupiter has a total other temperament than Neptun.

Beste regards
norbertsco

Sagittarius and Pisces are both windy and increase moisture, in the same way that Gemini and Virgo are both changeable and increase dryness.
In this way their temperament involve Jupiter and Mercury respectively, although contrary to popular belief, the nature of each sign actually consists of an admixture that is similar to multiple planets - https://i.imgur.com/OJUpA8e.png

 

[norbertsco]

Hello petosiris,

the Gemini Merkur is the communicating part of the Merkur.
The Virgo Merkur is the rational and analytical thinking part of the Merkur.
Perhaps one day we have a Planet for Gemini and another Planet for Virgo.
I suppose the Planet Merkur belongs more to Gemini.

Best regards
norbertsco

 

[petosiris]

Hello petosiris,

the Gemini Merkur is the communicating part of the Merkur.
The Virgo Merkur is the rational and analytical thinking part of the Merkur.
Perhaps one day we have a Planet for Gemini and another Planet for Virgo.
I suppose the Planet Merkur belongs more to Gemini.

Best regards
norbertsco

How does this work? If someone observes the effect of a sign (say increase of heat) having affinity with a planet (say the Sun), then this affinity doesn't magically disappear in a few hundred years.

 

[norbertsco]

Hello petosiris,

when you talk about the Merkur relativ to Gemini
you accent the properties of Gemini.
And when you talk about the Merkur relativ to Virgo
you accent the characteristics of Virgo.
As long as you coordinate the Merkur both to Gemini and Virgo
there is no other chance.
Some make the difference as saying morning star and evening star about Merkur.
I would not do that.

Best regards
norbertsco

 

[YonyGursho]

Hello petosiris,

when you talk about the Merkur relativ to Gemini
you accent the properties of Gemini.
And when you talk about the Merkur relativ to Virgo
you accent the characteristics of Virgo.
As long as you coordinate the Merkur both to Gemini and Virgo
there is no other chance.
Some make the difference as saying morning star and evening star about Merkur.
I would not do that.

Best regards
norbertsco

Mercury shows all of the traits seen in virgo and gemini, so I think it's fair to say that both signs are certainly ruled by mercury, and perhaps mercury has two sides, the virgo side and the gemini side.

So virgo + gemini = mercury.

We have pisces which shows traits seen in jupiter and neptune.

We see that pisces is the sign of illusion, dreams, isolation, and imaginary things. Jupiter is said to be part of pisces, but jupiter is the planet of joviality, happiness, merriment, optimism, humor, fun, freedom, expansion.

Despite being supposedly ruled by both of those planets, pisces strongly exhibits neptune traits and weakly exhibits jupiterian traits.

Seeing as neptune's character is the illusionist whose head is in la-la land and day dreaming, which sounds just like pisces. However, pisces DOES exhibit the universal love for the universe, something it wouldn't be able to do if it were JUST a day dreamer. If all it did was day dream, it wouldnt be aware of what the universe truly is.

It is the jupiter within pisces that gives it cheerfulness and a broad knowledge of things, that gives it that universal outlook, and the neptune within pisces that compels pisces to use that universal outlook and broad knowledge of jupiter for the greater good and for love.

Sagitarrius/Jupiter simply uses the jupiter within itself for fun and cheerfulness, without care for the universe and the greater good.

Clearly this means that pisces indeed has both neptune and jupiter, or that there are simply two sides to jupiter, and pisces has the less wild side of jupiter.

Either way, pisces cannot be ruled merely by neptune alone, as there cant be two sides to neptune if it's only function is day dreaming, whereas jupiter could very well have two sides, given what it's function is.

 

[waybread]

Modern astrologers tended to drop the traditional rulers of Scorpio, Pisces, and Aquarius.

I think the modern rulers work fine in reading nativities; but actually, so do the traditional rulers, so I tend to look at both.

In horary astrology, I stick to the traditional sign rulers, because the house cusp rulers are really important. A lot of the judgement of a horary chart depends on the faster-moving significator planet applying to an aspect with the slower significator planet-- or not.

I have nothing personal against Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto; but where they move so slowly in their orbits, I think they tend to bias the horary results when used as significators. Where relevant, I sometimes use them as additional data.

So far as Mercury is concerned, Gemini is an air sign and Virgo is an earth sign. So Gemini tends to be more intellectual; and Virgo tends to be more practical. Note that Mercury also rules the hands.

 

[Osamenor]

Modern astrologers tended to drop the traditional rulers of Scorpio, Pisces, and Aquarius.

How many modern astrologers do you know who actually do that?

Based on who I know--both irl and online--it seems to me that using both rulers is the most common approach for modern astrologers. I know at least a couple of modern astrologers who only give limited use to the modern rulers: they use traditional only for house rulers, but still take note of where the modern planets are domiciled (so that if a modern planet is domiciled in the natal chart, or transiting its domicile, it gets that extra strength).

That's not as neat as the traditional system. Adding modern planetary rulers does make it lopsided. Which is an argument I've noticed traditional astrologers making against using the modern planets. But, modern astrology is a bit messy, because it plays with those newer concepts and doesn't necessarily follow all the traditional rules and systems. Then again, astrology itself isn't always neat. Just like life.

 

[david starling]

How many modern astrologers do you know who actually do that?

Based on who I know--both irl and online--it seems to me that using both rulers is the most common approach for modern astrologers. I know at least a couple of modern astrologers who only give limited use to the modern rulers: they use traditional only for house rulers, but still take note of where the modern planets are domiciled (so that if a modern planet is domiciled in the natal chart, or transiting its domicile, it gets that extra strength).

That's not as neat as the traditional system. Adding modern planetary rulers does make it lopsided. Which is an argument I've noticed traditional astrologers making against using the modern planets. But, modern astrology is a bit messy, because it plays with those newer concepts and doesn't necessarily follow all the traditional rules and systems. Then again, astrology itself isn't always neat. Just like life.

Neatness isn't really "proof". It just means that within a particular configuration, in this case 7 Domicile-rulers and 12 Signs, the rulership of Pisces is necessarily assigned to Jupiter. But, change the configuration, and you change the Domiciles. In standard Modern, it's 10 Domicile-rulers and 12 Signs. The two Planets that fully retain their 2 Traditional Domicles, Mercury and Venus, are a special case, because they're inside of Earth's Heliocentric orbit, and appear as both morning and evening lights.

 

[david starling]

Although it seems to be less so now, when I was first introduced to Modern, the Signs themselves were commonly numbered 1 through 12, beginning with Aries. The Outermosts were discovered one at a time, not all at once.
When was discovered to be a Planet, rather than a faint star, #11 Aquarius was taken from Saturn, leaving only #10 Capricorn for Saturn's unequivocal Domicile--the higher numbered Sign was taken for the next outermost Planet. Same for Neptune, which took the higher numbered Sign from Jupiter; and, Pluto, which took the higher numbered Sign from Mars.

 

[waybread]

How many modern astrologers do you know who actually do that?

Personally? I know no other astrologers in the flesh. I live a private life in a remote rural area.

I would have to do more digging into my astrology book collection than I have time for now to give you authors, titles, and page numbers, but an example would be some modern astrologers' "by the numbers" or "natural rulers" approach, which I think stems from C. E. O. Carter. Stuff like the 11th house=the 11th sign=Uranus, or the 12th house=Pisces=Neptune. Something similar is the modern idea of astrological "chords" or "keys" where someone might have an emphasis on, for example, the 8th house, Scorpio, and Pluto.

When I was first learning astrology I read that the modern rulers had simply replaced the traditional ones. I can look this up in a few days: I'm going out of town tomorrow.

Based on who I know--both irl and online--it seems to me that using both rulers is the most common approach for modern astrologers. I know at least a couple of modern astrologers who only give limited use to the modern rulers: they use traditional only for house rulers, but still take note of where the modern planets are domiciled (so that if a modern planet is domiciled in the natal chart, or transiting its domicile, it gets that extra strength).

That's not as neat as the traditional system. Adding modern planetary rulers does make it lopsided. Which is an argument I've noticed traditional astrologers making against using the modern planets. But, modern astrology is a bit messy, because it plays with those newer concepts and doesn't necessarily follow all the traditional rules and systems. Then again, astrology itself isn't always neat. Just like life.

Agreed.

One point I feel strongly about is that a planet-sign rulership has to be more than a simple affinity. I'm very skeptical of periodic proposals to assign an asteroid as the modern ruler of some sign or other. As a house cusp ruler (lord) a planet has real work to do. Notably in horary (where I stick with the traditional rulers) but also in nativities.

For a career question based on the natal chart, for example, I'd look to see what planet rules the sign on the 10th house cusp, and where this planet appears in the chart, and how it is situated. In a modern reading, there's not much problem if a sign has both a modern & a traditional ruler, because the whole chart has to hang together.

 

[serafin5]

I have studied both Modern and Traditional Astrology and while I am predominantly a "Modern" astrologer I do use Traditional ruling Planets as they make sense to me. There is masculine /feminine, Yin/Yang. I am not even sure Uranus, Neptune and Pluto cast rays but I have found their significance when posited in Angular houses, and/or aspecting personal planets and points in the Natal chart.

 

[greybeard]

No proof needed.

Astrology has no validity of itself. It requires human beings to bring it into being. Astrology is a system of thought created within man's mind.

This is seen in the many forms and methods in astrology.

So...If, in my preferred system, I say Jupiter rules Pisces, it does. If I prefer Neptune, he's boss.

No proof needed.

 

[sworm09]

I know that in traditional astrology pisces is only ruled by jupiter, but in modern astrology it's ruled by both neptune and jupiter. My only question is what is the evidence that it is ruled by both neptune and jupiter?

I mean we know virgo and gemini are both only ruled by mercury and are both very intellectual signs, and they are opposite signs of pisces and sagitarrius, so it would make sense for pisces and sagitarrius to be ruled by the same planet?

I mean how can pisces be opposite virgo and have neptune and jupiter, but sagitarrius can be opposite gemini and have only jupiter? It's an uneven amount of planets per sign, and it would make most sense if just mercury and jupiter are opposite planets and thats all it takes for pisces and virgo to be opposites, instead of pisces needing an additional planet to be opposite of virgo lol.

Jupiter's rulership over Pisces wasn't necessarily tied to affinity. Ptolemy gives a seasonal analogy that says that Jupiter rules Pisces because Pisces is in a whole sign trine to Cancer, the home of the Moon. Since Jupiter is a fertile planet, it would make sense that a sign that makes a friendly aspect to the home of a luminary would be the home of Jupiter.

Neptune was given to Pisces because Neptune is seen by some as similar in nature to Pisces.....even though there's a lot that goes into what makes Pisces the sign that it is. There are constellations and fixed Stars in Pisces that heavily inform how it acts, and planets in different points in Pisces are going to act in different ways. So saying Neptune is like Pisces may be a little too reductionist, in my opinion. Neptune may be like parts of Pisces, sure, but to say that it defines Pisces may be a little much.

No proof needed.

Astrology has no validity of itself. It requires human beings to bring it into being. Astrology is a system of thought created within man's mind.

This is seen in the many forms and methods in astrology.

So...If, in my preferred system, I say Jupiter rules Pisces, it does. If I prefer Neptune, he's boss.

No proof needed.

I agree with greybeard. If you can find decent justification for it and you can use it to produce coherent, consistent, and insightful interpretations, then go ahead and use Neptune as ruler of Pisces. Just have a reason to do what you're doing and be well informed as to what your decision means.

 

[JUPITERASC]

Jupiter's rulership over Pisces wasn't necessarily tied to affinity.
Ptolemy gives a seasonal analogy that says that Jupiter rules Pisces
because Pisces is in a whole sign trine to Cancer, the home of the Moon.
Since Jupiter is a fertile planet, it would make sense
that a sign that makes a friendly aspect to the home of a luminary
would be the home of Jupiter.

makes sense

Neptune was given to Pisces because Neptune is seen by some as similar in nature to Pisces.....even though there's a lot that goes into what makes Pisces the sign that it is. There are constellations and fixed Stars in Pisces that heavily inform how it acts, and planets in different points in Pisces are going to act in different ways. So saying Neptune is like Pisces may be a little too reductionist, in my opinion. Neptune may be like parts of Pisces, sure, but to say that it defines Pisces may be a little much.

I agree with greybeard. If you can find decent justification for it and you can use it to produce coherent, consistent, and insightful interpretations, then go ahead and use Neptune as ruler of Pisces. Just have a reason to do what you're doing and be well informed as to what your decision means.

 

[Osamenor]

Jupiter's rulership over Pisces wasn't necessarily tied to affinity. Ptolemy gives a seasonal analogy that says that Jupiter rules Pisces because Pisces is in a whole sign trine to Cancer, the home of the Moon. Since Jupiter is a fertile planet, it would make sense that a sign that makes a friendly aspect to the home of a luminary would be the home of Jupiter.

So how does he explain Mars ruling the other sign that trines Cancer? Which is also a highly fertile sign (all water signs are).

Seems like a discordant note.

 

[sworm09]

So how does he explain Mars ruling the other sign that trines Cancer? Which is also a highly fertile sign (all water signs are).

Seems like a discordant note.

Not at all. I should probably post a pic of the Thema Mundi so that this makes more sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thema_Mundi

Here's the Wikipedia link for the Thema Mundi. It's supposed to be the birth chart of the world or of God. It probably isn't, but it's super, super, super old and what the domicile rulerships seem to be based on....or at least that's the way they were explained when the Greeks were laying this stuff out. It may be even older, but a lot of Greek authors fully articulated it.

It starts with the luminaries. The Sun gets Leo because Summer and all of that (if you follow the Tropical model) and the Moon gets Cancer because it's the domicile next to the Sun and the Moon is dependent on the Sun for her light. Then the planets go out in Chaldean order from there: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and finally Saturn.

The signs of the luminaries are dividing lines. Everything from Cancer to Capricorn is the lunar half, everything from Leo to Aquarius is the Solar half. From this you can probably see why Jupiter's trine to Cancer matters in the domicile assignment but Mars' trine to Cancer form Scorpio doesn't. The domiciles of the luminaries are dividing lines.

In other words, as far as the rationale for the domicile assignments are concerned, it's incorrect to say that Mars trines Cancer from Scorpio as it has to cross over Leo to do it. What's more immediate is the fact that Scorpio squares Leo, the home of the Sun. Squares are discordant and Mars is the lesser malefic. Aries squares Cancer, so that's Mars' sign too. The fact that Aries trines Leo is irrelevant because it has to square Cancer first. Mars is seen as bad because the Sun is the "life force" and for us humans our soul and perceptive capacity. The Moon is the physical body and is tied to physical well-being. A planet in conflict with those basic things isn't necessarily easy to get along with. You get the idea.

As long as you see that aspects can't cross the domiciles of the luminaries, then everything falls into place. I'm also not defending the absolute perfection of the Thema Mundi and especially not Ptolemy's seasonal rationale for the domicile assignments. I'm just saying that this is what it's all built off of.

As for Scorpio being fertile....yes and no. I should've been more clear. Ptolemy, when providing his seasonal rationale for the domicile rulerships, was talking about the time of year being fertile or infertile. If we follow the seasonal logic Cancer is a very fertile time of year in the Northern Hemisphere. It is the very start of Summer. Pisces less so, but it is also when the snows melt...thereby setting the stage for the growth of Spring. Scorpio however.....well no. Scorpio is the middle of Autumn, where everything is dying. I believe Bonatti (writing waaaay letter) refers to Scorpio as poisonous water. There are issues with this seasonal rationale of course, but that's the line of thought Ptolemy was going on.

Scorpio is fertile in another sense. This is the sense of fertility I believe you were talking about, but this doesn't have anything to do with seasons. The so-called fertile signs were originally called "Aquatic" signs as they all represent animals seen as aquatic (Scorpions aren't actually aquatic, but meh). They are "fertile" in the sense that they indicate having many children as the animals that they're based on all have many, many children (Crabs, Scorpions, and Fish). This has nothing to do with season and everything to do with the image of the constellations. Scorpio indicates having many children but is pretty awful if you follow the seasonal rationale.

 

[david starling]

Jupiter is a sky-ruler, symbolized by the lightning bolt. Pisces is a deep water Sign. Not seeing the connection in that sense. Neptune fits, as sea-ruler, symbolized by the fisherman's trident.