Question about the outer planets

Does anyone know where the keywords for Uranus, Neptune and Pluto came from? Were they taken from Saturn \ Aquarius, Jupiter \ Pisces, Mars \ Scorpio?

Also, who got to actually name the planets after they were discovered? Did they observe them first and then gave them names that corresponded to those observations? Were the people who discovered them into astrology and named them accordingly?

Hope I'm making sense with the questions. I'm trying to understand these planets in my own chart and the keywords I use seem "okay" when analyzing my chart for them, but they don't seem to resonate strongly - maybe it's the "generational" thing.

Cough, ahem. This is the modern astrology board. We don't have to debate the legitimacy of the modern outer planets. Modern astrologers use them successfully.

The history of the integration of these planets into modern astrology in the English-speaking world really comes from the few early 20th century popularizers like Alan Leo, who wrote popular astrology textbooks that went into multiple printings.

You might be interested in:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/ur_aq.html Look also at the links to other Uranus articles on this page. Skyscript is actually a website dedicated to traditional astrology, but it takes an open view towards modern astrology, as well.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/neptune2.html

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/pluto2.html

Beginning with the discovery of Uranus in 1781, astronomers across Europe were in commnication with one another. The discoverer or another astronomer would propose a name, and after a while, it would become commonly used.

Pluto was discovered in 1930, identified as a planet, but astronomers "demoted" it to dwarf planet status in 2006. However, modern astrologers continue to use it as a planet, mostly because it works so well.

Today the naming of new heavenly bodies is done by a professional astronomical society, the International Astronomical Union. https://www.iau.org/public/themes/naming/

If you want to post your chart, we can discuss meanings of the outer planets in it.

Please also keep in mind that astrology contains the good, the bad, and the ugly. I can recommend some good books, if you're interested.

Modern astrology only, to All

All,

Please discuss MODERN astrology in the Modern Astrology Forum. That means that the existence and use of Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto in astrology are taken as a given and are NOT to be debated. Discussion of use of traditional techniques in modern astrology is also NOT allowed. If you want to discuss any intersection between modern astrology and traditional astrology do so on the Natal Astrology Forum.

Back to Modern Astrology,

Tim

Re: Modern astrology only, to All

But I don't understand. All the OP is doing is asking how/where the planets used in Modern Astrology got their names from. How in the world does that not belong on the Modern Astrology forum and why is that being seen as a debate?

Why can any "intersection between modern astrology and traditional astrology" not be tolerated on the Modern Astrology forum? I mean honestly. With all due respect, there cannot be such razor sharp (imposed) cut offs and divisions between the two - because that is what is not factual.

Re: Modern astrology only, to All

aquarius7000 said:

But I don't understand. All the OP is doing is asking how/where the planets used in Modern Astrology got their names from. How in the world does that not belong on the Modern Astrology forum and why is that being seen as a debate?

Why can any "intersection between modern astrology and traditional astrology" not be tolerated on the Modern Astrology forum? I mean honestly. With all due respect, there cannot be such razor sharp (imposed) cut offs and divisions between the two - because that is what is not factual.

Click to expand...

Hi aquarius7000,
You may have looked into this thread AFTER several copied long posts from Paul and Dr. Farr submitted by JUPITERASC re; traditional techniques have been deleted. The slight cough in Waybread's post?
I have to admit that, when looking in this morning, I could not understand why the posts had been allowed in the mod. section.

I don't think it was the O.P's query causing the confusion but the trad. traditions trying to get a quick and sneaky look in in that which doesn't ever concern them.........outer planetary wise.

Re: Modern astrology only, to All

Hi Frisiangal,

Yes, I saw this thread for the first time as it is now (of course your post was not there at the time). And, yes, it did seem to me as though the posts that were there were all admonishing the OP.

No the OP has a legitimate point embedded in their post, why were these signs given ridership of those planets, Aries could be arguably ruled by Pluto so Could Capricorn although less validity. I myself a modern astrologer use Aries as Pluto and Mars as Scorpio and it works just as well. As for who named them and their traits, you have to ask this about every planet not just the outer ones. Very good one the Op may I add for starting a firey contraversy that's what I like to see. Listen to op Buddha question everything...

Aries could be arguably ruled by Pluto

Click to expand...

Hypothetically speaking, this makes sense to me.

Aries is said to be the sign where everything begins; i.e. the seed, the embryo, oxygen.
I learnt that it represented the raw animalistic nature that, through the following signs influences underwent the gradual change towards transformation ( Pluto?) that was able to emerge from the cocoon as 'humanly spiritual' . Through further [r]evolution of the signs again to become 'spiritually spiritual(?? paraphrased)...and so on.

I have long considered that the outer planets are 'conscious raising'
of nature and therefore rule the 'beyond Earthly manifestation' (Capricorn) signs, whilst the signs traditional rulers are more influential through the unconscious Moon effects.

Frisiangal said:

Hypothetically speaking, this makes sense to me.

Aries is said to be the sign where everything begins; i.e. the seed, the embryo, oxygen.
I learnt that it represented the raw animalistic nature that, through the following signs influences underwent the gradual change towards transformation ( Pluto?) that was able to emerge from the cocoon as 'humanly spiritual' . Through further [r]evolution of the signs again to become 'spiritually spiritual(?? paraphrased)...and so on.

I have long considered that the outer planets are 'conscious raising'
of nature and therefore rule the 'beyond Earthly manifestation' (Capricorn) signs, whilst the signs traditional rulers are more influential through the unconscious Moon effects.

Click to expand...

I agree with you, but where does the beginning start, does life come before death? It's kind of like the chicken and the egg. I could argue that Pluto doesn't rule any one sign because he's not interested in ruling rather he would act exalted in strength in certain signs.

Wow - I'm the OP and I thought this was the section where questions about the outer planets should be - I didn't know that "modern" is considered late 1800's, but "traditional" would imply the discovery of the outer planets.

Regardless, I mainly want to know where the keywords came from, where the descriptions for the influence of the outers came from. Were they taken from Saturn, Jupiter & Mars? OR were they taken from the descriptions of the ancient mythologies dealing with Uranus, Neptune & Pluto?

I'll gladly post this somewhere else, but which came first: observations \ keywords and then the names, or are the keywords\descriptors something that appeared after the naming of the planets.

Let me know if I should delete the post and repost it in another section - sorry for major faux-pas of questioning something about the outer planets - I didn't know if would offend anyone.

[Moderator note: You posted in the correct section. The posts about not using Pluto are not relevant to this section of the AW Forum which focuses on Modern astrology. Modern astrology accepts and uses Pluto in astrological interpretations.]

Kernix said:

I thought this was the section where questions about the outer planets should be - I didn't know that "modern" is considered late 1800's, but "traditional" would imply the discovery of the outer planets.

.

Click to expand...

It's the other way around.
As explained in reply #3 it's 'modern astrology' that sees the relevance of the outer planets (and further planets discovered beyond Pluto) in astrological interpretation.

Regardless, I mainly want to know where the keywords came from, where the descriptions for the influence of the outers came from. Were they taken from Saturn, Jupiter & Mars? OR were they taken from the descriptions of the ancient mythologies dealing with Uranus, Neptune & Pluto?

Click to expand...

Did you look up the sites offered by Waybread in her reply #2. They make interesting reading.

I'll gladly post this somewhere else, but which came first: observations \ keywords and then the names, or are the keywords\descriptors something that appeared after the naming of the planets.

Click to expand...

The outer planets have always been there; they were simply not visible with the naked eye until improvement of the telescope made it possible.

There is a thought in modern times that the outer planets 'discovery'
and naming coincides with, and brings about vast evolutionary changes occuring on a world wide scale that alters the world view as it was
experienced until then. A reason the outer planets have a strong connection with working through 'mass consciousness' and not simply on a personal level.....world history in the making, as it were. IMVHO it's hindsight observation that provides the keywords attached to them.

In that respect, the legend of Quaoar, noted and named in 2002 could have correlations with the ideal of 'World Peace', even if any or each step towards it seems so infinitely small in the making in today's world.

No I haven't checked the links out yet but I plan to - thank

waybread said:

Cough, ahem. This is the modern astrology board. We don't have to debate the legitimacy of the modern outer planets. Modern astrologers use them successfully.

The history of the integration of these planets into modern astrology in the English-speaking world really comes from the few early 20th century popularizers like Alan Leo, who wrote popular astrology textbooks that went into multiple printings.

You might be interested in:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/ur_aq.html Look also at the links to other Uranus articles on this page. Skyscript is actually a website dedicated to traditional astrology, but it takes an open view towards modern astrology, as well.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/neptune2.html

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/pluto2.html

Beginning with the discovery of Uranus in 1781, astronomers across Europe were in commnication with one another. The discoverer or another astronomer would propose a name, and after a while, it would become commonly used.

Pluto was discovered in 1930, identified as a planet, but astronomers "demoted" it to dwarf planet status in 2006. However, modern astrologers continue to use it as a planet, mostly because it works so well.

Today the naming of new heavenly bodies is done by a professional astronomical society, the International Astronomical Union. https://www.iau.org/public/themes/naming/

If you want to post your chart, we can discuss meanings of the outer planets in it.

Please also keep in mind that astrology contains the good, the bad, and the ugly. I can recommend some good books, if you're interested.

Click to expand...

Interesting

Just FYI, there is no explanation on this site that I can find about what is meant by Modern vs. Traditional astrology. The terms are not universally accepted, so it is highly confusing trying to figure out where one's posts should go.

Witchyone said:

Just FYI, there is no explanation on this site that I can find about what is meant by Modern vs. Traditional astrology. The terms are not universally accepted, so it is highly confusing trying to figure out where one's posts should go.

Click to expand...

Read the blurb for the Traditional Astrology board:

For discussions on Traditional Astrology only. (Note: Typically, traditional astrology is defined as using techniques developed prior to 1700 by astrologers from the Hellenistic, Persian, Hebrew, and Renaissance eras. Specifically it relies on Ptolemaic aspects (sextile, trine, square, opposition and conjunction) and excludes modern planets (Neptune, Uranus and Pluto,) non-Ptolemaic aspects, as well as any asteroids. The focus is less on what would be considered modern psychological chart interpretation and more on prediction. Members who wish to explore a combination of traditional and modern ideas should feel free to start a new thread in an appropriate forum for further discussion.)

Click to expand...

So, if you're talking about Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto, that's modern astrology. If you're talking about any aspects other than the trine, sextile, square, opposition, or conjunction, that's modern astrology. if you're talking about asteroids, that's modern astrology. If you're talking about determining personality traits through astrology--i.e. "What are Tauruses like?"--that's modern astrology. None of that belongs in the Traditional Astrology forum.

The Modern Astrology forum has a counterpart blurb:

For discussions on Modern Astrology only. (Note: Typically, modern astrology is defined as using techniques developed around the late 1800s by Theosophists. Specifically it relies on psychological, evolutionary, karmic, and non-western interpretation approaches and includes Neptune, Uranus and Pluto, and non-Ptolemaic aspects. The focus is more on psychological chart interpretation instead of prediction.)

Click to expand...

What to exclude from modern astrology is a much grayer area, because some modern astrologers use some traditional techniques. Still, if you're talking about things like planetary joys, profections, or other solidly traditional techniques, and not throwing in such modern astrology things as asteroids or quincunxes or Pluto, that would be traditional astrology.

And, like waybread pointed out, and wilsontc pointed out more firmly, in the Modern Astrology forum, discussions are based on the assumption that astrology includes modern planets. Arguing over whether or not the outer planets are astrological planets doesn't belong in Modern Astrology or Traditional Astrology, because on both those boards, that question is settled. If you want to have that kind of discussion, take it to any of the other boards--those are open to both modern and traditional perspectives.

Thanks Osamenor.

I also tried to explain in post #2 the history of how the modern outer planets' rulerships originated.

Note that astrology as a whole nearly died out, at least in the English-speaking world, by the late 17th century, and when it revitalized about 200 years later, it did so in a very different form. Modern astrology sprang out of the theosophical movement, and the kind of mysticism and occult subjects that fascinated the late Victorians.

Osamenor said:

Read the blurb for the Traditional Astrology board:

So, if you're talking about Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto, that's modern astrology. If you're talking about any aspects other than the trine, sextile, square, opposition, or conjunction, that's modern astrology. if you're talking about asteroids, that's modern astrology. If you're talking about determining personality traits through astrology--i.e. "What are Tauruses like?"--that's modern astrology. None of that belongs in the Traditional Astrology forum.

The Modern Astrology forum has a counterpart blurb:

What to exclude from modern astrology is a much grayer area, because some modern astrologers use some traditional techniques. Still, if you're talking about things like planetary joys, profections, or other solidly traditional techniques, and not throwing in such modern astrology things as asteroids or quincunxes or Pluto, that would be traditional astrology.

And, like waybread pointed out, and wilsontc pointed out more firmly, in the Modern Astrology forum, discussions are based on the assumption that astrology includes modern planets. Arguing over whether or not the outer planets are astrological planets doesn't belong in Modern Astrology or Traditional Astrology, because on both those boards, that question is settled. If you want to have that kind of discussion, take it to any of the other boards--those are open to both modern and traditional perspectives.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation.

I understood that traditional astrology does not look at the outer planets. I was less clear on which aspects were traditionally calculated. The part about determining personality traits not being part of trad is a surprise to me.

Witchyone said:

Thanks for the explanation.

I understood that traditional astrology does not look at the outer planets.
I was less clear on which aspects were traditionally calculated.
The part about determining personality traits not being part of trad is a surprise to me.

Click to expand...

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/temples/h1.html
determining personality traits is most definitely traditional astrology
QUOTE
Main Rulerships of 1st House
Life, vitality and health. Stature, colour, complexion, form and shape of body.

Older sources note its influence upon the intellect
the way the mind works
and speech
In general, the first house represents the focal point for the personality

and manner of expression.

As well as describing the physical appearance
the condition of this house and that of its planetary ruler
indicates the level of personal vitality and strength.

Kernix said:

Does anyone know where the keywords for Uranus, Neptune and Pluto came from?
Were they taken from Saturn \ Aquarius, Jupiter \ Pisces, Mars \ Scorpio?
Also,
who got to actually name the planets after they were discovered?

Click to expand...

PLUTO WAS NAMED BY AN ELEVEN YEAR OLD GIRL

NAMED VENETIA BURNEY
On March 14, 1930, 11-year-old Venetia Burney and her family
were eating breakfast at their home in Oxford, England
discussing the biggest news of the day: The discovery of a new planet.


Venetia's grandfather, Falconer Madan, retired head Librarian of the Bodleian Library
at the University of Oxford, read to her from page 14 of The London Times:Venetia was well familiar with Greek and Roman mythology
and further had recently been acquainted with the planets
and their relative distances from the Sun during a nature-walk lesson at school.
As the family discussed what the new planet should be named
she said
“I think Pluto would be a good name for it.”
Pluto is the god of the underworld, who could make himself invisible
and dwelt in a place that sunlight didn’t reach.
It seemed a fitting name for a dark, remote planet.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/48673/venetia-burney-11-year-old-girl-who-named-pluto

Frisiangal said:

Hi aquarius7000,
You may have looked into this thread AFTER several copied long posts from Paul and Dr. Farr submitted by JUPITERASC re; traditional techniques have been deleted. The slight cough in Waybread's post?
I have to admit that, when looking in this morning, I could not understand why the posts had been allowed in the mod. section.

I don't think it was the O.P's query causing the confusion
but the trad. traditions trying to get a quick and sneaky look in
in that which doesn't ever concern them.........outer planetary wise.

Click to expand...

OP asked

Kernix said:

Did they observe them first
and then gave them names that corresponded to those observations?
Were the people who discovered them into astrology
and named them accordingly?

Click to expand...

and so
the following quote from Paul_
simply provides the HISTORICAL DETAIL
of how the outers were named
and answers OPs question
https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=494058&postcount=12

Paul_ said:

Just as an historical interlude
that some people may find interesting,
it's note worthy that modern rulerships were assigned
not because of some arduous research and investigation
but instead
by astrologers of the time, cogniscant of the tradition of rulership
basically went ahead and followed Ptolemy's logic,
by assigning the next planet out with the next sign out.
So flowing from the Sun is the rulership scheme

which normally reflects back to the Moon,
but breaking this they just carried on projecting out from the sun.
So the next out from the Sun is Mercury, then Venus, then Mars
then Jupiter and then Saturn,
and then when Uranus was discovered
we see astrologers explicitly invent the rulership to Aquarius
because Aquarius is the next sign out after Capricorn
then when Neptune comes along it's assigned the next one out which is Pisces.
This is explicitly stated in the very earliest sources we have for modern rulership.
So the outer planetary rulerships came about by trying to stay true to the tradition at large
and absolutely not by channelling
or study of numerous charts.
Pluto is discovered and the pattern continues.
It is assigned to Aries
and there is a conference in Germany to discuss the matter more fully.
UNANIMOUS agreement dictates that Pluto rules Aries
and the counter idea, that some were positing at the time
that it should rule Scorpio are squashed.
Until someone beats them to print
and writes up the attributions of Pluto
and that it rules Scorpio.
The author beat them to print and published a successful book and the rest is history.
It stuck, and from that day forth Pluto magically started ruling Scorpio.

Click to expand...