Thread | A little bit on the HISTORY of western astrology.

How far back the tradition goes, why we don't have one consistent practice, why Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and asteroids aren't "traditional," etc.

Disclaimer: History is really not my wheelhouse. I'm not a names and dates person. But I do think some folks need to get a handle on the general history of western astrology to understand why it is the way it is, so HERE WE GO GUYS, GALS AND NONBINARY PALS.

Western astrology originated about 4,000 years ago, as far as we can tell. It didn't start as something that included the natal charts we're now familiar with. That came much later. Earlier interpretations of natal charts also were more event focused than personality focused.

You'll see modern sources say things like, "Scorpio in the 2nd house means you have THIS attitude towards your finances!" This focus on the personality is not at all how natal astrology has always been approached.

Western astrology has also not had a linear track or growth over time. There have been periods where astrology was essentially outlawed, and a lot of traditional sources were lost. A lot of contemporary sources were created without much knowledge of astrological tradition.

The line of traditional astrology was essentially cut around the end of the 17 century & remained lost through the mid 19th century. The recovery is dated to around the 1980's.

Contemporary astrology began, without much from its predecessor as a foundation, in late 19th century.

You don't see Uranus, Neptune or Pluto in traditional astrology as the planets were not discovered until fairly recently, given how old western astrology is.

Uranus was discovered in 1781.
Neptune in 1846.
Pluto in 1930.

A bit late into a ~4,000 year old study, yeah?

The concept of Uranus ruling Aquarius, Neptune ruling Pisces, and Pluto ruling Scorpio were also not unanimous decisions nor where they instantaneous upon discovery. Many (myself included) don't even include them as rulers. A thread for another time.

From a conversation with astrologer Rob Hand, "[...] a Congress of astrologers after WWII in Germany voted on a motion to the effect that Pluto was not the ruler of Scorpio, and it passed unanimously." http://accessnewage.com/articles/astro/hand2.htm

Asteroids are, predictably, even newer to astrology than Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. From On the Heavenly Spheres, "The asteroids begin to appear in astrological charts in the 1970s. Their application in astrology peaked after the discovery of the planetoid Chiron in 1977."

Some modern astrologers have tried to give rulership status to asteroids as well. Some might claim the Chiron rules Virgo, or Ceres rules Taurus, etc. Maybe it's shady to say some contemporary astrologers will give any speck of dust rulership for clout, but...

One of the problems with the modern concepts of planetary rulership is that it doesn't think about the rest of what we call essential dignities. Planets have a domicile sign (they rule it), exaltation, detriment and fall. They also have triplicity rulership, term and face.

The effort to turn planets like Pluto or asteroids like Chiron into rulers of signs usually only gives them basic rulership of a sign. They don't bother to think about triplicity, term or face because of the disconnect from traditional to contemporary astrology.

Around the end of the 19th century, when contemporary astrology was founded in the void left by the lost tradition, a lot of new (and diverging) ideas were introduced to astrology. There are many different branches of western astrology now, with differing ideas.

Vedic astrology is not my area of expertise, but is known to be a lot more linear in their development. They didn't go through a period of losing their foundations and trying to start over from scraps as we have in the western tradition.

We're at an interesting time for western astrology, with the mix of branches created in contemporary astrology mixed with the revival of our tradition. Texts from thousands of years ago are finally being rediscovered and translated.

Because of this, though, you're going to see a lot of different approaches. Western astrologers don't all agree on some relatively basic things like rulers. The difficulties in our history AND new discoveries in astronomy have led to some interesting & diverging developments.

Anyway, there's my quick and scuffed rundown of Why Western Astrology Is Like That.

Some sources: On the Heavenly Spheres by Luis Ribeiro and Helena Avelar, Hellenistic Astrology by Chris Brennan. Highly recommend if you wanna learn traditional astro and a lil astro history.

Not a source I used for the thread, but one you can check out for more per my friend @gimelresh's recommendation! (He knows his shit.) https://twitter.com/gimelresh/status/1114687410934304768