The interpretation of the planet Pluto has always bee a challenge to me. For years, I have felt that the usual analysis found in all the standard textbooks were inadequate. The concepts of re-birthing, of self-discovery etc. seemed to me to be a bit too "New Age", and I am one of those old-fashioned traditionalists that likes to see a clear, repeatable, and nicely defined meaning to a planet.
Also, when I first read the astrological literature published in the immediate few years following the discovery of Pluto, I was concerned that many of the articles I was reading contained ideas and assumptions that up to now seem never to have been challenged. If astrology is to be an ongoing and viable system of understanding the "meaning of life", then surely as astrologers we are honour bound to continually re-evaluate our work and not fall foul of old prejudices.
Another concern was that again and again my astrological friends would report changes in their lives that they were attributing to Pluto, and again and again personally I felt that these changes could equally be attributed to a transit, or progression, involving Uranus.
Secondly, when working with clients, I would frequently notice that directions to Pluto were not producing the sort of changes that could be expected if I used the usually accepted interpretation of the meaning of the planet. Something was not quite right, but what? Somehow, Pluto seemed to be the joker in the pack.
No-one else seemed to have the answers, I was considered a complete heretic for even daring to challenge the wisdom of the astrological hierarchy. For years I kept very quiet!
The answer of course came to me as a sudden flash of inspiration. I'm sure that others may well have realised this before me, maybe I'm the last to be told, but for me it is now obvious. The outer planets have been misnamed!
I think that many astrologers under-play the reason why the classical planets are given the names of Roman gods. For me, the answer is simple, they are in fact one and the same thing. For instance, while the planet Mars was just about to rise, the Roman priests and astrologers would see the God Mars as giving his greatest influence to those about to be born, hence in the future they would become his warriors. (Gaugalin's research gave much the same result, for warrior, read sportsman). And then from his rising onwards, the God's physical position in the sky during the day (the astrologers would of course say which house he had moved into) indicated his sphere of influence. For instance in the couple of hours before he reaches the mid-heavens he is the worker, then as he starts to move down the sky he becomes the traveller. And immediately after Mars-set he would tend his wounded followers as Mars in the 6th house indicates someone whose energies are utilised in caring and nursing!
So far so good. But of course the outer planets were not known then. But might I suggest that the universal human tendencies that they were to represent were already recognised, and that each of these tendencies was in turn already attributed to a god.
The mismatch of gods and tendencies was inevitable. The modern planets were discovered and named, not by the old astrologer-priests, but by scientists, by astronomers with little interest in ancient mythology. Take the planet Uranus. Uranus (the god) was the remote elder father of the gods, best known for eating his children. A respected gourmet perhaps, but nothing to do with the disruptions drama and sudden changes that we associate with the planet. So who was the classical god of earthquakes? His attributes are wonderfully portrayed in the film, "The Clash of the Titans" and in some of the Sinbad films. The sea boils and the earth heaves as he awakes, to show himself as -Neptune! That attribution correlates with the Greek and Roman belief that earthquakes originated under the sea. Certainly, the attributes of the god were far removed from the dreamy idealism that we have come to associated with the planet of that name. So who should be associated with the planet? I would suggest possibly one of the Roman goddesses, maybe one (or all) of the Muses.
So what about Pluto? Well, for years, when I have been giving talks on astrology I have repeated the legend that it was named by Bernard Lovell's daughter, not after the god of the underworld, but after that Disney Dog!
Which somehow fitted my idea of the joker in the pack.
Initially, I thought that maybe the answer was to switch mythologies, and call on the Norse trickster god, Loki to be represented. But this seems to me to be cheating, for as I said, I believe in astrological patterns, and it should be possible to form a coherent pantheon. Then one evening, after a few pints of beer and considering Mr Punch as a possible candidate, the answer became obvious, the god whom I was looking for was Pan!
The word of course associated with Pan is "panic", and that fitted some of the responses that I'd noted from clients during Pluto transits etc., that description of blind, unreasoned fear. But again, it wasn't sufficient, I needed a more flexible key word. And that word is simple. "Chaos".
I now always use the concept of "chaos" when interpreting Pluto, and I find that it works. Chaos is not necessarily a negative force, it is part of normal human existence, and it can be fun, and even constructive. It is not the same as the sudden changes brought about by Uranus, the blind energy of Mars or the learning experiences given by Saturn. It is the leading edge of modern mathematics, and also, paradoxically of Magick. Of course that branch of Magick initially took it's name from the initials of the artist Austin Osmand Spare, on whose work many of the original principles were based. But of course, astrologers are used to the so-called "coincidences" of life. And there is another intriguing side track. In many of their rituals, Chaos magickians call upon none other than ...PAN!!!
