Skyscript Astrology Forum

I don?t have all my reference material to hand so want to come back to this later but a few comments on what has so far been said.

Firstly, we seem to get a bit muddled when all the Raphael?s get bundled into one person. There are actually several. Robert Cross Smith (19 March 1795 in Bristol. died 26 February 1832 at 9: 07 am) was the first. He?s the one who wrote the Manual and caused the spread of the Placidean house system. And he wasn?t ?basically more interested in selling magical charms and amulets than in doing astrology really well.", as Hand says. It?s true that he was into amulets etc and was a great fan of Frances Barrett. However, he was in the fortunate position of having a financial sponsor in the balloonist GW Graham and so could afford to have a few wider interests. And although he was never rich by any stretch of the imagination he could afford to consider branching out into opening a coffee house at one point. And support a wife and six children. But I digress?I posted the story of the Raphael?s at http://www.urania.info/story/2002/4/28/174740/593 some time ago if anyone is interested.

The following Raphaels were John Palmer ( 28 May 1807 to ? 1837, Mr Dixon b 28 March 1795, Mr Medhurst, Mr Wakely (10 May 1814 7:26 am 23 cancer rising Mo 23 32 Cap, died 1852 published in Astrologers Magazine, data gives 10 Cancer rising but hour later correct), Mr Sparkes (17 July 1820 ? April 1875 Asc 29 Scorpio MC Virgo 24) and Robert Thomas Cross (18 May 1850 2:35 am).

It all gets very muddled when the Raphaels get confused. The two that are really relevant here are Robert Cross Smith and Robert Thomas Cross. Smith knew the artist and astrologer John Varley, and he is popularly attributed with being the one who attributed meanings to Uranus. But there is a major problem in sorting out this period. Practically nothing astrological had been published for a number of years when Raphael started writing. There were still working astrologers and they were meeting and discussing such topics as where Uranus fitted into the scheme of things. With such a paucity of literature during that period it?s hard to find out what was actually going on. Also we know that one of the most active places for astrology in the late eighteenth century into early nineteenth was in the world of Freemasonry, and so far as I know no-one has really investigated whether the attribution of Uranus to Aquarius arose from there.

I notice that James Wilson?s dictionary predates both Varley and Smith being published in 1816. However, I only have a late edition and mine was substantially updated by Sepharial. When I can I?ll have a peek in the first edition at the British Library.

The thing is that it is possible for Raphael to have assigned Uranus to Aquarius AND Neptune to Pisces if we remember we are talking about two different Raphaels.

In answer to Gary, Leo was reading Robert Cross? work when he refers to the Guides. They had a long history together.

It looks highly likely that the first person to attribute rulership of Uranus to Aquarius was either Smith or Varley. As they knew each other I?d never be categorical about it.

But this wasn?t generally accepted for a long time. In Everybody?s Astrology, 1909, Leo says ?Uranus has been given no sign by astrologers, though Aquarius has often been suggested?? (In the case of Neptune he says ?It is open to serious question whether Neptune has any appreciable influence on the present race or not?may in all probability take the place of the planet Venus when that star has fulfilled its mission??).

Back to the Raphael theme - Cross wrote about ?The Influence of Herschel? in the Astrologers Magazine in November 1893. He doesn?t associate it with Aquarius.

I realize this doesn?t really answer the question and when I have a minute will see what else I have lying about here. And now my interest is piqued again I?ll nose at some first editions when I get back to the library after Xmas. But whichever Raphael we?re talking about ? he wasn?t known for his innovations. It?s extremely unlikely he would have attributed any new planet to a sign unless that was already popularly agreed.

Ok, I?ll join in the poking around in old books thing

Kim

I?ve been a bit busy for the last couple of days but wanted to say thanks for these recent posts.

So in a way there seems to be a direct line of descent from Raphael to Leo. It would be interesting to know which editions of the Raphael Guides Leo actually studied... though only in a historical foot-notey kind of way?.
Personally, I wouldn't want to blame either Raphael or Leo for their approach - I think simplicity has a place in astrology, and who is to say that we would have seen the burgeoning of traditional astrology in the last 20 years if it hadn't been for Raphael and Leo injecting life into the market for astrology.

We all know that, for good or bad, Leo became a pivotal figure in the redefinition of astrology. I hadn?t considered before how influential Raphael may have been. But I am starting to realise that there is a noticeable difference between the astrology of those that contributed to Leo?s knowledge and those that followed on from it.

Leo was certainly the simplifying agent ? I can?t see that as a good thing no matter how I consider it. Partly he was aiming to make astrology popular and that?s the element I don?t like. I don?t think it has ever suited astrology to aim for popularity. Leo may be responsible for the mass commercial market that exists today, but do we really think that?s a good thing?

But he was also affected by his legal position and aimed to recreate it so that practicing astrologers couldn?t be criminalised. I guess we can?t blame Leo for doing what he thought was best there. But again I see it as tipping the balance in favour of the commercial environment rather than maintaining the sincerity of the astrological tradition. The only reason it became threatened by the legal system was the attention it drew to itself through its widespread popularity and the propensity of its practitioners.

Leo tried to escape the threat of criminal prosecution by arguing that astrology is not a divinational art. (Its divinational aspects were the 'filth' and 'slime' in its Augean stables). He claimed that it is incapable of predicting future events and can only used as a 'scientific' study of personality traits and tendencies. The more simplified and popular astrology becomes, the less potent and meaningful it becomes in the hands of its practitioners. It?s a nice safe position, and there?s a healthy market to sell wares on the back of it, but it?s nothing to do with what draws many of us into astrology or the reasons why we remain fascinated in the study of it. If anything that side of it makes me want to align with the sceptics and critics. For whatever good it may have done I can think of much more damage that resulted from that course of action.

(I?m not above arguing this point of whether astrology can predict the future or is more useful for assessing latent potential, or whether it stands up to scrutiny on either count, but I?d like the argument to be held on philosophical and not legal or commercial grounds. I certainly don?t see the answer as simplifying it so that it is incapable of offering detailed and specific analysis even if we wanted it to)

But I think your point Garry, is that it?s easy to look back on these figures and criticise. We are not living their lives in their day and age. From what I?ve read about Leo he seemed to be committed to his own principles. And I don?t suppose that he would want to agree with many of my views anyway

-------------------

Thanks for the info on the Raphaels Kim.

It looks highly likely that the first person to attribute rulership of Uranus to Aquarius was either Smith or Varley. As they knew each other I?d never be categorical about it.

Did Varley ever write a text about astrology? If not, he might have been responsible for contributing to the view that Uranus rules Aquarius, but he wouldn?t be the first person to introduce it into our literature. I?m still not convinced that Smith would have suggested it, but would love to be proved wrong to clear this up. Sometime in the New Year when you are poking about old texts, will you check that original copy of Horary Astrology written in the 1880s if you get chance? (Please ) The reference in my 1931 edition is p.35.

At the moment Simmonite is still in front with his text published in 1896.

Even if Varley couldn?t afford texts for himself, being close friends with other astrologers, he would have had access to them. It would be a much different situation than that of Broughton in America. And Varley must have been very well read with his interest in the classics.

I don?t have my copy of Curry?s book anymore which has suddenly become very frustrating. I gave that and a lot of other good books away a few years ago when I didn?t think I?d be doing astrology anymore (a poor reflection on my ability to predict the future). I think I might have to get another copy. If I remember rightly it has a very good overview on the history of the astrological lodges and associations in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The politics are quite dramatic, but the fact that we had these active communities, preening themselves on what they?d read and what they?d published, and the Theosophical Society which has a very good library, makes me think that astrologers with access to London wouldn?t have struggled for lack of study material.

If I remember rightly it has a very good overview on the history of the astrological lodges and associations in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

This was sort of a follow up on his more scholarly Prophecy and Power The book was a series of short biographies of prominant 19th century English astrologers beginning with Varley and ending with Leo. Varley was friends with Blake and perhaps as a result he could obtain good texts. But if finding the traditional texts was no problem, then what happened to traditional astrology? The obvious answer is change in worldview that occurred as the result of the recognition of the heliocentric cosmos. I'm sure it's just a personal idiosyncrasy, but I've never been comfortable with that explanation. That must have been part of it, but I can't accept that it was all or even most of the reason for the shift from a rational to a more occult (as we understand that word today) viewpoint.


Curry hints that the association with the more occult beliefs began with the first Raphael. Prior to that astrology was seen a perfectly rational. That viewpoint was carried on by A.J. Pearce and Richard Garnett. Raphael and Theosophy sent us to the "New Age." The New Age sent astrology to Marc Edmund Jones, and Dane Rudhyar et al and the more solid astrology almost vanished under a barage of spurious criticism and the discovery of the glories of psychological astrology (gag me). It was "gloom and doom" old fashioned, superstitious, fatalistic, and all this came from people who invented planets to make their astrology work.

Curry's book A Confusion of Prophets is a good read and probably worth re-purchasing. Give it to yourself as a Christmas present.

Tom

Deb
Did Varley ever write a text about astrology?

At least one - A Treatise on Zodiacal Physiognomy. Illustrated by engravings of heads and features, etc. London, 1828 is at the British Library. I haven?t searched further or looked at it but will now my interest is further piqued.

Deb
If not, he might have been responsible for contributing to the view that Uranus rules Aquarius, but he wouldn?t be the first person to introduce it into our literature. I?m still not convinced that Smith would have suggested it, but would love to be proved wrong to clear this up. Sometime in the New Year when you are poking about old texts, will you check that original copy of Horary Astrology written in the 1880s if you get chance? (Please ) The reference in my 1931 edition is p.35.

Soon as I get chance I?ll do some checking?watch this space?.

Deb
At the moment Simmonite is still in front with his text published in 1896.

I?ll raise you on that. I have a first edition of Raphael?s (Robert Cross) Key to Astrology 1891. p 27/8 gives Aquarius to Uranus ?There has been some demur to my apportioning Aquarius to the planet Uranus. I can find no reason to alter my opinion on this matter, for Aquarius is a scientific sign, fond of curiosities, and of dabbling in the occult sciences, and the nature of Uranus is very similar.? He gives Uranus? exaltation as Scorpio and joys as Libra and Scorpio and an accidental dignity in the 9th.

This is probably a good way of doing this exercise though, if we keep looking back and posting any earlier references we can find. I haven?t really tried Neptune or Pluto yet.

Tom
If I remember correctly, Patrick Crry in his book A Confusion of Prophets said that Varley never wrote an astrological text.

Wrong

Tom
I've always wondered if these 19th century astrologers in England that proved so influential (for better or for worse) had ready access to the older texts?

Copies of books like CA were relatively rare and expensive but nowhere near as rare as they?d come to be in the second half of the 20th century. We tend to forget what an enormous amount of books were lost during the Blitz. Even the British Library suffered badly (as I keep finding out when the book I want is lost).

Deb
? we had these active communities, preening themselves on what they?d read and what they?d published, and the Theosophical Society which has a very good library, makes me think that astrologers with access to London wouldn?t have struggled for lack of study material

The TS in London certainly had a good library in the late 19th c. Sepharial was the librarian. But a number of other TS lodges also had libraries, notably, Edinburgh, Bristol and Birmingham. And we should remember how many astrologers were associated with Freemasonry ? the Masons are also good at building libraries at the drop of a hat.

Tom
Curry hints that the association with the more occult beliefs began with the first Raphael. Prior to that astrology was seen a perfectly rational.

Nonsense. Raphael was into the occult side as he was a fan of Francis Barrett?s The Magus (1801). Most of that is filched from Agrippa and so centuries old by then. Sibly swore by Swedenborg and cites him as a source. There was always a sizeable group of astrologers that threw astrology together with what we see as occult. But that?s a very big tangent?rationality wasn?t a problem in the past, they didn?t have the divisions we do until late into the nineteenth century.

Still searching?.

Kim

Another note on Varley - only one book seems to exist but the fuller title is "A treatise on zodiacal physiognomy / illus. by engravings of heads and features, and accompanied by tables of the time of rising of the twelve signs of the zodiac; and containing also new and astrological explanations of some remarkable portions of ancient mythological history" I did a search through COPAC and copies are held in a few libraries in the UK as well as the Library of Congress.

Time for a cup of tea :-)

Kim

If I remember correctly, Patrick Curry in his book A Confusion of Prophets said that Varley never wrote an astrological text.

Wrong

Not for the first time and certainly not for the last. Do I get partial credit for blaming my memory in advance?

Curry hints that the association with the more occult beliefs began with the first Raphael. Prior to that astrology was seen a perfectly rational.

Nonsense. Raphael was into the occult side as he was a fan of Francis Barrett?s The Magus (1801). Most of that is filched from Agrippa and so centuries old by then. Sibly swore by Swedenborg and cites him as a source. There was always a sizeable group of astrologers that threw astrology together with what we see as occult. But that?s a very big tangent?rationality wasn?t a problem in the past, they didn?t have the divisions we do until late into the nineteenth century

.

OK since people who know what they are talking about actually read what I write, I'll have to be more clear and careful. First, let's look at what Curry said: " And not just Raphael's mind for, through his pioneering efforts, the astrologer as Romantic magus, bearer of an ancient esoteric knowledge ( or an incomprehensible legacy of superstitution), became the dominant image of astrology in the age."

My statement is based on the above and the lack of occult references in the astrology texts I've come across in reprint and updated versions. What I mean by occult is the new age gibberish about "vibrations" and "being evolved" and portrayal of astrology as part and parcel of the same line of "thought." Stephen Arroyo comes to mind as a contemporary astrologer of this kind. Yes occult associations, and astrologers pre-dated Raphael, but the new age, Theosophist line of thought became mainstream after Raphael became influential. This might be in part due to the rise in popularity of 19th century "spiritualism." I don't find this in more traditional astrologers.

Arroyo: "Of all the general meanings of Saturn, probably the most important is that Saturn represents concentrated experience and learning which comes only through life in the physical body, in the material plane." [emphasis which exists for reasons known only to God and Arroyo, is in the original] Is this anything like classical astrology?

Compare Arroyo to this: Saturnine people are melancholy, hypocondriac, penurious, secretive, and fond of solitude. They are capable of great endurance, and are noted for their patience as well as their obstinacy; ..." AJ Pearce Text Book of Astrology Pearce post dated Raphael but his style seems close Varley's and I (obviously) have nothing of Varley's to quote.

And: "He [Saturn] is a diurnal planet, cold and dry (being far removed from the Sun) and moist vapors, melancholic, earthly, masculine, the greater infortune author of solitariness, malevolent, etc" Christian Astrology page 58

It may be only my opinion, but I see Pearce and Lilly as rational (i.e., what they believe can be taught and learned by almost anyone) and Arroyo et. al as gibberish that relies heavily on things like "intuition" as opposed to knowledge and this came after Raphael's influence. These people really hit their stride when they get to Neptune, and I'm forced to wonder if Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto might be more useful had they not been hijacked by the intellectual descendants of Raphael.

Thanks for writing.

Tom

Tom
Not for the first time and certainly not for the last. Do I get partial credit for blaming my memory in advance?

Oops. The wrong was for Patrick. I was assuming your memory to be correct.

I think we were using different definitions of what we mean by ?occult? here.

Tom
OK since people who know what they are talking about actually read what I write, I'll have to be more clear and careful. My statement is based on the lack of occult references in the astrology texts I've come across in reprint and updated versions. What I mean by occult is the new age gibberish about "vibrations" and "being evolved" and portrayal of astrology as part and parcel of the same line of "thought." Stephen Arroyo comes to mind as a contemporary astrologer of this kind. Yes occult associations, and astrologers pre-dated Raphael, but the new age, Theosophist line of thought became mainstream after Raphael became influential. This might be in part due to the rise in popularity of 19th century "spiritualism." I don't find this in more traditional astrologers.

I have no argument at all with this and following. I honestly have no idea what Arroyo is on about. All part of the theosophical heritage via Leo and his esoteric astrology. I get the same sort of brain fatigue with Dane Rudhyar for the same reasons.

Tom
It may be only my opinion, but I see Pearce and Lilly as rational (i.e., what they believe can be taught and learned by almost anyone) and Arroyo et. al as gibberish that relies heavily on things like "intuition" as opposed to knowledge and this came after Raphael's influence. These people really hit their stride when they get to Neptune, and I'm forced to wonder if Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto might be more useful had they not been hijacked by the intellectual descendants of Raphael.

It?s a theosophical thing - and very sad. Maybe we?re lucky that they have Neptune to play with as it stops them doing too many weird things with the classical planets?

I think it?s actually the removal of occult associations, angelic rulers, gemstones etc that gave them the leeway to use a lot of words to say nothing in particular. In trying to make astrology ?scientific? and rational a lot of the traditional associations became shaved from the edges and the logic of an extremely elegant system disappears and allows space for the ?insert twaddle here? mentality. Least I think so. Maybe we should bring back Agrippa?

Kim

Hi Kim,

Oops. The wrong was for Patrick. I was assuming your memory to be correct.

Never, ever trust my memory

I went back and looked at Curry and found the reference so he's off the hook, but we should know the whole title of Varley's work.

A Treatise on Zoadiacal Physiognomy, illustrated with engravings of heads and features, accompanied by table of the time of the rising of the Twelve Signs of the Zodaic; and containing also new and astrological explanations of some remarkable portions of ancient mythological history.

Curry reports this book was widely ignored. I probably skimmed over the title and didn't take it as an astrology text.

I get the same sort of brain fatigue with Dane Rudhyar for the same reasons.

This man's name is spoken with such reverence in the US that I was certain that there must be something wrong with me that I couldn't see why. I have two of his books and find them unreadable. I marvel when respected astrologers invoke his shade as though astrology itself owes its existence to him. I'm happy to see others share my disdain and that my giving up on his work might be considered inspired.

Maybe we?re lucky that they have Neptune to play with as it stops them doing too many weird things with the classical planets?

This one sentence altered my entire outlook. Since modern astrology is racing towards the one planet chart and that planet is Neptune; the idea that they will then leave the rest of astrology alone makes this headlong rush something to be encouraged. Thank you.

Best wishes

Tom

I?ll raise you on that. I have a first edition of Raphael?s (Robert Cross) Key to Astrology 1891. p 27/8 gives Aquarius to Uranus ?There has been some demur to my apportioning Aquarius to the planet Uranus. I can find no reason to alter my opinion on this matter, for Aquarius is a scientific sign, fond of curiosities, and of dabbling in the occult sciences, and the nature of Uranus is very similar.? He gives Uranus? exaltation as Scorpio and joys as Libra and Scorpio and an accidental dignity in the 9th.

This is probably a good way of doing this exercise though, if we keep looking back and posting any earlier references we can find. I haven?t really tried Neptune or Pluto yet.

I agree. Despite any superfluous blabbering on side issues, this seems quite a valuable exercise. In the list which is being compiled at the back of my mind, I?m hoping we can explore the situation with Neptune and Pluto a little more deeply later. But the assignation of Uranus to Aquarius is quite momentus - the first major split in a tradition that ran uninterrupted for millennia, so it would be good to get some clarity on that.

So, what we have now as the oldest reference we can find is The Key to Astrology, published 1891, by Robert Thomas Cross who was born 18 May 1850 (was he the last Raphael? Would he be known as Raphael 6th ?)

Can I ask whether Cross also assigned Saturn to Aquarius? Did he list them both as rulers or did he only use Uranus for Aquarius?

Of course, it?s still worth checking out that original copy of Horary Astrology by Raphael ? was that Cross too? If so, it is looking more likely that he might have mentioned the association there several years earlier. I don?t think I have any texts written between the first Raphael?s Manual of Astrology in 1828 and 1891, so I don't have much more I can add.

Maybe we should bring back Agrippa?

Good idea. My resolution for next year is to make some study of Agrippa?s work. His ?Three books of Occult Philosophy? written in 1510, ia available online at
http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa1.htm

Deb
So, what we have now as the oldest reference we can find is The Key to Astrology, published 1891, by Robert Thomas Cross who was born 18 May 1850 (was he the last Raphael? Would he be known as Raphael 6th ?)

People count the Raphaels differently so it's best to stick to names. But he was the last Raphael - the Cross family bought the rights to the name.

Deb
Can I ask whether Cross also assigned Saturn to Aquarius? Did he list them both as rulers or did he only use Uranus for Aquarius?

It seems to vary according to date. Need to check further.

Deb
Of course, it?s still worth checking out that original copy of Horary Astrology by Raphael ? was that Cross too? If so, it is looking more likely that he might have mentioned the association there several years earlier. I don?t think I have any texts written between the first Raphael?s Manual of Astrology in 1828 and 1891, so I don't have much more I can add.

Yes, it was Cross. Until I can get to the library and look up earlier texts neither can I add anything. I'll come back in a week or two.

In the meantime in case anyone needs some light reading and hasn't found this yet, Raymond Lull's work has been placed online at http://www.lullianarts.net/cont.htm Book of the Seven Planets is there if you scroll down.

More soon as....

Kim