Skyscript Astrology Forum

Good insights, Phil!

I just did a quick search on the history of the Uranus discovery, and found that the naming of Uranus was based on theogony-- the genealogy of the gods. I think everyone knows that Herschel originally named Uranus after George III, but this sat poorly with his continental colleagues.

" [Johann] Bode opted for Uranus, the Latinized version of the Greek god of the sky, Ouranos. Bode argued that just as Saturn was the father of Jupiter, the new planet should be named after the father of Saturn. ...Ultimately, Bode's suggestion became the most widely used, and became universal in 1850 when HM Nautical Almanac Office, the final holdout, switched from using Georgium Sidus to Uranus."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus
http://blogs.rmg.co.uk/rog/2011/03/13/o ... y_the_dis/

I had previously read but forgotten that astronomers prior to Herschel observed Uranus (beginnng with Flamsteed in 1690,) but the "discovery" part was really based on determining that it orbited the sun as a planet, vs. a star or comet (as Herschel originally thought.

John Lankford, ed History of Astronomy, (google book) gives Uranus as named for Urania, the muse of astronomy, but I couldn't find that verified.

One point that really comes across in the history of the discovery was that it catapaulted Herschel into fame and favour. King George III gave him a stipend for life plus the title of Royal Astronomer. Herschel was later knighted. Contemporary astrologers who might have greeted Uranus with resistence as an unwanted disruption do not seem to have had much sway in the public popularity of the discovery.

The genealogy of planetary gods by 18th century astronomers shouldn't seem surprising, as their education would have had a large classical studies component.

If theogony really was the basis for the naming of Uranus (Jupiter son of Saturn son of Uranus) then we are not exactly dealing with a logic which, by rights, could give Neptune to Pisces but should allocate Pluto to Aries as we move out from the sun and around the zodiac.

In fact, moving inwards from Jupiter-- Mars was the son of Jupiter and Juno. In some myths the parents of Venus, Mercury, Diana (moon) and Apollo (sun) were children of Jupiter and different goddesses-- but the sun and moon also of variously of deities symbolizing light and the ether. Pluto and Neptune were Jupiter's brothers.

Moving out from Uranus and earlier in theogony, Uranus is sometimes depicted as fatherless, but sometimes as the son of Aether-- the god of light and mists which seem very Neptunian-- by planetary nature if not by name.

Aether's father was either Chaos or Erebus, god of the primeval darkness, and Nyx goddess of night. Erebus is another name for the underworld of Hades (aka Pluto.) www.theoi.com (Compare Genesis 1.)

Obviously the mythographers had no idea of the modern solar system, but this genealogy nevertheless maps out well planet-wise, but without a necessary correlation to signs of the zodiac in strict order.

More on why Uranus got classified as malefic and attributed to Aquarius.

I just did a little more sleuthing on early descriptions of Uranus, following up on Kim Farnell's article. She viewed a lot of sources that I didn't, but I did locate as a google book Raphael's (Robert T. Cross), A Manual of Astrology, 1828.

Raphael believed that Uranus (called "Herschel") was a true malefic, nearly as bad as Saturn, but his primary reasons seem to be (a) its similarity to Saturn, (b) the discovery chart, and (c) "several thousand observations" which are unattributed except to himself and ?men of skill and science in celestial philosophy?. (We could take this with a grain of salt.)

1. He took an extremely negative view of Saturn: "?most powerful, evil, and malignant of all the planets.? If Saturn was cold and dry, Uranus was ?replete with evil...? ?extremely frigid, cold, dry, and void of any cheering influence.? (pp. 70-72.) His descriptions of the two planets are similar.

In addition to his purported "thousands of observations," Raphael probably gave Uranus to Aquarius on the grounds that Saturn (which Uranus resembled) already ruled Aquarius, and it apparently seemed like a better match than Capricorn, being one sign further out from either Aries or Cancer/Leo.

Interestingly, Raphael used the discovery of Uranus as a reason for dismissing much of the significance of the traditional table of essential dignities. (Unlike today's trads-- Raphael turfed out the table, not Uranus.) In keeping the major "essential fortitudes" and debilities, however, Raphael wrote that Uranus had the same ones as Saturn. (132-5)

2. Raphael (and apparently in the McCann article on the Uranus discovery on this site) was apparently unaware of the serious limits of using a discovery chart to say anything about a planet's nature (236). In 1781, a planet could be discovered (a) only at night, with (b) the sun and moon tucked well out of the way. (c) The new planet had to be reasonably close to the zenith, because otherwise there is liable to be too much haze and distortion in the sky just above the horizon. Given the difficulty of manoevering the large old telescopes, an astronomer pretty much had to train it on one section of the sky.

This leaves the 11th through the 8th houses (roughly speaking) in which a planet in 1781 could be discovered. A discovery chart is therefore partly an artefact of the astronomical technology available at the time.

The problem seemed to be that Uranus in Gemini (in the 8th or 9th, depending upon which time one choses between 10 and 11 pm) was closely opposed from the 2nd by a Saturn-Mars conjunction. (236) (An aspect that would have remained in place all week.) Raphael didn't mention further their T-square to the sun.

3. It was probably based on the Saturn rulership, not in opposition to it, that Raphael stated, "the sign of Aquarius is one wherein [Uranus] much delights, and that he is fortunate in the airy trigon Gemini, Libra, Aquarius; and unfortunate in fiery, earthy, or watery signs.? (70-72) He described Uranus as having the effect of both Saturn and Mercury; the latter possibly because of Uranus's first sighting in Gemini.

Possibly based on his empirical work with Uranus, Raphael though Uranus did better in nativities where it was well-aspected by the moon or Mercury, when it was more apt to make original thinkers of a scientific bent. (70-72)

(to be continued)

(continued)

In terms of the traits of Uranus [called "Herschel"], Raphael (Robert T. Cross) wrote:

?His effects are truly malefic, but what he does of evil, he does in a peculiarly strange, unaccountable, and totally unexpected manner. He causes the native born under his influence to be of a very eccentric and original disposition. Those persons born under his influence are unusually romantic, unsettled, addicted to change, and searchers after novelty. If the moon or Mercury and Herschel be well aspected, they are searchers after nature?s secrets, excellent chymists, and usually profound in the more secret sciences. He gives the most extraordinary magnanimity and loftiness of mind mixed with an uncontrollable and intense desire for pursuits or desire out of the ?track of custom.? (pp. 70-72)

We get a curious juxtaposition here, of an "evil" planet causing iconoclastic individuals. Being eccentric or addicted to change were negative traits. With the passage of time, however, our society seemingly developed more tolerance for people "out of the track of custom" than was the case for Raphael and his era.

There is more to be discovered here if the data were available, like whether Raphael actually did a lot of empirical work on Uranus or read the work of others, and how much influence he had on subsequent astrologers.

Raphael gives a few worked-out examples of his use of Uranus in his Manual of Astrology in natal, mundane, and length-of-life calculations, so that we can see how he interpreted it. Which was usually like an old-fashioned malevolent Saturn: OK if safely tucked out of the way with the moon or Mercury, but extremely harmful in a hard aspect.

The idea that Uranus somehow liberated one from the bounds of Saturn and was thus antithetical to Saturn seems to come from a later period of modern astrology's curious career. To Raphael, they were much of a muchness, except that Uranus was quirkier.

As a post-script, Raphael's chart is posted on the Astro-DataBank at: http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Cross,_Robert .

His Uranus looks....troubled.

Re: "More on why Uranus got classified as malefic and attributed to Aquarius."

Though I do consider Uranus a co-ruler of Aquarius, I don't see it as malefic.

Without the influence of true malefics, Uranus tends to neutrality. It is sometimes upsetting as it liberates, but the liberation is always needed. [It's not Uranus' "fault" if people have a hard time adapting to the sudden (needed) change...]

In the words of Alexander Marr,

"As already mentioned, Uranus is not at all a malefic, but stands for originality, love of freedom, true intuition and mental ability. In transits, midpoints and cycles where we must interpret the mutual interaction of several planets from the psychological point of view, Uranus often stresses suddenness, surprise and excitement. The character of the event depends on the other planets involved." [Emphasis mine]

I have a partile Grand Trine all at 27 degrees (Air Signs) of Mercury (Aquarius)-Saturn (Gemini) -Uranus (Libra). I have seen benefits accruing from this combination. It is good in fields where your daily bread depends upon constant outpouring of creative ideas and innovations. Not fit for routine work.

I have further to add that Aquarius being my 7th Sign, I have not seen Uranus transits or progressed aspects affecting me in negative way. Marriage stable for past 20 years and still going on . I am monogamous by nature.

Atlantean wrote:

Without the influence of true malefics, Uranus tends to neutrality.

The way I look at it, there are no "true malefics"; all the planets are neutral. Since all the planets represent indispensable functions of (human) nature. True, some influences may be easier than others. This depends on how a planet's influence gets modified by other planets, their placement in the zodiac, the kind of aspects getting involved etc. Also, it depends on what an individual or collective attracts according to the choices they have made, which reflects their level of spiritual evolution and what "lectures" they need in order for that evolution to proceed. To be sure, this is generally not the way traditional astrology looks at the planets, even though the Syrian Neoplatonist Iamblichus mentioned that the sometimes destructive influence of the malefics is not really their "fault" but has to do with the shortcomings in an individual's consciousness.

Waybread wrote:

If there is more to Schmidt's thesis, or some additional subtext to the sun-Uranus connection, it would be very helpful to read it.

Waybread, the way I look at Uranus as correlated with the Sun involves its placement in the rulership scheme. Just like Venus is opposite to Mars, Mercury to Jupiter, and the Moon to Saturn, the Sun is facing Uranus. The first three pairs are in accordance with their order in the Ptolemaic geocentric model, linking the innermost "planet" (the Moon) with the outermost (Saturn) etc., but this doesn't hold true for the Sun-Uranus-association, unless you switch to the heliocentric perspective. It's interesting that it is again Uranus which upsets the classical view and leads us to assume a more cosmic perspective.

Regards
Michael

Hi Phil, going through your last post to me.......

much more simplistic, the most basic, obvious trait of a planet having an influence on its enduring symbolism. Along the lines of blood red Mars, for instance. What were the moods of people - astrologers and non-astrologers - what were their feelings, regarding this new planet Uranus? Was there a popular feeling in the air of a great and sudden new discovery and breakthrough? If this was the popular feeling, apparent in, say, the newspapers of the day, as Waybread considers, that's something. Even if not a pop sentiment, I'd have to imagine there was such a sense among astrologers of the day. This was the first discovery of its kind, basically ever.

I can?t add much here for now to my last post. In a nutshell it could be there were about 6 astrologers in the English speaking world at the time, they may not have known all that much about the previous 1,800 yrs approx of horoscopic ideas, and their reaction to Uranus was a mixture of dismay, contempt, confusion and fascination. (I think this was pretty much my initial response to Chiron in the 80s).

I've read that myths take a kernel of truth, perhaps a real hero or event, and grow from this. But this kernel remains essential. Also, I've read that much of what we think we objectively see, or logically deduce, comes from somewhere deeper within us, a place much more steeped in feelings and emotions. It seems very coincidental that a paradigm challenging, flash out of nowhere planet is imbued with just these traits as its own symbolic essence.

Myths are usually seen as tools to to amplify or illustrate meanings contained in a symbol and reveal some of its nuances and depths As to where they come from here?s a snippet of old Gustav?s thinking, relevant as he may have been largely responsible for their employment by Psychological Astrologers:
??The primitive mentality does not invent myths, it experiences them. Myths are original revelations of the preconscious psyche . . . . Many of these unconscious processes may be indirectly occasioned by consciousness, but never by conscious choice. Others appear to arise spontaneously, that is to say, from no discernible or demonstrable conscious cause??.

Tarnas says about Promethean fire in reference to the meaning of Uranus ?? the creative spark, cultural and technological breakthrough, the enhancement f human autonomy, the liberating gift from the heavens, sudden enlightenment and spiritual awakening''. To which Greene adds ?Prometheus steals the potential of consciousness from the gods??. (Note her associations for this planet I posted earlier in the thread).

This is where a historian comes in and s/he can consider whether the time around Uranus?s discovery echoes their views of the nature of the planet.

More to your point, could the unexpected challenge of the planet, the vexing question of just what to do with it astrologically, be the germs of its definition as malefic? Even now we speak of "dealing with the challenges of" Uranus.

I think I?ve already commented on this. I don?t see Uranus as presenting more challenges than any other planet, in fact often less as an outer planet (which talk about how the events of our time filter into our lives)unless it is integral to the chart.

And the fact that this planet shows up beyond Saturn - with its own symbolism with which we are all familiar - usurping its place in a sense, could lead to what Joanna Watters writes here on skyscript:

"Uranus symbolizes the rebel and is a direct response to Saturn's austerity. Saturn plays by the rules, but Uranus says that rules are there to be broken or challenged. Saturn is sensible, Uranus throws caution to the winds."

I don?t think rebel is a helpful word for Uranus. A rebel can lack a cause or rationale. Other than attention seeking or notoriety, Seems to me Uranus tends to know why it is acting a certain way, it?s cerebral, a ?thinking? (in the Jungian meaning) planet, not an intuitive energy. Ouranos emerges out of chaos not as a rebellion against this state more so because he thought it was a good idea to invent time, or the zodiac, geometry and numbers. As always depends on how one interprets these myths.

This Uranus vs. Saturn dynamic-as-descriptor of Uranus seems pretty common. We don't see this with, say, Neptune vs. Saturn. Certainly the mythological Uranus vs. Saturn conflict would point in the opposite direction in terms of rebellion symbolism. I wonder how much the sudden astronomical usurpation of Saturn by Uranus plays here?

What is this dynamic in your thinking? Greene?s seems to be, amongst others, Kronos severing Ouranos?s bollocks was the symbolic ??beginning of earthly reality? or 'defined forms? so perfection (Uranus) was no longer attainable.

The "as above so below" part is my musing on astrologers? use of the flow of symbolism. We often experience things on Earth, "below", then observe the skies, and deduce what things mean "above". Consider Ptolemy's statements on how even a fool can deduce some astrological facts based on simply knowing the seasons.

Do we? This Ptolemy statement is not known or remembered by me, what did he mean exactly?

But if the aforementioned thoughts have any truth to them, here we'd have events in the sky itself that are being directly experienced. Uranus the planet literally did something: it suddenly revealed itself. That action, directly witnessed "above", might in fact have been extrapolated to provide a reason for what's going on "below". So which way is the symbolism, or the arrow of deduction, flowing? Is Uranus being defined by what we experience on Earth? Or is it defining itself by jumping out of nowhere and shaking things up? Just like Mars, perhaps, declares his own violence by being blood red.

To anyone, such as astrologers, steeped in the "as above so below" concept, the direction of this flow mightn't matter. The symbolic correlation would just speak for itself. That was the thought and I apologize if I?m way off topic!

Getting deeply into the western esoteric cosmic hall of mirrors / sacred physics might be too much of a stretch on this thread, You could ask Greene though as to why if Uranus is the planet of cosmic geometry why it was not discovered at the dawn of Horoscopy, if you see this construct as an attempt to model ?the mind of god?.

All Members

I think the convention some members have adopted here (e.g Paul) of quoting the date and time of a post being quoted is worth everyone giving thought to adopting on this thread from now on. We may well be quoting someone from a couple of pages ago or that person may have posted multiple times here. Without this kind of clarification its becoming very confusing for other members trying to follow what is going on here.

Thanks

Mark

Hi Michael-- I am aware of the concept that the sun rules the sign opposite Aquarius..... I don't know if anyone had a chance to read my historical posts on how one astrologer used Uranus after its discovery (p. 14,) but "Raphael" chose an interesting way around the problem in 1828, which was to say that Uranus pretty much operates like Saturn, so just assign Uranus to Saturn-ruled Aquarius, and use Saturn's detriment, exltation, and fall for Uranus, as well.

I don't know if anybody took him up on it.

Mark wrote:

Perhaps the deeper question for us both to contemplate is can two logically contradictory approaches be equally accurate? Our answer, whatever it might be, surely tells is something profound about the nature of astrology.

Waybread wrote: 03/03/2014 08:37PM

Yes, absolutely! Perhaps we've all seen traditional and modern western, as well as Vedic/jyotish astrology, produce uncanny results. And the differences between these systems are striking. More and more, this leads me to think that astrology is a form of divination.

That being the case why do we cling so passionately to viewpoints that are ultimately subjective? For me I need my viewpoint to follow a logical sequence. I like the rigour and nuances of traditional astrology. And yes I like the idea of drawing on a tradition that was utilised by the giants of astrological history. For me the case for throwing out traditional rulerships and aspect theory has never been made convincingly. I also dont think the outer planet rulerships are really confirmed by the evidence of history. I agree the outers have astrological influence but that is not the same as rulership.

Waybread wrote: 03/03/2014 08:37PM

Hey, Mark-- with my sun, Mercury, and Venus in Aquarius (and sun trine Uranus conjunct MC) would you really expect me not to stick up for my beliefs????

Gosh Waybread you should have the Aquarius logo by your profile not me! All I have is my sun there. I can now see why you would be rather upset about robbing Uranus from Aquarius now! I should state in case anyone is wondering (or still reading this miasma of a thread) that I have no planets in Aries.

Waybread wrote: 03/03/2014 08:37PM

While I don't think the Uranus-Aquarius rulership of modern astrology is inviolable, to poke sticks at it should equally make traditional astrology's standards open to question, no?

Not sure what you mean here. Are you suggesting that if traditionalists question some key components of modern astrology we might get some of our own medicine from modernists? Bring it on I say!

Mark wrote:

Have you noticed the strong historical association between Uranus in Aries and revolutions and rebellions? How do you reconcile that fact with your existing views?

Waybread wrote: 03/03/2014 08:37PM

I don't see a contradiction here. You do not argue for a Uranus domiciled in Aries-- as I understand your argument.

No. I would have hoped it was crystal clear by now to anyone reading this thread I have never ever suggested this. For the last time time let me reiterate I do not believe Uranus rules anything.

Waybread wrote: 03/03/2014 08:37PM

However, in claiming a stronger "affiliation" for Uranus with Aries than for Uranus with Aquarius, you seem to depose Uranus's long-term rulership in modern astrology. This concerns me because Uranus operationalizes well as the ruler of Aquarius in modern natal astrology (alongside Saturn.)

Actually, my argument is not based on ?deposing? Uranus from anywhere. It never ruled Aquarius in the astrological tradition and I am not suggesting it rules Aries either. What I am challenging is the rather blinkered mentality of modern astrology that can only see an association between Uranus and Aquarius without consideration of other signs.

If we are appealing to historical precedent ( as you seem to be above) what is more powerful? A tradition stemming back thousands of years or one less than a century old?

Waybread wrote: 03/03/2014 08:37PM

Since Uranus changes sign every 7 years, on a global basis we will find all kinds of revolutions, novel events, and scientific breakthroughs happening throughout its 84-year orbital period.

Well true enough but there are patterns that seem to emerge if you study a long enough period of history. To argue otherwise is surely to argue against your own position that Uranus has a special relationship ie rulership in Aquarius.

Waybread wrote: 03/03/2014 08:37PM

With Mars ruling Aries, it might make more sense for "martial" events to occur with Uranus in Aries. But then we might associate some sort of agricultural innovation to occur with Uranus in an earth sign; or a scientific discovery with Uranus in a mental air sign.

Yes. Deb made this point earlier in the thread. I followed it up with some historical events linked to Uranus by sign. I could probably accept this basic point.

I suppose what I am getting at is if Uranus rules Aquarius how does the planet operate differently in that sign from any other? Presumably you see Uranus as more dignified or more characteristic of itself in this sign in some way? Exactly how? I don?t think I have seen a modern astrologer explain that. But then I admit I have only just started reading Tarnas and dont have Liz Greene's book yet.

I think taking this down to nativities gets us absolutely nowhere because this can be argued endlessly between modern and traditional delineation. I do believe if there is going to be a more objective approach to this issue we need to examine events in the wider world which presumably demonstrate Uranus rules Aquarius in your view? Otherwise where is the evidence of this rulership you keep insisting on other than a totally subjective 'it works for me' argument?

Mark

Is there any way, where every post in a thread gets a serial number and one can quote it? Time and date might be confusing...Different time zones?

Morpheus wrote: 07/03/2014 02:52AM

Is there any way, where every post in a thread gets a serial number and one can quote it? Time and date might be confusing...Different time zones?

That might be taking things a bit far. I dont think the current site is designed with that facility. I'm sure Deborah Houlding has lots of other things to keep her busy. Lets just thank our lucky stars for such a wonderful free resource we have here in Skyscript.

As Skyscript is registered in the United Kingdom all the times given for posts are based on Greenwich Mean Time. I dont think the time listed for the post really matters. Its just an identifier if that person has posted a lot. I should say this is not standard practice on Skyscript but this thread has got so excessively long it seems a wise thing to consider.

Mark