Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hi Waybread,

I would like to add something to my post Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:39 pm:

As the first of the outer planets, Uranus assumes a role for the transsaturnians (of which I believe there are more still to be found) akin to the Sun for the inner planets, and in this way the concept of Uranus as an esoteric Sun makes sense. It also explains Uranus' glyph, the Sun with an arrow aimed upwards.

Regards
Michael

Hi Michael-- I did read your informative post with interest!

I do not distinguish between esoteric and non-esoteric planets. To me, either all of the planets are esoteric, or none of them is. Or each planet has both an esoteric and ordinary (exoteric) meaning. This attitude does away with the "problem" of deciding whether a given outer planet is an esoteric version of or "higher octave" of another planet. The attempt to find alternative esoteric meanings for outer planets, to me, violates the principle of Occam's Razor and has little evidence to support it. It seems based upon theorizing, but not of the sort amenable to empirical examination.

I come from North America, where the glyph for Uranus looks like an old-fahsioned TV antenna. It is based upon Herschel's initial "H" superimposed above a small globe. Sun-Mars problem solved. The glyphs (sigels) have undergone a lot of historical change in appearance, namely in having crosses added to them to make them more respectable. I don't draw any particular meaning from the post-hoc symbolism of the outer planets.

BTW, I just read the older thread on Uranus, and there is a lot of good information on it. http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=254 . Deb scooped my Raphael discussion on p. 14 to some extent, but not entirely. The argument that one must experience an entire cycle of a newly discovered planet before saying much about it surely gives way to examining historical events and nativities to see how a planet operates. One poster (Eddy) cited a Dutch astrological use of Uranus as early as 1806, raising the issue of whether more research was conducted on Uranus than was available to 19th century English astrologers.

I find Raphael's argument, that Uranus is malefic based upon the discovery chart, to be spurious. But this apparently was a big part of his basis for the Aquarius association.

Raphael's argument was basically: Saturn is the worst malefic. Uranus is a malefic similar to Saturn. Uranus therefore is "at home" in a Saturn-ruled sign. Aquarius works better than Capricorn because Uranus shows some prominence in the charts of scientists, characterized as quirky people of an inquiring mind (as understood in 1828,) which suits an air sign. Also, Uranus as the farthest planet is better placed in the Saturn-ruled sign farther from the sun. The discovery of Uranus necessitates relinquishing the standard table of essential dignities, but we otherwise can treat Uranus just like Saturn for domicile, detriment, exaltation, and fall.

Raphael's argument shows, correctly or incorrectly, that the idea of Uranus as antithetical to Saturn (as an esoteric sun, or higher octave of Mercury) is a later and perhaps more "poetic" argument. Uranus can stay with Aquarius without further dress-up because it isn't like the sun (or Mars), it is like Saturn.

I can see using Uranus, as the first trans-Saturnian, as a kind of "gateway" planet, but the astrological, astronomical sun has so many core meanings that seem to work very well: one's sense of identity or self, one's authority figures. Uranus doesn't seem to have this role in the horoscope.

Michael Sternbach wrote: 06/03/2014 1.39PM

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.

Hi Michael,

Firstly, I need to point out the traditional viewpoint (at least as developed by Ptolemy) doesn?t really see the so called natural malefics (Saturn, Mars and the Sun in combustion) as evil. Its not a moral judgement of their nature but rather an assessment of their potentially destructive effects. A malefic in traditional astrology is about excess. Too much cold, dryness, moisture or heat. According to Ptolemy the first two are a particular problem as they as inimical to life. Life needs a moderate amount of warmth and moisture to sustain itself. In contrast the so called called natural benefics ( Jupiter, Venus) are by nature moderate. They naturally possess a the necessary conditions of warmth and moisture for life to flourish. Its rather like the Goldilocks story. Too much of anything spoils the porridge!

Secondly, though, this is only a generalised position. We always need to take account of the specific circumstances of each chart . Numerous things can transform a natural benefic into an accidental malefic. Hence we look at essential dignity and reception, aspectual contacts, house placement and rulership, planetary phase , sect etc. From all this a so called natural benefic like say Jupiter can end up operating in quite a malefic ie destructive manner in a chart. So the traditional outlook is a good deal more subtle than many seem to realise.

Thirdly,in practical terms I think relatively few modern astrologers would go quite as far as you and suggest that all planets are effectively 'common' or neutral to start with. I spend a lot of time chatting in my Association to those working within a modern framework and seeing how they delineate charts. I have yet to hear anyone describe Pluto as ?neutral?. The general sense of dread this planet seems to generate amongst moderns is fascinating. Ok people may have a more psychological understanding of how this planet operates but if this planet isn?t regarded as a malefic I don?t know what is.

Iamblichus is interesting but he basically rejected the horoscopic astrology his teacher Porphyry taught him. He sought a path of mysticism and ecstatic experience. He is interesting though in presenting a more interior understanding of the operation of the planets that reminds me somewhat of Ficino.

Mark

Michael Sternbach wrote: 06/03/2014 1.39PM

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.

Hi again Michael,

The problem I have with your perspective here is that the classical rulership system wasn?t understood as being based on the geocentric placement of planets. It was based on how the other signs (and by implication their rulers) related to the signs of the two luminaries i.e. Leo + Cancer.

If you look at a display of the signs you see the two signs of the luminaries (Leo + Cancer) are placed together. The other signs were presented as forming an aspectual link to each of the luminaries. Hence the Mercury ruled signs each form a sextile to one of the luminaries. The Mars ruled signs each form a square to one of the luminaries. The Jupiter ruled signs each form a trine to one of the luminaries. Finally, the Saturn ruled signs (Capricorn+ Aquarius) each form an opposition to one of the luminaries. To quote Deborah Houlding on this last point:

Saturn, the furthest visible planet from the Sun, is given rulership of the signs that are most distant from the Sun's 'home': Capricorn and Aquarius. These are the signs of the coldest, wintry weather, their unfriendly aspect to the signs of the luminaries befitting the destructive nature of the 'Greater Malefic'.

We might also comment on the light of the luminaries and the dark of Saturn.

I do recommend this short article by Deborah Houlding below which sets out the logic of the classical rulership scheme. It also has a useful diagram displaying the aspectual relationship between the signs and the luminaries.

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

Now I can understand a modern astrologer therefore jumping to the conclusion that since Uranus is seen to rule Aquarius by sign association it must therefore be opposed to the domicile of the Sun ie Leo. A traditional astrologer doesn?t see it this way. For us the traditional rulerships with all their symmetry and inherent logic remain. Uranus in our perspective doesn?t rule any sign so you cannot determine its nature on a simple sign analogy.

These bodies are transpersonal, or to use Schmidt's term 'transcendental'. They exist on the fringes of our solar system. They are invisble to our natural senses without the aid of technology. They dont operate like the 7 traditional planets and cannot be simply squeezed into this kind of framework and treated in exactly the same way.

Having said all that traditional astrologers dont necessarily agree on the fine details. We may not all accept the views of Robert Hand, Lee Lehman , Robert Schmidt or I dare to state even Deborah Houlding! However, we all agree that these bodies belong outside the traditional rulership scheme.

When I opened this thread I suggested that the symbolism of Aries has some associations to Uranus. However, I wasn?t trying to argue a sign rulership relationship. Rather to highlight how Uranus isn?t all about Aquarius as so many astrologers automatically assume today.

There is of course a real dilemma for moderns in the current rulership scheme. The beauty and harmony of the classical system has been destroyed and its inherent logic lost. We no longer have the luminaries as the only signs ruled by just one planet. We have lost that the important distinction that marks out the luminaries and their unique rulership to signs. In modern astrology you therefore have the messy situation that outside the luminaries some planets still rule two signs and some ( the outers) only one.

Historically, moderns have sought to return to the harmony of the original system by arguing that the discovery of new planets will allow every sign (excluding the luminaries) to have a planet of their own.

Of course this approach doesn't restore the pivotal role of the luminaries in the traditional rulership scheme but lets leave that point to one side for now.

The proposal of modern astrologers to add new planets to all the signs might have looked plausible at the turn of the 20th century but today it is looking quite unrealistic. Are people really going to assign the incredibly slow moving bodies like say Eris, Makemake or Sedna to the remaining signs? Or will we just pick out our favourite asteroid and give it a sign to rule? The modern rulership system is an unholy mess. The notion that the discovery of a new planet will somehow come to the rescue is in my view nothing more than a pipedream. The orbital periods of any new dwarf planets are going to be far too slow to make them useful for the practical astrology in terms of rulerships.

Its difficult to admit that the astrological community went seriously astray in its reaction to the discovery of outer planets in the last century. However, I believe they did in prematurely assigning the newly discovered planets as sign rulers. In the 19th and early 20th century there was a heavy focus on astrology becoming 'modern' and it seemed appropriate to show astrology was up with the most recent discoveries of science by incorporating the outer as new rulers. However, while this may have seemed expedient at the time it now seems a serious overreaction.

If astrology still insists on following the fashions of astronomy in deciding its rulers should Pluto be demoted from its modern rulership of Scorpio since it is now regarded as a mere dwarf planet?

We can save ourselves these headaches by going back to the fundamental principles of the classical rulership scheme. There is no necessity to dismember the traditional rulership scheme if you want to work with the outer planets in charts. So there is a way to have the best of both worlds.

Mark

waybread wrote: One poster (Eddy) cited a Dutch astrological use of Uranus as early as 1806, raising the issue of whether more research was conducted on Uranus than was available to 19th century English astrologers.

Can you explain more Waybread? I am not sure why a Dutch astrologer using Uranus in 1806 tells us anything about English astrologers? Unless of course you presume that no English astrologers by 1806 had used Uranus? But then you have mentioned Kim Farnell's article which even has a timeline of astrologers using Uranus, so it cannot be this. So I am not sure what you mean here. Do you mean citing Aquarius as the domicile of Uranus?
(edit: I should add that I think you're probably quite right in pointing out our presumed and so far unchallenged presumption that English speaking astrologers are the main contenders to consider here)

Raphael's argument shows, correctly or incorrectly, that the idea of Uranus as antithetical to Saturn (as an esoteric sun, or higher octave of Mercury) is a later and perhaps more "poetic" argument. Uranus can stay with Aquarius without further dress-up because it isn't like the sun (or Mars), it is like Saturn.

I am not sure why we would make all these conclusions just based on an examination of one astrologer's use of Uranus - perhaps you can explain why you think Raphael particularly ought to be seen as the barometer of Uranus' qualities? It really raises a great many questions for modern astrology if we conclude that Uranus is like Saturn (and indeed for traditional onees). After all aren't descriptions of Uranus and Saturn quite opposed? We cannot have it both ways: either Uranus is like Saturn, in which case either Uranus' qualities or Saturn's need to be updated, or else we accept that the two are not alike, in which case Raphael's premise seems flawed, which is very probable considering his view was not at all widely accepted originally and more to the point you conclude you find his rationale spurious too. We can't have it both ways, pick and choose when Raphael's premise is sound and when it is not.

It might be worth looking at the early astrological significations of Uranus and seeing if they are similar to Saturn.

Also, correct me if I am wrong here, but doesn't Raphael refer to Uranus as delighting in Aquarius? Or does he say ruling or co-ruling? Especially as he later attests that Uranus rules no signs (as per Kim Farnell's article on the subject).

Also, for what it's worth, we already know that the the higher octave and esoteric sun idea is a much later addition (Bailey is as early as I am familiar with either), so I am not sure what the main crux of your argument here is, or how it relates to Marks' or my own idea of Uranus with Aries? We already know that Uranus got assigned to Aquarius of course, so examining the fact that it did hardly tells us much about Mark's premise right?

Unless by esoteric sun you mean the connection of the sun to wisdom and higher faculties of the intellect, in which case we can go back to the hellensitic and medieval traditions for this?

I read your posts on page 14 (Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:44 am) but I really couldn't figure out what the crux of your argument was it seemed so contradictory.

For example, having just explained that Uranus is perfectly situated in Aquarius due to its similarity with Saturn, a la Raphael, you then go on to describe Raphael's take on Uranus (Thu Mar 06, 2014 7:03 am) which is anything but like Saturn.I'm not sure how many people would have used these words to describe Saturn: "strange, unaccountable, and totally unexpected", "a very eccentric and original disposition", "unusually romantic, unsettled, addicted to change, and searchers after novelty", "extraordinary magnanimity and loftiness of mind", "intense desire for pursuits or desire".

In fact weren't you page after page here arguing against Uranus being malefic to begin with, and now you cite as a main source of your argument away from the comment I made pages ago about the Sun, someone who concluded an affinity to Aquarius based in part on Uranus being "truly malefic".


I read through your post which seemed to not only invalidate the logic that you have been insisting on all along - whether by focus on Hellenistic astrology, focus away from the malefic qualities of Uranus etc. and also appears to be based on a logic which describes Uranus using keywords totally antithetical to modern or traditional use of Saturn whilst simultaneously, as per your argument here, suggesting that they are so alike.

I just cannot fathom why you repeat the argument that Uranus and Aquarius are so well suited because of the similarity to Saturn, whilst at the same time precluding it with (Fri Mar 07, 2014 4:37 am):

I find Raphael's argument, that Uranus is malefic based upon the discovery chart, to be spurious. But this apparently was a big part of his basis for the Aquarius association.

If you find it spurious then why mention it?

If only to show that the later theosophical approach of higher octaves and esoteric suns were a later development we already surely knew that all along - it's been mentioned already of course.

It left me baffled as to the point you were making so I ignored it, but I see you are making it again here in the part I have quoted so if there is some greater meaning here then I really fail to see it. Except of course that it appears that you will latch to anything which appears to validate your desire/belief that Uranus and Aquarius are affiliated - even if it means ignoring what you said in a previous post or contradicts other views you've held - the important part doesn't seem to be in arriving at the conclusions through a systematic and logical approach but rather to simply cherry pick any source at all, no matter what logic they employ, to affiliate the two.

I hope this doesn't come across as too harsh, because really I am more bewildered than anything. I dont' want to be too harsh because I appreciate that you are not saying you have it all figured out either, but it just seems so all over the place to me. In fact I suspect you may not be even aware that you're doing this - citing sources and 'authorities' that actually whose logic you admit you don't even agree with it, just to make some point about uranus being perfectly fine in aquarius. It is if the case is hoping to be made by sheer weight of popularity alone. I think it would be good to pull back a bit and return to arguing a case that you do agree with, because it's hard to see why you cite Raphael when you don't agree with his logic to begin with. It makes for a confusing set of points if we hope to try to understand your view or why you think uranus and aquarius are so well suited, or, more to the point, why uranus and aries aren't. If it is a matter of pragmatism, then surely we can ignore Raphael completely right?

Michael Sternbach wrote: As the first of the outer planets, Uranus assumes a role for the transsaturnians (of which I believe there are more still to be found) akin to the Sun for the inner planets, and in this way the concept of Uranus as an esoteric Sun makes sense. It also explains Uranus' glyph, the Sun with an arrow aimed upwards.

Can you explain? I am not following how Uranus assumes a role akin to the Sun for the inner planets. What is this relationship/role that is so similar? What is the role of the Sun to the inner planets (which is presumably not true for the other planets) that is similar to the role of uranus to the transsaturnians?

(Thu Mar 06, 2014 1:39 pm)

The way I look at it, there are no "true malefics"; all the planets are neutral.

I hear this a lot from many modern astrologers, Atlantean says the same thing here. And yet I always struggle to find individuals who look forward to transits of Uranus over Venus, or Pluto over the Moon or Ascendant etc. It always seems that modern astrologers, upon learning of these transits, are anxious or fearful about these transits in a manner that they do not appear to be when they find out that Jupiter transits those places instead. If indeed all planets are neutral, then I wonder why this is so disproportionate, or perhaps it is just the people I know? Similarly I am going through a Saturn return just now, it is exact to my degree of my natal placement, and yet I have never found anyone brimming with hope and enthusiasm for their Saturn return as they were for their Jupiter return at 24.

I suspect the problem is much much more to do with the word 'malefic' than it is to do with any astrological interpretation we might make from the concept.

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.

Can you explain this point? It seems like you were positing some logic and then pointing out that Uranus breaks that logic, and rather than conclude that the logic is faulty it seems to be taken that the scheme is incontrovertible and it reveals some deep truth about Uranus, rather than just logically see that the scheme, of which people devised, appears to lack logic and consistency.

Mark & Paul, your posts in response to me came in while I was working on this reply to Waybread. I appreciate your feedback and I will be happy to answer as soon as I have the time to do this adequately.

Hi Waybread, in response to your post Fri Mar 07, 2014 4:37 am (all quotes from there):

I did read your informative post with interest!

Thanks. I enjoy being informative; it's reflecting my Uranus exactly square my Mercury, among other factors in my chart. I gladly return the compliment; it's obvious that you know a lot and like to do your own thinking about the things you study.

I do not distinguish between esoteric and non-esoteric planets. To me, either all of the planets are esoteric, or none of them is.

I agree, astrology itself is an esoteric science. - That's why it's attributed to Uranus!

The attempt to find alternative esoteric meanings for outer planets, to me, violates the principle of Occam's Razor and has little evidence to support it. It seems based upon theorizing, but not of the sort amenable to empirical examination.

Personally, I like the concept of the seven traditional planets representing the conscious functions of the human psyche; the ones that are more focussed on physical reality. Whereas the trans-Saturnian planets stand for the subconscious/superconscious. They are more geared towards transcendental aspects such as inspiration, intuition, dreams, psychic skills, spiritual experiences. So they are frequently quite prominent in the charts of highly artistic, inventive, psychic or metaphysically talented people (as well as in the charts of mentally ill people). In this sense they are "esoteric planets". This should be amenable to empirical examination.

Raphael's argument shows, correctly or incorrectly, that the idea of Uranus as antithetical to Saturn (as an esoteric sun, or higher octave of Mercury) is a later and perhaps more "poetic" argument. Uranus can stay with Aquarius without further dress-up because it isn't like the sun (or Mars), it is like Saturn.

I agree that Saturn and Uranus have more in common than one might think at first. If I may quote myself Sun Mar 02, 2014 5:03 pm:

Does it make sense to assign Saturn and Uranus to the same sign(s)? Well, the reactionary and the revolutionary have more in common than one might first assume. The two resemble each other in their intransigence and pursuit of standardization. Indeed, whether somebody is seen as belonging to one or the other category often depends only on the observer's ideological perspective. And it is a sad fact that a revolution often leads to a system that is worse than the one it has overthrown. Furthermore, bear in mind the interdependence of science (nature's laws; Saturn) and technology (Uranus).

But this is not so say that the two planets can't really be distinguished from each other, or that there are no further considerations entering the picture. Let's say that Saturn and Uranus are constituting a polarity. They are the two sides of a coin. There is a some Yin in the Yang, and vice versa.

I can see using Uranus, as the first trans-Saturnian, as a kind of "gateway" planet, but the astrological, astronomical sun has so many core meanings that seem to work very well: one's sense of identity or self, one's authority figures. Uranus doesn't seem to have this role in the horoscope.

I don't mean to push the analogy too far. Certainly I don't put my sunglasses on when Uranus is high up in the sky. All that I'm saying is that the Uranus-Sun analogy can be understood on certain grounds that I will try to further explain in my next post.

Regards
Michael

Hi Mark-- re: yours of Fri Mar 07, 2014 12:06 am.

I wouldn't worry that this post has gotten too long. So long as people wish to participate in a good discussion, that's the main thing.

You wrote:

...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.

As I've said repeatedly, if people with to practice a conservative traditional astrology, that is fine with me. If astrology means anything, your horoscope might even suggest that you appreciate tradition and order; just as mine might suggest I prefer a more modern approach. One unexpected insight that your thread has revealed for me, is that I would actually prefer to keep modern and traditional astrology as separate schools that nevertheless share a rich and common heritage. At some point in the road, however, the traditionalists took the fork to the left, and the moderns took the fork to the right.

By analogy: some people like only representational art. Others are happy with impressionist, abstract, or post-modern art. One is not objectively "good" and the other objectively "bad" because the only way that art can be judged is through the lenses of one's own subjective experience.

So to me (not to you!) if I lose some traditional dignities that's OK, because the trade-off is gaining an expanded solar system.

"My modern astrology" seems highly logical to me, but then I don't like a lot of modern astrology, either. Rather than seeing traditional astrology as the only rational alternative to modern astrology, however, I simply prune away the modern material I don't like and foster the modern material I do like. The older I get the less taken I am with psychological and esoteric astrology; and the more I focus on a kind of idealist or phenomenological approach of trying to understand what life looks like to horoscope natives.

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!

Yes, and yes.

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

If I accuse traditional astrology of having a blinkered mentality, where does this get us? Howbeit we reconsider other sign "associations" within a traditional dignity/debility framework? Should we see whether a planet in degree "x" in sign "y" is really strengthened if the planet is in its own terms? I don't take the "timeline" point at all. Each of us today benefits from modern inventions (like the Internet) that didn't exist in the millenia previous to roughly 1970. We don't argue that calculations require an abacus or slide rule simply because they are older.

I take your point that Uranus in Aquarius should work better there if it actually rules the sign. The trouble with coming up with either mundane or genethliacal evidence is that:

1. The original affinities (dignities, debilities) were never set up as based on evidence, but rather on the basis of idealized schemtics. Then "rulership" has multiple meanings. I think Uranus thematically "rules" aviation and science, as well as Aquarian house cusps.

2. Evidence from mundane of nativity astrology would really have to be couched as a large-scale study to see whether Uranus is "king of the castle" in Aquarius. We cannot be too Eurocentric in mundane astrology, for example. We have to define a whole lot of parameters and terms. We have to eliminate biases, if possible, from the study design.

3. Uranus was last in Aquarius from 1996 to 2003. I would see this as a time of all kinds of technological innovation; and a time when social mores became increasingly liberalized. I note that invention or innovation dates are typically earlier than their "democratization." For example, cell phones were invented in the 1970s and 80s, but when did "everybody" get one, such that they changed society?

Before that, Uranus was in Aquarius from 1912 to 1920. Of course, this was the WW I period, but more than that, it seems like a tipping point into modernity in so many ways. American women got the vote in 1920, and shed their highly restrictive heavy clothing, to cite one example. It was a period when Americans first began to take to the road as automobiles became affordable ("democratized.) Commercial airmail became common.

So much of astrology is subjective, Mark!

Hi Paul-- re: yours of Fri Mar 07, 2014 1:44 pm.

I am fascinated by the question of how Uranus became associated with Aquarius, as well as how those first post-discovery astrologers understood Uranus. The two questions are linked.

As I noted in my posts of Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:44 am, Thu Mar 06, 2014 7:03 am, and Fri Mar 07, 2014 4:37 am, I emphatically do not promote the extremist views of the "Raphael" who published his Manual of Astrology in 1828, although I happily pair Uranus and Saturn for other reasons. Because Raphael seems to be one of the earliest authors of extant texts to articulate Uranus in the horoscope, however, his views are worth examining. This source is available as a google book. He published several books on astrology, incidentally.

(BTW, the 1806 "Dutch" source cited by Eddy in the 2003 Uranus thread is actually (for some reason) a Dutch "cover" on English content.) But it is just a brief and derogatory mention of an astrologer's use of Uranus in interpreting Napolean's horoscope. English astrologers, at least seemed interested in incorporating "Georgium Sidum" or "Herschel," as they called it. Bobeck, The Fated Sky, 254, noted that the American founding fathers were masons, and incorporated Uranian symbolism into the laying of the cornerstone of the federal capital building in 1793. John Varley, (discussed in the Kim Farnell article here and in Campion's history of astrology,) apparently compiled a lot of information on Uranus, saw it as malefic, but didn't leave a written record of his own.

If there is a decent source explaining the astrological use of Uranus prior to 1828, it would be great to see what it is. Astronomers at the turn of the 19th century communicated extensively across language and national boundaries, but then astrologers lacked their infrastructure.

So I don't "promote" Raphael's depiction of Uranus, but I think it goes a long way in explaining the origin of the Aquarius-Uranus connection.

You wrote,

It really raises a great many questions for modern astrology if we conclude that Uranus is like Saturn (and indeed for traditional onees). After all aren't descriptions of Uranus and Saturn quite opposed? We cannot have it both ways: either Uranus is like Saturn, in which case either Uranus' qualities or Saturn's need to be updated, or else we accept that the two are not alike, in which case Raphael's premise seems flawed, which is very probable considering his view was not at all widely accepted originally and more to the point you conclude you find his rationale spurious too. We can't have it both ways, pick and choose when Raphael's premise is sound and when it is not.

A genesis can be based on fallacious grounds and still yield some good results with subsequent development. Traditional astrology's genesis was the worship of planets as gods. People made animal sacrifices to them.

Of course we can "pick and choose" fom a given author's work! This is only sensible. If we apply some critical thinking, we can accept parts of it while rejecting others. (Which you did with my post, incidentally.)

Actually Raphael thought Uranus had the nature of both Saturn and Mercury, and I don't have a problem with that, although for different reasons. I am not the one who came up with the modern "Uranus smashing the boundaries of Saturn" definition, and I do not actually like it. It smacks of the old theosophical view of astrology as a tool for human evolution. ["OK, folks-- you've evolved beyond Saturn, so let's move onto Uranus."] By the time astrology had a resurgence in the later 19th century, it was heavily theosophized.

I would happily update Saturn, because I don't see it as malefic as many of the old traditional astrologers did. I think both Saturn and Uranus work well as rulers of Aquarius.

I would happily ditch the old esoteric "higher octave" theory, as well. I think a planet can just be its own planet. Full stop.

(to be continued....)

Hi Mark & Paul,

Here is my response re your replies to my post of Mar 06, 2014 1:39 pm. Since you are asking me to elaborate several fairly complex matters, in order to answer adequately, my post is not going to be exactly a short one...

Mark wrote: Fri Mar 07, 2014 1:03 pm (also the following quotes)

A malefic in traditional astrology is about excess. Too much cold, dryness, moisture or heat.

I do understand the concept of a malefic carrying an "excess" of a Aristotelian quality. Nevertheless, wouldn't you agree, they are all just fine the way Nature has made them? That being said, I admit that the "malefics" sometimes have a particularly challenging or destructive effect - even though this depends on a number of factors, not the least of them being how well an individual (or collective, for that matter) is able to integrate these energies into their lifes and give them adequate expression. The name "malefic" seems to be a rather unfortunate one (pun unintended); it is bound to make people (astrologers) think of something negative! But it may be difficult to get rid of this term, for historical reasons.

Secondly, though, this is only a generalised position. We always need to take account of the specific circumstances of each chart . Numerous things can transform a natural benefic into an accidental malefic. Hence we look at essential dignity and reception, aspectual contacts, house placement and rulership, planetary phase , sect etc. From all this a so called natural benefic like say Jupiter can end up operating in quite a malefic ie destructive manner in a chart. So the traditional outlook is a good deal more subtle than many seem to realise.

I, for one, do realise this. Actually, this is exactly what I wrote. Of course, in the traditional scheme this modification by circumstances applies to "benefics" as well as "malefics" - so why not consider both of them rather neutral in the first place?

... in practical terms I think relatively few modern astrologers would go quite as far as you and suggest that all planets are effectively 'common' or neutral to start with ... I have yet to hear anyone describe Pluto as ?neutral? ... Ok people may have a more psychological understanding of how this planet operates but if this planet isn?t regarded as a malefic I don?t know what is.

Neither do I! Therese recently wrote to me that in ?Evolutionary Astrology? Pluto is equated with the soul.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8106

I agree with her that this seems to go a little too far, though. But consider: No Pluto = no putrefaction (dead bodies of all species lying around everywhere ? yuck!). No sex life!!! No Mickey Mouse comics! At least in the modern astrological understanding. - Sure enough, Pluto's lectures are rather harsh sometimes.

[Iamblichus] is interesting though in presenting a more interior understanding of the operation of the planets that reminds me somewhat of Ficino.

Well noted, Mark. I referred to Ficino in a related context in Therese's thread mentioned above.

Mark wrote: Fri Mar 07, 2014 2:41 pm (also the following quotes)

The problem I have with your perspective here is that the classical rulership system wasn?t understood as being based on the geocentric placement of planets. It was based on how the other signs (and by implication their rulers) related to the signs of the two luminaries i.e. Leo + Cancer.

Paul wrote: Fri Mar 07, 2014 2:58 pm (also the following quotes)

Can you explain this point? It seems like you were positing some logic and then pointing out that Uranus breaks that logic, and rather than conclude that the logic is faulty it seems to be taken that the scheme is incontrovertible and it reveals some deep truth about Uranus, rather than just logically see that the scheme, of which people devised, appears to lack logic and consistency.

Believe me, I have given a lot of consideration to the traditional rulership system. No matter how the ancients commented about it, the fact remains that there are always two planets of opposite (complementary) nature facing each other in this diagram. Which obviously corresponds with their order in the geocentric (Ptolemaic) system in the manner which I have outlined:

Moon (innermost) - Saturn (outermost)
Mercury (second innermost) - Jupiter (second outermost)
Venus (third innermost) - Mars (third outermost)

However, the Sun occupies the central orbit in the geocentric system (that would be the fourth, independent from where you start counting).

Now, the order given still holds if you switch to a heliocentric perspective - except that the Earth and the Sun exchange their positions. And, of course, the Moon falls out of the picture altogether as it is circling around the Earth. For reasons of symmetry, in the heliocentric model, an innermost circle may be substituted for the Moon's, belonging to the planet Vulcan (no, not Mr. Spock's home world). I hear some of you exclaiming: What else is Michael going to throw in?! However... such a body in the vicinity of the Sun has been sighted by a number of astronomers in history, but was always lost again - so it could never be confirmed. Nevertheless, many astronomers state good reasons for the existence of one or several small bodies orbiting the Sun very closely; they call them vulcanoids. In recent times, there are great efforts being made to observe them, involving the use of telescopes on plains and satellites. Once one of them will be established as a fact, it conceivably may be named Vulcan. For what it's worth, consider that notable esotericists like Steiner, Bailey, and Cacey included Vulcan in their systems. So from a heliocentric perspective, Vulcan (or a system of vulcanoids) would replace the Moon as a "counterpoise" to Saturn. - But this would be a theme for another thread.

Now, if we expand our heliocentric picture, Uranus is indeed balancing the Sun, in full accordance with the extended rulership system. This is why I said that Uranus is leading us from the geocentric to the heliocentric perspective. Is this logical? Yes ? at least in a Uranian sense!

Mark wrote:

There is of course a real dilemma for moderns in the current rulership scheme. The beauty and harmony of the classical system has been destroyed and its inherent logic lost.

Therefore I am advocating a revised system that (in my view) restores the harmony and logic of the classical one. See my earlier post Mar 02, 2014 5:03 pm. Note that in this scheme classical planets are facing classical planets, and transsaturnians transsaturnians. The latter with the exception of Uranus opposite to the Sun, for which I have given an explanation in that same post. The two symbolical snakes fitted into the zodiac, one belonging to the Sun, the other to the Moon, once again bestow pivotal roles to the Luminaries, much in the way they own in the classical system.

Mark wrote:

There is no necessity to dismember the traditional rulership scheme if you want to work with the outer planets in charts.

As I wrote in aforesaid post, I do respect the classical scheme, but some of its planets now become co-rulers. By the same token, it seems reasonable to assume that the transsaturnians are co-rulers of the hitherto only "classically ruled" signs - which may, to a degree, reconcile those who think that Pluto should be assigned to Aries. And still to be found planets accordingly to further signs in the order of the signs (for example, Therese - by the way, your Zoroastrian text fragment is fascinating ).

Mark wrote:

Are people really going to assign the incredibly slow moving bodies like say Eris, Makemake or Sedna to the remaining signs?

I would not suggest giving rulerships to any Plutoids for the time being, even though it stands to reason that all them show various attributes of Scorpio, with Pluto as the principal body. After all, he is the brightest of their kind (as seen from Earth) and his rulership of Scorpio is well accepted by most modern astrologers.

Why the slow movement of a body should disqualify it as a sign ruler is beyond my comprehension, frankly.

Mark wrote:

The notion that the discovery of a new planet will somehow come to the rescue is in my view nothing more than a pipedream.

I don't think that anything I can say would change your conviction - and I have no intention of doing so! Rather, I respect your traditional vista in the same manner Waybread does. However, as mentioned in the aforesaid post, there is evidence on several lines of astronomical reasoning for further major planets out there. There are number of relevant scientific articles available online. Take it from me - their authors are anything but opium smokers!

Paul wrote:

Can you explain? I am not following how Uranus assumes a role akin to the Sun for the inner planets. What is this relationship/role that is so similar? What is the role of the Sun to the inner planets (which is presumably not true for the other planets) that is similar to the role of uranus to the transsaturnians?

Well, simply, I do consider the transsaturnians as a class of their own, corresponding however to the classical planets. Since Uranus is the innermost of them, this puts him in a position comparable to the Sun's among the classical planets. O. k., you may object to this that there are seven ?classics? but (in my scheme) only five transsaturnians. I have a theory regarding this, but as it is a little complex, outlining it here would go a little too far... Additionally, my statement is in keeping with Uranus being regarded as an analogous Sun based on his ?radiant nature?.

May the Force be with you
Michael

Paul, just a refresher on Mark's OP:

Modern astrologers confidently assert that Uranus rules Aquarius. We are taught to accept this in modern astrology schools nowadays like milk in our cornflakes. But is the logic of this view really convincing?

It becomes more plausible if not convincing, if we consider similarities between Saturn and Uranus. If we're taught to assimilate very much in modern astrology, the radical difference between Saturn and Uranus would be one precept. It has started to bother me, more and more.

I think your bewilderment about my take on Raphael comes from your assumption that I use him to bolster some argument other than the ones I have been making all along. This isn't the case.

My description of Raphael on "Herschel" was based largely on what he wrote, so that people could see how Uranus appeared in an early (the early?) treatment of it. I tried to show his logic without endorsing it. That's pretty much it.

Raphael did get me thinking, however, on whether-- despite his turgid prose-- there might be something to his alignment of Saturn and Uranus. I think there is something, but not because they are brother malefics.

If I articulate my views on Saturn and Uranus, hopefully I can clarify their joint operation.

Saturn. We could start with the possibility that both planets appear, to some, to be "cold and dry." Modern astrology would deal more with the attributes or functions of planets, and Saturn in this modern context is (metaphorically) the cosmic Bill Collector. Pay your bills on time, and normally your personal finances can go smoothly. Don't pay your bills on time, and you have a bad time with the collection agency. But really, a call from the collection agency isn't some sort of Hard Luck: bill-payment actually works in a rational fashion. Similarly, save money, and you have money in the bank. Don't save money, and the universe isn't conspiring against you when your bank account is empty. A major key word for Saturn is self-discipline.

Bad things happen to good people, and Saturn's rewards to his pupils may only be inner strength and experience, yet these are useful later in life. Saturn deals with truth: in a very material, mechanistic fashion. It has its own inexorable logic.

Uranus . Take the perspective of an American looking at the British class system of 100 years ago. On one level, it made tremendous sense to its perpetrators (of all classes) as the Natural Order of Things. To me, it sort of reeks, to build a society on hereditary privilege and poverty, using tools of hegemony to keep the lower classes in their place. There is nothing inherently rational about it.

Or take another perspective: 50 years ago, women were routinely excluded from professional schools and professions for a variety of biased reasons that later didn't hold up at all.

Uranus, then, pushes its own kind of inexorable logic. Repressive social systems are not truly logical, and are manifestly unfair. People in power see no reason to relinquish power voluntarily, unfortunately, no matter how unsound their grip on power, so this is why Uranus seems so revolutionary. I don't see Uranus as about revolutionary wars in the sense of armed conflict, as Uranus is about the arguments for a more just society, that could only be achieved through war as a last resort.

Uranus is fundamentally about extending the frontiers, whether personal or social. But if all it achieves is some sort of childish disruption for no purpose, those frontiers do not get expanded.

Saturn plus Uranus We can see in science how these work together. Uranus provides the new idea, but Saturnine discipline brings it to fruition. In engineering, Uranus thinks up the new invention, but Saturn gives it concrete form and structure. Like Icarus, humans have always wanted to fly. Uranus works out the idea of an aircraft, while Saturn tightens the nuts and bolts on it.

Of course, people sometimes experience unwanted sudden change. A man tells his thunderstruck partner that their relationship is over. A sudden accident leaves a driver badly injured. Sometimes change is good: the life-changing job offer, the unexpected piece of good luck.

Today, change is a constant part of life, in a way that was unimaginable in, say, 1400. Do you want the latest cell phone and apps? What do you think about "driverless" cars?

To return to Raphael and the negative character traits he associates with it: Uranus is sometimes associated with freedom, whether personal or social. But do you really have personal freedom if you have no options to express your individuality? To a man committed to conformity, someone who dares to express her uniqueness may appear to be dangerously out-of-line. I get a sense that Raphael was such a person.

Intriguingly, Silicon Valley was an early working environment that dropped dress codes (as meaningless) and encouraged employees to brainstorm new ideas (as profitable). Raphael might have greeted such innovations with horror.

However, some of Raphael's Uranian personality traits read better today, and might almost describe some acknowledged inventive geniuses.

Erased by the author because solely related to a technical problem.