I went to the library...

I started off with Raphael 1. In The Astrologer of the Nineteenth Century, (p134), he discusses the chart of a balloon crash, (he was into balloons). Referring to Uranus as Georgium Sidus, he points out that it's the ruler of the 4th house - which is Aquarius. The relevant passage reads, "Georgium Sidus and Mars being mutually in trine with one another, was a most lucky aspect for her as a female and foreshadowed her recovery...Venus, lady of the ascendant, and significator of the aeronaut, applying to the fatal conjunction of this baneful star, who also ruled the fourth house..." I ran the chart from the data given - 25 May 1824 4 09 pm London to check. Yep, he has Uranus being the ruler of Aquarius. That takes us to 1825. But I haven't yet found a catagorical statement to this effect separate to a chart interpretation. I will.

In the same publication he later says that Uranus "has no houses alloted him". So perhaps at this point he isn't totally convinced. I've yet to look at Urania; or, the Astrologer's Chronicle, and Mystical Magazine, 1825, and hope that he's a bit more categorical there. But that still leaves us with the same year.

Until I do so, however, it might be fairer to give the gold star to John Varley. In his 1828 book mentioned above he says, "Aries and Scorpio are the houses of Mars, Taurus and Libra are the houses of Venus, Gemini and Virgo are under the dominion of Mercury, Cancer if the house of the Moon, Sagittarius and Pisces are the houses of Jupiter, Capricorn is the house of Saturn; and Aquarius is governed by the Herschel planet." and "But as the dominion of the world was acquired by Saturn's trading people, who by virtue of his real and true dominion in the accumulating sign Capricorn, became the wealthy and powerful directors in the Commonwealth; they - still believing erroneously, while ignorant of the Herschel planets existence, that the sign Aquarius was Saturn's masculine and superior house..."

Varley certainly wasn't in any doubt.

There are a few sources I haven't yet looked at that predate these. But they'll take a bit of ploughing through so I'll have a go as soon as I have time. And I'm not optimistic I can take it any earlier - but don't let anyone say I'm not thorough with these things

The award for being the first person to associate astrology with Uranus should go to Robert Cross, the last Raphael, who wrote in his Guide of 1879, "Astrologers, as a rule, have Herschel prominent in their nativities." I haven't found anything predating this.

Looking elsewhere in the earlier period, Uranus is being used but with no sign rulership attributed. I found nothing that suggested an alternative to Aquarius btw.

More soon as...

Kim

Btw, I've found nothing as yet that says WHY.

I'll take a look at Neptune as well next time.

Kim

I think you should get the gold star Kim! I'm surprised that the rulership was being mentioned that early.

Today I went to the library...

1791 - Sibly's Conjurer's Magazine points out the connection between Herschel in Leo and fires. We're onto the Varely connection here.

1792 - Same magazine points out a conjunction between the "new star" (unamed) and Venus.

1794 - Looking at The Astrologer's Magazine (was Conjurer's Magazine) of "Herschel" pops up occasionally in a "oooh, not sure what that is but better stick it in occasionally" sort of way.

1798 - John Worsedale in Genethliacal Astrology throws the odd Uranus in a chart but that's about it.

1810 - Thomas White in The Beauties of Occult Science, (nowhere near as exciting as it sounds except the library gave me a piece of paper saying they'd lost it simultaneous to giving me a copy), says of Georgium Sidus
"He has no houses alloted him, but participates of the nature of the malevolent planet Saturn in the highest degree; and it is theerfore equally unfortunate."

1819 - James Wilson's Dictionary has an entry on Ouranus. "...a new superior planet has been discovered and named Ouranus, from the father of Saturn, because its orbit includes that of Saturn...whatever its influence may be, we are unacquainted with it...it does not appear very malignant."

Everyone I looked at today, which was practically everything I could find in the late eighteenth into nineteenth century, insists that Uranus does't actually rule anything.

They had no consensus whatsoever as to what to call it.

Apart from the comment about its relationship to Saturn there were no great revelations leaping out. But I did find something interesting. In his New and Complete Illustration of 1817, Sibly obligingly gives us George III's nativity. I took a look. 24 May 1738 (OS) (which is 4 Jun 1738 (NS)) Sibly gives a time of 07 05 10h, assumed to be LMT. However, the chart printed matches the data I have for George elsewhere at 7 48 am. The difference is almost exactly the variant from LMT to GMT. At some point I?ll work that one out. Anyway, that?s boring.

On my screen I have Sun, Mercury, Saturn and Venus in the 11th house. (And Neptune, but I think we can ignore that.) They?re at 13 21, 25 54, 27 20 and 29 10 of Gemini respectively. Uranus is retrograde at 5 07 Capricorn with the Moon at 10 58. Now, I didn?t note down Sibly?s numbers because I was still looking, I can check back later, they won?t be exactly what the software produces though. Point is when you look at the chart you can?t help but go oooh, all that?s opposite a Uranus Moon conjunction.

Now there?s a thing.

Ok, so I haven?t got an earlier date for Uranus ruling Aquarius. Still possible as there are some earlier Raphael sources that I haven?t had time to check. But I?m starting to get an idea about the WHY now?.

Anyone?

Kim

I still maintain that they were trying to align Uranus with the air signs because its nature was likened to the combined effects of Saturn and Mercury. At that point the reasoning that Tom suggested at the start of the thread might have been the logic that tipped the scales in favour of Aquarius, rather than Gemini or Libra.

It?s frustrating that the crashed balloon chart shows that Raphael was using Uranus as the ruler of Aquarius in 1825 although his instruction manuals don?t bear testimony to this fact. I?ve quoted below his passage on Uranus from ?A Manual of Astrology? which according to the frontispiece was published January 1st 1828. The book also includes the horoscope for the time the work was commenced ? noon, August 4, 1826 (Moon in 10th, square Uranus in 3rd). In this he categorically states that Uranus doesn?t have any houses (ie., signs) attributed to him, although evidence points towards a fortunate association with the air signs, and particularly Aquarius. But like I said earlier, no one at that time had ever experienced Uranus in Aquarius so the reasoning had to be based on philosophical speculation rather than the observed effects he claims.

[p.70]
Herschel, or (as some Astrologers term this planet) Uranus: having been so recently discovered, that no one living has seen more than one half his celestial revolution through the fields of space, it cannot be expected that a complete system of his Astrological effects could possibly be given ; but from the author?s own experience, aided by what other observations he could gather from men of skill and science in celestial philosophy, this planet is peculiarly unfortunate in his nature, and of course his influence, when brought into action by aspecting the various significators in a nativity, is replete with evil also. He may be compared to the combined effects of Saturn and Mercury. He is in nature extremely frigid, cold; dry, and void of any cheering influence.

[p.71]
He was discovered on the 13th March 1781, by the late Dr. Herschel, (under singularly ominous positions, which will be noticed in the latter part of this work, where we treat of mundane Astrology). His effects are truly malefic ; but what he does of evil, is always 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 are generally 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 chemists, 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 discoveries out of the ?track of custom.?

In Marriage, if in the seventh house, or afflicting the Moon, he causes every thing but happiness, want of order and sociality in domestic concerns, listlessness and coldness between man and wife, discord from the most entire, strange, and unusual causes, death of relatives, &c. He is equally evil in love, and peculiarly inimical to the fair sex: his evil aspects to the Hyleg have also a tendency to materially lessen the space of life.

As yet there are no peculiar houses assigned him, but we have reason to think (from several thousand observations) that the sign Aquarius, is one wherein he much delights; that he is fortunate in the airy trigon, Gemini, Libra, and Aquaries; and unfortunate in fiery, earthy, or watery signs. It is impossible, from the long period of his revolution, to have formed any ?.

[p.72]
?thing like a system, as to the bodily confirmation of those he governs; but they may probably resemble those whom Saturn and Mercury are said to govern, if the student can judiciously combine the effects of each, which is difficult.

That book also includes George III?s nativity but I?d never thought to look at it before. Your post made me realise how pertinent that is, not just because Uranus is very prominent in his nativity (Raphael points that out as well), but because Uranus, as Georgium Sidus, was originally named after a king most noticeably remembered for mental breakdown and instability. I reckon astrologers dropped that title because George III died of insanity but there seems to be something almost mythological about the fact that Uranus is the star of a king prone to erratic and uncontrollable bouts of madness. Other Uranus themes emerge in his loss of power through the American Revolution, the fear that shadowed his reign with the French revolution, and the fact that power was taken from him in favour of his son and parliament because of his incapacities. He was 'castrated' on a number of occasions and died, blind, deaf and completely mad in 1820. Interesting?

So what?s your views on the reason for the association then?

Apparently Prince Charles disagrees with you Deb News has been released today that in his opinion George III was ill, but not mad. His comments are for a documentary to be screened next week. He says:

He was one of Britain?s most dutiful, cultured and misunderstood rulers, he said, who immersed himself in the arts and sciences and was involved in agriculture, astronomy, architecture and clock-making, as well as collecting books, medals, paintings and drawings.

?For many years, I?ve been fascinated by my ancestor,? the Prince told the programme.

?George III led Britain through 60 years of enormous social upheaval, industrial revolution and terrible hardships inflicted by war with Napoleon.

?Yet history remembered him above all as the ?mad king? or the king who lost America, this is a travesty.

See http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2453750

This doesn?t detract from the Uranus influence of course. Surely nowadays everyone understands that ?madness? is an illness.

Thanks to everyone for all the great research going on here.

Hi All,

While looking up something else, I stumbled upon this little gem:

"

According to Howe, John Corfield, a contemporary of [John] Varley's, provided the prototype statement of the influence of the new planet Uranus. It appeared in his ill-fated astrological magazine Urania, of which only a single issue was published in June 1814."

The above quote is from A History of Horoscopic Astrology by James Holden, published by AFA page 191. "Howe" is Ellic Howe author of Astrology: A Recent History New York: Walker and Company 1968.

Holden cites A Complete Dictionary of Astrology by James Wilson (London, 1819) as his source for the fact that Corfield's magazine consisted of a single issue.

So if we could track down that magazine, or perhaps Howe's book (a much easier task I'm sure) we could begin to put the Uranus puzzle together.

Tom

Damn. I read this a couple of weeks ago and now can't find my notes anywhere.

From memory...there was indeed one issue. The copy in the British library is full of Corfield's annotations pointing out how he made all the letters in it up and because no-one wanted to read it he lost a lot of money on this and his booklet on Napoleon. Basically, you get the impression that he had no friends and even if he had mentioned Uranus ruling something, no-one would have paid a blind bit of notice.

He does mention the effects of Uranus, but nowhere does he attribute an Aquarius rulership to it. Probably why I forgot to mention it last time.

I have a copy of Howe's Urania's Children somewhere and this cites Corfield's magazine as one of the few of the period.

Anyway, that's all a little bit dull. I'll dig out my Corfield notes as soon as I can.

More cheeringly though, I found, while looking for something entirely unrelated, that the Occult Review carried an article reprinting some of Varley's work in 1916. Unfortunately, I was in the newspaper library when I found the reference and it's held in the main library. Considering that Varley's claim to astrological fame appears to relate to his treatment of Uranus, I'm hopeful that a look at this will offer some clues.

Should be able to get there to take a look in the next week or so.

Kim

Damn. I read this a couple of weeks ago and now can't find my notes anywhere.

-- You did, I remember you telling me the story of his made up letters. The life of an astrological magazine editor is not a happy lot

Talk about slow - I just noticed David McCann's comment in his article on the discovery and naming of Uranus:

Unlike the modern friends of the asteroids, earlier astrologers did not rely on the mythological associations of the name to determine the nature of Uranus. When John Varley and John Corfield did that at the beginning of the nineteenth century, it was by observing its effects in nativities.

I realise that's not very helpful at this point, except to confirm that those two seem to be central to the issue. I don't think I'd heard of John Corfield before.

Other quotes from David MCCann's articles that are relevant to the other outers:

[Neptune]- The first published account of its influence by John Ackroyd (in the 1890 reprint of W. J. Simmonite's Complete Arcana of Astral Philosophy) makes no reference to mythology; his conclusions were based purely on the study of the planet in nativities.

[Pluto] - Where the discovery of the astrological significance of Uranus and Neptune had taken many years, the first account of Pluto was published by Fritz Brunh?bner as early as 1932.

Link for articles: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/uranus.html

Unlike the modern friends of the asteroids, earlier astrologers did not rely on the mythological associations of the name to determine the nature of Uranus. When John Varley and John Corfield did that at the beginning of the nineteenth century, it was by observing its effects in nativities.

Now, everyone seemed to have this idea, but it was nowhere in Varley's book. And there are no extant papers of Varley's hidden away. I haven't got any further with the Aquarius rulership thing, but at least I think I've now traced the roots of this story. Unfortunately, much more recent than we thought.

There's an article in the Occult Review of July 1916 called "Some Astrological Predictions of the Late John Varley by his grandson, John Varley." It's basically an introduction and then interview by AJP Sinnett of Varley Jr. The article gives the story of a number of predictions Varley made and what happened. I didn't have time to copy it all out today, so I've just extracted the bits relevant to this discussion. Here goes :-

"He was...in the habit of consulting his own horoscope each morning, and bringing up directions etc. On one particular morning...he was evidently ill at ease and though he had an appointment, he did not go out; and about 11 in the forenoon he gave his watch to my father, telling him to take it to a watchmaker in Regent Street and have it set to Greenwich time...he explained that there were some evil aspects in his horoscope, which would come into operation a few minutes to twelve that day. He was so certain as to the eveil effects that he might not go out, fearing some street accident. He said, "I might be run over, or a slate might fall on my head.", that he was uncertain whether his life or his property was menaced, but he saw in the figure that it would be sudden. The difficulty arose from the fact that the effects of the planet Uranus were not yet understood by astrologers, and his agitation increased as the time approached. He asked if my father was sure that his watch was put to Greenwich time and complained that he could not go on with his work. Sitting down, he said two or three times, "I feel quite well, there is nothing wrong with me. I am not going to have a fit or anything of the sort." Then, rising from his seat he came to my father saying, "What is it to be? The time is passed. Could I have made some mistake in my calculations?" He took some paper and a pencil to go through the figures again - just then there was a cry of fire from the street. He rapidly made a note in his astrological book as to the effects of Uranus. The house was burned down, all his property was destroyed, and unfortunately he was uninsured..."

No date was given for any of the events listed. If there is an earlier source for this story it may say more. But I must admit I can't find it. So I'll ask Patrick if he knows and follow up later.

[Neptune]- The first published account of its influence by John Ackroyd (in the 1890 reprint of W. J. Simmonite's Complete Arcana of Astral Philosophy) makes no reference to mythology; his conclusions were based purely on the study of the planet in nativities.

1890 sounds a bit a late. I'm getting a bit stuck on Uranus so I'll take a look at Neptune next time I'm at the library.

[Pluto] - Where the discovery of the astrological significance of Uranus and Neptune had taken many years, the first account of Pluto was published by Fritz Brunh?bner as early as 1932.

As far as I know, Brunh?bner's book wasn't published until 1935, so I assume this is refering to a journal article or similar. Unfortunately, I don't read German and to follow this one up properly that's essential. Mind you, have never let anything like that stop me before so I'll see what I can find.

All good tea break material

Kim

Quote:
[Pluto] - Where the discovery of the astrological significance of Uranus and Neptune had taken many years, the first account of Pluto was published by Fritz Brunh?bner as early as 1932.


As far as I know, Brunh?bner's book wasn't published until 1935,

Pluto was discovered in 1930 I think. By 1932, how many "oberservations"could have been made regarding Pluto considering its slow speed? My understanding is that Brunhubner's work is what defines the understanding of Pluto and even 5 years experience isn't much to base it on even if he worked retroactively.

Worsdale's Celestial Philosophy mentions Uranus but doesn't offer delineations, and Uranus was discovered in 1781 and Worsdale's book was published 40 plus years later. Sounds like a rush to judgment to me.

Tom

An excellent article on Uranus. Here are a couple of links to sites which posit alternative views on the outer planets and their rulerships:

http://accessnewage.com/articles/astro/benplu.htm

This represents the views of the American astrologer Carl Payne Tobey.

http://www.khaldea.com/planets/pi_2.shtml

Please see the diagram towards the bottom of the page, 'Three Octaves of Planetary Vibration.' This represents the views of Rudhyar and Meyer.

The French astrologer Alexandre Volguine assigned Pluto to Sagittarius.

I have also seen Uranus assigned to the air triplicity, Neptune to water, Pluto to fire and Chiron to earth. There is something for everyone here.

Andrew