skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Assignation of outer planet rulerships
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mathew



Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 16
Location: Berkshire, UK

Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2003 1:57 pm    Post subject: Assignation of outer planet rulerships Reply with quote

Tom, I have been trying to find the post where you discussed how Uranus came to be assigned to Aquarius. I am having trouble finding it but will keep looking.
Do you have any knowledge of how the modern rulerships of Neptune and Pluto were determined, or can you point me to a good source of reference? I’m curious as to who was capable of making and effecting such a decision. (Given that astrologers usually agree to disagree) Confused
Any help will be appreciated
Thank you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3509
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2003 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Matthew,

My source was a website interview of Robert Hand by NYC astrologer Judi Vitale. I no longer have the website, but I think I simply plugged her name into a search engine and found it. Judi is a friend of mine, and she must have told me about the interview.

During the interview Hand made the following observations. This is from memory. A British astrologer, and I believe it was Sepharial (Walter Richard Old who renamed himself W. Gorn Old, 1864 - 1929) is the first astrologer known to have "assigned" Uranus to Aquarius and Neptune to Pisces. His reasoning went this way: If we look at the rulerships we notice that they follow the Chaldean order of the planets, e.g. Mercury rules Virgo, the next planet out is Venus and she rules Libra, the next sign. The next planet is Mars and he rules Scorpio, Jupiter rules Sagittarius, and Saturn rules Capricorn. Well, the next planet out is Uranus and therefore Uranus rules the next sign Aquarius and Neptune, the next planet rules Pisces. As far as astrological reasoning goes, this isn't horrible, but it does mess up the table of dignities, which had fallen out of favor by Sepharial's time.

Pluto really messes things up since we are now out of signs. According to Hand, a group of German astrologers put it to a vote whether or not Pluto ruled Scorpio. While very democratic, this does not lend itself to the way in which astrology views the cosmos. It was voted down! However, one disgruntled member, who was very influential, wrote a book that cited Pluto as Scorpio's ruler as fact, and it stuck! Hand does not name the group or this member to the best of my memory.

There are two serious problems with these rulerships. The first is they mess up the table of dignities and therefore the method of determining planetary strength, and the second is they don't seem to match modern astrology's own rules of planet=sign=house. Uranus is the planet of upheaval and revolution and it rules a fixed air sign. There is no affinity between the two. Neptune has given Pisces its "space cadet" reputation which is highly undeserved. Pisces is very much a Jupiter ruled sign.

Pluto and Scorpio are a better match than the other two, but by taking Scorpio away from Mars, we deny Mars its feminine or receptive qualities as expressed through Scorpio. The same is true of Jupiter and Pisces. The reverse is true for Saturn.

I hope this helps. I've long lost the interview in one of my many computer crashes. Maybe it is still out there.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3509
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:44 pm    Post subject: Correction Reply with quote

Hi Matthew,

I found the website and article:


http://www.accessnewage.com/articles/astro/hand1.htm

My memory failed only a little bit. Hand says it was Raphael (Robert Cross Smith 1795-1832) who first assigned Uranus to Aquarius. He could not have assigned Neptune to Pisces as Neptune would not be discovered for several years after Raphael's death. Either someone else did that, or Hand is mistaken.

Also the vote I mentioned was taken at an astrology conference in Germany. The proposition that Pluto ruled Scorpio was voted down unanimously, but apparently a dissenter took things into his own hands. Hand does name him.

Sorry about the errors.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In his book, The Manual of Astrology, published January 1st 1828, Raphael stated very clearly that Aquarius is governed by Saturn. He has an interesting passage on Uranus which is worth reproducing in full and I’ll try to do that later. He writes that because it was so recently discovered no one had witnessed more than its half-cycle. He states that from his own experience and that of others, it is noticeable in its ‘evil’ and ‘unfortunate’ effects. He describes its nature as extremely frigid, cold, dry and devoid of any cheering influence. He likens it to Saturn and Mercury and states that there is reason to believe it has a special affinity with the air signs, I suppose on the basis of its ‘dry’ nature; because Saturn and Mercury are the air triplicity rulers, and because Uranus was in Gemini during its discovery. He states “we have is reason to think (from several thousand observations) that the sign Aquarius is one wherein he much delights”.

I don’t think this was based on the fact that the rulership scheme extended out to Saturn ruling Capricorn with Uranus slotted into Aquarius to continue that scheme as Hand suggests. But what we should note is that Raphael doesn’t claim that Uranus ruled Aquarius and the comments from Sepharial below show that this ‘delights in’ association wouldn’t have been offered as an endorsement of sign-rulership. What is especially worth considering is that Raphael’s suggestion that there was reason to believe – based on observation – that Uranus delights in Aquarius is ludicrous. Uranus didn’t even enter Aquarius until after the book was published. No one at that time could have good reason to think Uranus delights in Aquarius unless using some kind of philosophical speculation; observation couldn’t have supported it because no one had ever had a personal experience of its effects in that sign.

Uranus entered Aquarius one month after Raphael’s Manual was published in 1828; it left in February 1836. Later astrologers may have misconstrued Raphael’s words and believed that they were living in a ‘Uranian’ age because of the interest the new planet aroused, but I don’t see how its influence was particularly strong during those years. It had been in Gemini during the American revolution and is prominent in the chart for the signing of the declaration of independence. The French revolution commenced with the storming of the Bastille as Uranus was in Leo, breaking down the boundaries of royal power. It didn’t seem to leave much of an historical legacy during its passage through Aquarius.

So its rulership originated as a speculated comment taken out of context with no observable support. Then later astrologers distorted that further by suggesting that it carried the influence of Aquarius, being humane, sociable and kind (!?) – see The Introduction to Temples for examples. We are finally starting to get rid of that sort of unfounded nonsense, thank goodness.

It’s very frustrating when these old manuals are reprinted, updated and revised by later authors under the name of the original. My copy of Sepharial’s ‘Manual of Astrology’ includes discussions on Pluto, discovered in 1930, although Walter Gorn Old, the original Sepharial, died on 23rd December 1929. Its content – for what it’s worth bearing in mind confusion exists over who wrote it, is clear in showing that outer planet rulership was denied or questionable:

“The dominion of Uranus is indefinite, for he has no house of his own, though he is most successfully placed in the airy triplicity….
Neptune has affinity with the water triplicity. It also has some affinity with the sign Sagittarius….
Pluto is also a planet having no fixed rulership over any sign but as with Uranus and Neptune it has a spiritual affinity with Mars… It has an association with the signs Aries and Scorpio…”

De Vore’s Encyclopedia of Astrology, written in 1947, also claims that many modern astrologers were breaking down the rulership scheme by claiming that Pluto was a co-ruler of either Aries or Scorpio. Pluto was in nationalistic Cancer when it was discovered in 1930, followed by a period of world history marked by the rise of fanatical Nazism. It didn’t enter Scorpio until November 1983 and like Uranus had a sign of dignity ascribed to it before anyone was capable of assessing its influence in that sign.

From the way I understand it, credible astrologers were being very careful how they approached this subject, perhaps a little speculative, but they weren’t the ones perpetuating the supposed rulerships. This seems to have been done by others who were acting in a much less critical and informed position. We might regard it as characteristic of Pluto that an astrologer stole its dignity from Mars by underhanded, renegade means. I’d really like to know more about this bounder if anyone can add further details. I’d especially like a reference for the first time that Pluto was unequivocally given rulership over Scorpio, excluding Mars from dignity in that sign.

Incidentally, I didn't know any of this before reading your post Tom. Your comments and that link to Hand's discussion has inspired me to do a bit of research.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3509
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Deb,

It's nice to have the original sources to go back to. I know what you mean about revisions. Llewellyn George's A to Z Horoscope Maker has been in continuous publication since the early 1900s and it, too includes Pluto and other revisions. I refused to look at the latest edition since it probably has Chiron in it and I didn't want to know that.

Here is the relevant quote from Hand in this 1996 interview:

Quote:
Rob:
"At any rate, Raphael was the one who assigned Uranus to Aquarius. And the first thing that I understand about Raphael was that he was a terrible astrologer by any standards - traditional or modern. He was basically more interested in selling magical charms and amulets than in doing astrology really well."

Access:NewAge:
"He was a merchant."

Rob:
"Yes. And, his reasoning went like this- Mercury rules Virgo, Venus rules Libra, Mars rules Scorpio, Jupiter rules Sagittarius, Saturn rules Capricorn, therefore a new planet must rule Aquarius! (Laughter from Clark and me) Then, on the same sterling logic, Neptune was given to Pisces- which means that Pluto should have been given Aries. Something went wrong there, and it was decided to give it to Scorpio, which totally destroys the original logic, because Mars doesn't rule Scorpio, and you no longer have the Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus ordering! So not even in terms of the modern rulers does the rulership of Pluto in Scorpio hold. And a Congress of astrologers after WWII in Germany voted on a motion to the effect that Pluto was not the ruler of Scorpio, and it passed unanimously.

Access:NewAge:
(laughing) "Then it must be so! It's democratically arrived at."

Rob:
"The point is that it's not a unanimous decision that it is so. The reason that most people give it to Scorpio is because the first guy who wrote a book about it gave it to Scorpio - Brunhubner. As a matter of fact there is very little about Brunhubner's book that's changed or about his interpretation of Pluto that has changed significantly since, and the needs for the change are growing by the year. He got the "Hostess with the Mostest" award or something.



In her Book The Book of Rulerships Lee Lehman did a simple chart showing where the more important rulerships assigned to the outer planets came from. She used Al biruni as her basic traditional source and Rex Bills , Rulership Book I believe, as her contemporary source. Using this chart we see Uranus rulerships mostly came from the Sun and Mars, Neptune from Moon and Venus, and Pluto from Mars and Venus.

If asked to describe the energies of the outer planets, very few moderns would choose any of the above except, perhaps Mars and Pluto. I find the Venus and Pluto match interesting in light of the Howard Dean chart. His Venus acts with a great deal of power, and "power" is considered a Pluto word. "Never underestimate Venus" should be the lesson.

I also checked on everyone's favorite planet of Revolution, Uranus. During the English Revolution or Civil War Uranus was in Sagittarius, during the American Revolution Uranus was in Gemini, and during the French Revolution, Uranus was in Leo. I suppose since England and France beheaded their kings and the US only asked theirs to go away, one can argue monarchs are personally safer with Uranus in Gemini.

One more thing about Uranus is worth mentioning. Evangeline Adams predicted, more than ten years before it happened, that the US would be involved in a major war in early 1942. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Close enough for me especially since Adams died in 1932. Her prediction was based on simplicity in itself. She noticed the USA was born in revolution with Uranus in Gemini, and everytime Uranus entered Gemini, the US found it self in a war. Uranus would enter Gemini in May of 1942. The Uranus - Mars connection mentioned by Lehman fits Adams observation perfectly.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One of the interesting things about how Raphael describes Uranus in that early period is that I don’t think many people today would disagree with him regarding its effects and general influence. Apart from that one dubious comment, which was probably rooted in clumsy writing, there’s not much in his text that I would take exception to.

Quote:
And the first thing that I understand about Raphael was that he was a terrible astrologer by any standards - traditional or modern. He was basically more interested in selling magical charms and amulets than in doing astrology really well.


I winced when I first read that in the article. It strikes me as a very negative and unfair assessment and I wonder if it’s really based on a study of his writings. I’m hardly an ardent fan of Raphael but his Manual of Astrology is a decent text and worth recommending even to modern students. It has a nice collection of illustrated nativities and its principles, though a little more representative of the astrology of his day, never stray far from what you might expect to find in Lilly or other traditional tomes. It’s certainly an acceptable bridge between the traditional and modern views. I don’t see how anybody could read Raphael’s Manual of Astrology and come to the conclusion that he was ‘a terrible astrologer by any standards’.

I’ve been trying to read up on what the early ‘moderns’ had to say about the rulerships. Mostly it seems that with Uranus and Neptune their was an attempt to align them with suitable triplicities – Air for Uranus, water for Pisces, though it’s strange that Sepharial mentions a link with Sagittarius, almost as though there was a motivation to use it as a replacement for one of Jupiter’s dignities. But as you say, it wasn’t seen as Jupiterian in nature at all, but a sort of ‘higher octave’ of Venus or the Moon.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3509
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I winced when I first read that in the article. It strikes me as a very negative and unfair assessment and I wonder if it’s really based on a study of his writings.


I'm going to stick up a little for Hand on this one, not because of what he said, but to put it into a little context. Judi Vitale and Rob Hand are friends and he probably did this little interview as a favor with little to no preparation. Earlier in the interview he sort of botches the famous story of John Varley and the day his house caught on fire. He's a Sagittarius and speaking off the cuff is common to that breed. However, he is well known and well respected, and perhaps should have been a little more careful. On the other hand maybe he believes it.

The real reason for my response is to agree that some of these 19th century books have value and that they are not well thought of by contemporary astrologers is a mistake. Noel Tyl has made condescending remarks about earlier astrologers and I'm sure we can find other references by contemporary astrologers that sound as though they believe their predecessors were little more than superstitious. Like you said Deb, it is best to read the books before one makes the criticisms.

I mentioned earlier the A to Z Horoscope Maker and Delineator by Llewellyn George. George is long dead but the book is in continuous publication. It's not a bad book at all. In fact I learned how to cast horoscopes by hand using it. The delineations are precise and the symbolism much more clear than many contemporary texts.

One of my favorite astrologers is A.J. Pearce aka Zadkiel. Some call him Zadkiel II but he was actually the third Zadkiel. The second died within months of assuming the role, and it was then given to Pearce. His text, is published by AFA: The Text Book of Astrology. Pearce was a contemporary and rival of Alan Leo and I wonder if we aren't the worse for having Leo dominate the field. Pearce was a kind of stern looking man who believed things like the more difficult the mathmatical procedure the more accurate the predictions. In other words, secondary progressions can't work, they're too simple. Primary directions must be better. It isn't too diffiuclt to see why Leo attracted more students. But Pearce was a fine astrologer, a tireless advocate for our art, and he left us with an excellent text, despite his disdain for horary.

The forgotten man in American Astrology is Luke Broughton, an Englishman who settled in Philadelphia and who later claimed that when he came to the US shores there were not 20 people who could cast a horoscope and now there were many thousands thanks to him. It may have been an exaggeration but it wasn't by much. As that old philosopher Dizzy Dean once said "It ain't braggin' if you can do it."

Broughton's text is a rare find although there is a facsimile published by John Ballantrae. The format of the text is familiar to anyone who has read A to Z or Grant Lewi's Heaven Knows What. They both borrowed from the format of Broughton's The Elements of Astrology. Broughton's text is clear, well organized, and a good read. It also contains several charts that might be difficult to find elsewhere.

I'm drifting, but my point is really to echo Deb's. Don't knock these guys unless you've studied their work. They are not superstitious, backwards, semi-competent practitioners. We can learn from all of them.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with all that. I did realise Hand was being very 'off the cuff' but the trouble is he carries a lot of respect so his comments get picked up and carried forward as being authorative.

The copy of Raphael’s ‘Horary Astrology’ that I have states that Pisces is ruled by Jupiter, Scorpio is ruled by Mars, but Aquarius is ruled by Uranus (p.35). But my copy was published in 1931 so I’m not sure if it is faithful to the original published in 1883 or whether that’s been inserted. However, Simmonite’s ‘Horary Astrology’ published in 1896 states that Uranus rules Aquarius. He mentions Neptune but although it was discovered 50 years earlier it isn’t given any rulership. Wherever it is mentioned in the text, its interpretation is said to be exactly the same as Venus.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mathew



Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 16
Location: Berkshire, UK

Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for these great responses. For what it’s worth I looked in Charles Carter’s ‘Introduction to Political Astrology’ (1957) – he says on page 89 that Neptune is ‘related’ to Pisces but doesn’t mention Uranus or Pluto in connection with the signs. Nor does he say that Neptune ‘rules’ Pisces so I’m not sure what his stance was generally.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3509
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You see Deb,

Now you have me rumaging through old texts instead of doing the paper work I stayed home to do. This is more fun though. The Text Book of Astrology by A. J. Pearce was written in the first years of the 20th century. I believe it originaly consisted of several separate publications then combined into one. I do not believe it was ever revised. On page 63 of the AFA reproduction (1970) Pearce states "Some modern authors have assigned Aquarius to Uranus, thus either robbing Saturn of his 'day house' or forcing upon him a partner. However until experience teaches us in what signs Uranus and Neptune are most powerful, I must decline to endorse so hasty an attempt to provide for one of the 'houseless wanderers." [emphasis in the original]

These words were written in roughly 60 years after the discovery of Neptune and over 100 years after the discovery of Uranus. Pearce calls their assignation to Aquarius and Pisces "hasty." Contrast this attitude with those who rush to assign everything under the Sun to Chiron.

Luke Broughton uses the traditional rulerships, but keeps his eye on Uranus and Neptune. The second edition of his book was published shortly after his death in 1899. Uranus was discovered before his birth and Neptune some 50 years prior to his publication of this work. Again he is cautious about assigning a rulership to the outer planets. Our contemporary cohorts by these standards are rushing things a bit.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2003 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Now you have me rumaging through old texts instead of doing the paper work I stayed home to do.


Tell me about it. And I’ve been blaming you – if you don’t stop distracting me from the work I should be doing, Capricorn won’t have a personality this month. Laughing

Pearce’s (Zadkiel’s) book was written in 1890.
Luke Broughton’s book – Elements of Astrology – was written in 1899

So what we have so far concerning the rulership of Uranus, datewise, is:

1) A comment in Raphael’s Manual of Astrology, published 1828, where Uranus was mentioned as possibly having some sort of sympathetic link with Uranus, but not suggested as being in rulership there.

2) The next reference we have is dubious. Raphael wrote Horary Astrology in 1883, but this was a different ‘Raphael’. The original – Robert Cross Smith - died in 1832. The text I have states that Uranus rules Aquarius but doesn’t help much because it was produced in 1931 and could have been altered.

3) Luke Broughton’s Elements of Astrology, published 1899, keeps the old rulerships.

4) Pearce’s (Zadkiel’s) Text Book of Astrology published 1890, mentions other authors have assigned Aquarius to Uranus, but doesn’t endorse it himself.

5) Simmonite’s Horary Astrology published 1896, states that Uranus rules Aquarius.

It would be good to find out if the 1883 version of Horary Astrology did mention the rulership because that text may well be the first to have published a firm belief that Uranus ruled Aquarius. The trouble is there were so many Raphaels after Smith died, I’m not even sure who wrote it. Either way I don’t think Hand’s comment (or criticism) can be applied to the original Raphael. If ‘Raphael’ was the first to make the assignation, we ought to know which one of them it was. I’m surprised that this point – which is actually quite important in terms of the history of astrology – is so poorly understood.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GarryP
Moderator


Joined: 23 Oct 2003
Posts: 213
Location: UK

Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2003 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rob Hand made similarly disparaging comments about Raphael ("a hack") in a talk on Bonatti at the AA(UK) Conf, 6th Sept 02.

I wonder if this is due, in some measure, to Raphael (at least, one of the Raphaels) being in some ways a precursor of Alan Leo, of whom it was said:

Quote:
His life work was to cleanse the Augean stables of astrology, and only those who worked in close touch with him know what an accumulation of filth there was in those stables, and what slime he waded through… (Annie L Barley, p.136 of Bessie Leo's biog of Alan L).


Leo's colleague FW Lacey recollected that

Quote:
He was always desirous of writing books; he rarely read much, but was a deep thinker. (p.43 ibid)


... and that the only books he read properly in the years when his approach to astrology was forming, were Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine and Raphael's Guides (ibid).

So in a way there seems to be a direct line of descent from Raphael to Leo. It would be interesting to know which editions of the Raphael Guides Leo actually studied... though only in a historical foot-notey kind of way.

But if you take the fact that in the preface to the 1877 edition of the Guide (which would surely be about right time-wise for Leo), the author remarks that he has treated astrology

Quote:
in such a way and form as the most illiterate person who can read and write can readily understand


and then factor in Leo's subsequent efforts to cleanse even this "Augean stable" you do have quite a picture of just how simplistic Leo's astrology ended up being.

Personally, I wouldn't want to blame either Raphael or Leo for their approach - I think simplicity has a place in astrology, and who is to say that we would have seen the burgeoning of traditional astrology in the last 20 years if it hadn't been for Raphael and Leo injecting life into the market for astrology.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Kim Farnell



Joined: 18 Dec 2003
Posts: 256

Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2003 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don’t have all my reference material to hand so want to come back to this later but a few comments on what has so far been said.

Firstly, we seem to get a bit muddled when all the Raphael’s get bundled into one person. There are actually several. Robert Cross Smith (19 March 1795 in Bristol. died 26 February 1832 at 9: 07 am) was the first. He’s the one who wrote the Manual and caused the spread of the Placidean house system. And he wasn’t “basically more interested in selling magical charms and amulets than in doing astrology really well.", as Hand says. It’s true that he was into amulets etc and was a great fan of Frances Barrett. However, he was in the fortunate position of having a financial sponsor in the balloonist GW Graham and so could afford to have a few wider interests. And although he was never rich by any stretch of the imagination he could afford to consider branching out into opening a coffee house at one point. And support a wife and six children. But I digress…I posted the story of the Raphael’s at http://www.urania.info/story/2002/4/28/174740/593 some time ago if anyone is interested.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to the Raphael theme - Cross wrote about “The Influence of Herschel” in the Astrologers Magazine in November 1893. He doesn’t associate it with Aquarius.

I realize this doesn’t really answer the question and when I have a minute will see what else I have lying about here. And now my interest is piqued again I’ll nose at some first editions when I get back to the library after Xmas. But whichever Raphael we’re talking about – he wasn’t known for his innovations. It’s extremely unlikely he would have attributed any new planet to a sign unless that was already popularly agreed.

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

Kim
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2003 1:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

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


We all know that, for good or bad, Leo became a pivotal figure in the redefinition of astrology. I hadn’t considered before how influential Raphael may have been. But I am starting to realise that there is a noticeable difference between the astrology of those that contributed to Leo’s knowledge and those that followed on from it.

Leo was certainly the simplifying agent – I can’t see that as a good thing no matter how I consider it. Partly he was aiming to make astrology popular and that’s the element I don’t like. I don’t think it has ever suited astrology to aim for popularity. Leo may be responsible for the mass commercial market that exists today, but do we really think that’s a good thing?

But he was also affected by his legal position and aimed to recreate it so that practicing astrologers couldn’t be criminalised. I guess we can’t blame Leo for doing what he thought was best there. But again I see it as tipping the balance in favour of the commercial environment rather than maintaining the sincerity of the astrological tradition. The only reason it became threatened by the legal system was the attention it drew to itself through its widespread popularity and the propensity of its practitioners.

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the info on the Raphaels Kim.
Quote:

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


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

At the moment Simmonite is still in front with his text published in 1896.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3509
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2003 3:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Deb,

If I remember correctly, Patrick Crry in his book A Confusion of Prophets said that Varley never wrote an astrological text. He is an interesting man, and Curry selected him as sort of the last link in the 18th century to the astrology of Lilly et al. His astrology seems very classical in style and he appears to have been very good at it. The most famous Varley story, of course is his expectation of something drastic when Uranus crossed his ASC or an angle in his chart and he was not disappointed when his home burnt to the ground -- uninsured!

I've always wondered if these 19th century astrologers in England that proved so influential (for better or for worse) had ready access to the older texts. Broughton makes reference to Christian Astrology, but notes copies are rare and very expensive. Varley was perpetually broke -- the very epitome of the starving artist. If they had no access to the 17th century texts and those that came before, making things up that made sense to them would be understandable if not aprpeciated by us.

Robert Zoller made up a bibliography of texts available during the 19th century ("A Study of the Development of Astrology in the Nineteenth Century being based on an analysis of Nineteenth Century Astrological Bibliography" from www.new-library.com/zoller), but that doesn't mean they were readily available or affordable -- only that they existed. It's hard to overestimate the effects of such lack of availability particularly since most of us can simply order what we want via the internet or visit a library as those fortunates who live near London can do.

I agree with Deb's assessment of Leo, but I tend to think a lack of references that does not exist today contributed to whatever can be said of modern astrology as much or more than did the commercialization of the art. Seems like a good topic for a book.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated