Jacques Halbronn Astrologie. Histoire des domiciles des planétes au XIXe siècle

jacques halbronn Astrologie. Histoire des domiciles des planétes au XIXe siècle . Le commentaire de Ptolémée figurant au Livre Ier de la Tétrabible (IIe siècle) englobe déjà le Soleil et selon nous au départ, le Soleil ne figurait pas dans ce dispositif lequel était basé sur six astres ayant chacun deux signes sous leur régie: Lune, Mercure, Vénus, Mars, Jupiter et Saturne. A un certain stade, on crut bon de rajouter le Soleil en enlevant à la Lune un de ses domiciles. Au XIXe siècle, ce fut à Saturne, à l’autre bout du systéme, de céder un domicile à Uranus (découvert en 1781) On trouve en anglais des éclaircissements à ce sujet que nous reproduisons tels quels sans traduction: en fait, le débat se situera tant pour Uranus que pour Neptune à la fin du siècle. Tant qu’on en restait au Soleil et à Uranus, le dispositif maintenait une certaine symétrie, laquelle fut définitivement perturbée quand on décida de traiter du cas de Neptune, ouvrant ainsi la boite à Pandore, puisque cela impliquait pour atteindre à un équilibre globale de découvrir d’autres planétes transneptuniennes (cf l’Ecole de Hambourg https://www.madi-jasper.fr/astrologie-uranienne-ecole-de-hambourg-et-alfred-witte/)au début du XXe siècle. Rappelons le propos de Fomalhaut; en 1897, dans son Manuel d’Astrologie Sphérique et Judiciaire (https://www.wikiwand.com/fr/Charles_Nicoullaud cf notre ouvrage collectif avec N.Campion et P. Curry, La vie astrologique il y a cent ans, Paris, Guy Trédaniel,1992) .When and why did Uranus become associated with Aquarius? par Kim Farnell/ skyscript.co.uk jacques halbronn Astrologie. Histoire des domiciles des planétes au XIXe siècle dans ASTROLOGIE 6 STA Practitioners Level Horary Course, - click here for details 8 dans ASTROLOGIE 9 10 11 12 space blue_dot home blue_dot articles blue_dot forum blue_dot events 14 spacer grey_dot spacer glossary spacer grey_dot spacer horary spacer grey_dot spacer quiz spacer grey_dot spacer consultations spacer grey_dot spacer links spacer grey_dot spacer more 16 bot Uranus bl When and why did Uranus become associated with Aquarius? by Kim Farnell wh This article arises from a discussion on the Skyscript forum, which took place in December 2003. The original discussion can be found here. We are all told that Uranus ‘rules’ Aquarius. Doubtless we all know that this wasn’t always so but that the markedly un-rebellious Saturn was once happy and settled in the job. At this point in time opinions vary, from those that believe Saturn resigned, collected his gold watch for long, very long, years of service and passed the honour to Uranus; to those that believe that the upstart Uranus has tried to jump in on his act. The discovery of Uranus is attributed to Sir William Herschel on March 13 1781. Herschel was occupied in searching the skies for new celestial objects. On that particular evening his attention was caught by the new planet. He didn’t realise at first that he had discovered the solar systems newest member, but he did know that he wasn’t looking at a star. It wasn’t long before astro . So, it’s hard to establish from this standpoint what astrologers at the time of its discovery made of the new planet. At some point though, we know that Uranus began to be used in astrology and that eventually it was assigned rulership of Aquarius. When did this happen? And who was responsible? In an interview in 1996, Robert Hand states: « 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 ». [1] Perhaps that answers our question? No, not really. The problem being that there are several Raphaels, spanning the nineteenth century and we don’t know here which particular Raphael Hand had in mind. [2] But Hand’s mention of charms and talismans suggests that he had in mind the first Raphael, Robert T Cross (1795-1832). Says Mr Hand in the same interview: « 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! » It’s a neat solution.[3] Unfortunately, reality is more messy. If we assume that the first Raphael attributed rulership of Uranus to Aquarius, then it suggests that later astrologers would share this view. Certainly this does not appear to be the case in the late nineteenth century. AJ Pearce’s (Zadkiel) Text Book of Astrology was published in 1879. In this he states, rather petulantly: 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’. Almost a hundred years is seen as hasty here – compare that to today’s eagerness to attribute rulerships to any lump of rock that happens to fly past your window. Sepharial, in his Manual of Astrology 1898, didn’t believe that Uranus ruled Aquarius: The dominion of Uranus is indefinite, for he has no house of his own, though he is most successfully placed in the airy triplicity…. The last Raphael, Robert Cross, wrote in his Horary Astrology 1883, that Aquarius is the « house of Uranus ». In his Key to Astrology 1891 p27/8, an extremely popular astrological text, and recommended wholeheartedly by Aleister Crowley, Raphael has started to become rather defensive about the matter: There has been some demur to my apportioning Aquarius to the planet Uranus. I can find no reason to alter my opinion on this matter, for Aquarius is a scientific sign, fond of curiosities, and of dabbling in the occult sciences, and the nature of Uranus is very similar. He gives Uranus’ exaltation as Scorpio and joys as Libra and Scorpio and an accidental dignity in the 9th. Simmonite’s Horary Astrology 1896, also states that Uranus rules Aquarius. Luke Broughton in 1899 was of a similar mind to Pearce. Although he kept one eye on Uranus, he wasn’t prepared to start dismantling the old rulership system. As late as 1909, Alan Leo wrote in Everybody’s Astrology: Uranus has been given no sign by astrologers, though Aquarius has often been suggested… Although the concept of Uranus ruling Aquarius was clearly well known by the end of the nineteenth century, it was not universally accepted. Gradually, astrologers began to accept Uranus as the ruler of Aquarius until numerous astrologers forgot that it hadn’t always been so. However, someone must have suggested it first, and perhaps it was the first Raphael? In his Manual of Astrology, published 1828, Raphael clearly states that Aquarius is governed by Saturn. He does write on Uranus, saying that because it was so recently discovered, no-one had witnessed more than its half-cycle. Raphael said that in 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. Although he doesn’t go so far as to suggest that Uranus actually rules Aquarius, he does state: We have is reason to think (from several thousand observations) that the sign Aquarius is one wherein he much delights. We can’t help but wonder how he came to this conclusion. Uranus didn’t enter Aquarius until a month after the publication of Raphael’s Manual, where it remained until 1836. At the time of publication, no astrologer had observed first-hand the influence of Uranus as it travelled through the sign « in which it much delights ». So, perhaps Raphael didn’t suggest that Uranus ruled Aquarius after all, but was simply noting an affinity, and being rather cagey about the whole matter. Maybe… except, Raphael wasn’t always as consistent as we’d like to think. Three years earlier he managed to adopt both points of view in the same publication. In The Astrologer of the Nineteenth Century, 1825, p134, he discusses the chart of a balloon crash. Referring to Uranus as Georgium Sidus, he points out that it is the ruler of the 4th house – which falls in 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… Yet in the same publication he later comments that Uranus « has no houses allotted him ». Perhaps at this point he isn’t totally convinced, or is willing to recognise an affinity in practice whilst remaining true to convention in his ‘rules’. If Raphael wasn’t totally certain, a friend of his appeared to be. The often forgotten astrologer and friend of the artist William Blake, John Varley, wrote a little known book entitled A Treatise on Zoadiacal Physiognomy in 1828. In this he states: 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 is 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. Varley had no doubt about the matter. To emphasise the point further he wrote: 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… Was Varley the first to definitively state that Uranus ruled Aquarius? There is little astrological literature available from the period immediately predating Varley’s work. What do we find if we take a quick run through? 1791 – Sibly’s Conjurer’s Magazine points out the connection between Herschel in Leo and fires.1792 – The same magazine points out a conjunction between the ‘new star’ (unamed) and Venus.1794 – In the Astrologer’s Magazine (was Conjurer’s Magazine) ‘Herschel’ pops up occasionally, although no one seems too sure what to do with it.1798 – John Worsedale in Genethliacal Astrology adds Uranus into some charts, but doesn’t dwell on its interpretation.1810 – Thomas White in The Beauties of Occult Science, 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 therefore 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. » So it looks very much like Varley should be recognised as the first to claim that Uranus rules Aquarius. But why? What made him so convinced about the meaning and rulership of Uranus? An article in the Occult Review of July 1916 entitled ‘Some Astrological Predictions of the Late John Varley by his grandson, John Varley’, offers a clue. The article gives the story of a number of predictions made by Varley and what actually transpired. 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 evil 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… Why, oh why do we not have Varley’s notebooks? All our questions about Uranus would be answered. There were no dates given for when this event took place and I’ve not been able to find any earlier versions of the story. Returning to our question of when Uranus began to assume rulership of Aquarius, the first tentative comment is in Raphael’s Astrologer of the Nineteenth Century in 1825. But this is a little vague, and Raphael is clearly not totally convinced. The first categorical statement that Uranus rules Aquarius appears in Varley’s book of 1828. So there’s the answer. John Varley decided that Uranus ruled Aquarius in 1828. And perhaps he took out insurance on his next home. To pre-empt a question that generally follows the one I have just addressed, 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 ». And John Varley put it there. The forum discussion on the association between Uranus and Aquarius is ongoing, so if you have more light to shed on this issue submit your comments to the forum thread Assignation of Outer-Planet Rulerships Notes & References: 1 ] See http://www.accessnewage.com/articles/astro/hand1.htm. Back to text 2 ] For a discussion on the lives of the Raphaels see « Healing Angels: Astrologers who called themselves Raphael » by Kim Farnell. Back to text 3 ] The forum discussion on this site presents alternative views on why Uranus was assigned to Aquarius. See http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=254 Back to text top © Kim Farnell, January, 2005. Kim is available for written work, TV and radio. Visit her website at www.kimfarnell.co.uk or email info@esoteric-e.co.uk wh Sur le site Astrolearn.com Astrology Library with Bibliography of Astrology Books and Magazines, on trouve un article très intéressant en date du 18 décembre 2014 sur l’attribution d’un domicile à Neptune, planéte découverte en 1846/ Il apparait que l’attribution de Neptune aux Poissons aux dépens de Jupiter date de la toute fin du XIXe siècle. En tout état de cause, cette cuisine reléve de l’astrologie anglo-saxonne et sera prise en compte en France notamment du fait de la traduction française avant la Première Guerre Mondial des petits manuels d’Alain Leo et de son équipe que nous avons fait paraitre en 1987 aux Ed Guy Trédaniel.-cf notre étude sur la Société Astrologique de France, en ligne sur la plateforme SCRIBD.. « The first published sources for Neptune being granted rulership of Pisces » « The earliest literary references I have found assigning the astrological Neptune its domicile in Pisces so far are, in chronological order: 1. J. T. Campbell, letter to the editor, P. Powley, of the astrological journal ‘The Astrologer’, pp. 119-120 of Vol. II of the journal, which is No. 5, November 1888: “A friend informs me that Neptune’s house and habitation are in Pisces, and his detriment and fall in Scorpio. Can any student add anything pro or con to this?” 2. Nemo (pseud.), regular columnist for the astrological journal ‘The Future’ (edited by A. J. Pearce), in his column ‘Astrological Notes No. 1’, p. 29 of Vol. I, which is No. II, March 1, 1892, writes: “One suggestion has been made that, as these planets [Uranus and Neptune] are more remote from Sun than Saturn, they should have the same dignities as Saturn; while another would depose Saturn from Aquarius and Jupiter from Pisces, and declare that Uranus and Neptune respectively reign in their stead. Both these suggestions involve serious difficulties, nor do they settle the question once and for all with regard to any planets of our solar system yet to be discovered. It seems incredible that planets of such diverse natures as Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune (to say nothing of any still more distant), should all bear equal rule in the same two signs. Furthermore, to depose Saturn and Jupiter from their thrones, pre-supposes a grave error on the part of the ancients, whose teaching on this point has been handed down with complete unanimity from the dim past; it, moreover, necessitates a further process of dethronement and a further ignoring of the teachings of antiquity, whenever further planetary discoveries shall be made. Consequently I am compelled to reject both of these hypotheses”. But he goes on to compromise: “The difficulty in which modern astrologers have found themselves involved, seems to have originated in their error in rejecting the ancient division of the houses of the planets into the diurnal and nocturnal. By observing this distinction, Uranus and Neptune easily find their houses, with room to spare for their yet undiscovered brethren. Thus Aquarius, which is the diurnal house of Saturn, is the nocturnal house of Uranus. Virgo, which is the nocturnal house of Mercury, is the diurnal house of Uranus. Pisces, which is the nocturnal house of Jupiter, is the diurnal house of Neptune. Gemini, which is the diurnal house of Mercury, is the nocturnal house of Neptune.” Thus, in summary, he gives Neptune diurnal rulership only over Pisces, and nocturnal rulership over Gemini. This is a half-way measure compared with the friend of J. T. Campbell or indeed the anonymously attributed second suggestion referred to by Nemo at the start of the first paragraph I quoted above. 3. Thomas Burgoyne, writing in ‘The Language of the Stars’, first published 1892, month unclear, writes: “The planet Neptune, so far as I have been able to find out, gives very beneficial rays when in Pisces, but the reverse in Aries, and therefore Pisces is a natural sign for Neptune, so it seems to me”. But he stops short of specifically making it the domicile ruler of Pisces! 4. A correspondent going by the pen-name “Sagittarius”, in an article called ‘The Houses and Exaltations of the Planets’ serialised over multiple issues of “The Astrologer’s Magazine” Vol. 4, argues, in the March, 1894 issue, p. 170 of Vol. 4, for Pisces being “the chief house of Neptune”; and adds that adds “poor old Jove must be satisfied with Sagittarius in future”: “It is admitted by all astrologers that Uranus has great influence in the airy triplicity (Gemini Libra Aquarius) and that his chief domal dignity is Aquarius, also that Uranus is of the nature of Mercury and Saturn combined, and it has been repeatedly proved that Uranus evolves negative electricity (like Saturn), and always lowers the temperature when in aspect to Sun, Venus, Mercury, or the Moon, therefore since the discovery of Uranus and Neptune, modern astrologers have acted wisely in dethroning Saturn from Aquarius (Ptolemy’s system), and giving that sign as the chief house of the eccentric Uranus. Pisces for the same reason is the chief house of Neptune, and poor old Jove must be satisfied with Sagittarius in future. The following are no doubt the reasons why Uranus should rule in Aquarius and Neptune in Pisces. “The Sun fountain of light and life to our system rules in Leo as his own house; the first planet revolving round him (rejecting the inter-mercurial planet Vulcan of R. A. Proctor) is Mercury who consequently gets Virgo the next sign to Leo, as Mercury’s sphere is next to the Sun; then comes Venus next in order, who, of course, gets Libra for her house; passing the Earth, the next in order is Mars who gets Scorpio; the next sign in rotation then, omitting the asteroids (Ceres, Vesta, etc.) in toto, Jupiter gets Sagittarius the next in order; then comes Saturn who follows on with Capricornus the next sign. Here Ptolemy turns around and goes backward Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, etc., from the circumference to the centre, but we moderns who have Uranus and Neptune to complete our system and deal with, must advance and not recede as Ptolemy did for he knew nothing of these two planets Uranus and Neptune; therefore the next planet in the order of nature to Saturn who has Capricorn only is Uranus, who must of necessity have Aquarius; the next sign, and the last of the spheres is Neptune, so he for the same reason must have the last sign (Pisces) for his “domal” dignity. Aries, the vernal equinox and the first sign of the circle, is given to Mars who is akin to the earth in nature, the principle of wrath and selfishness predominating over the principle of love, hence Mars gets Aries next to Pisces in the zodiac. Returning to the Sun Leo the sphere of Venus comes next, so she gets Taurus the next sign for her other house, then below Venus is Mercury, so consequently he gets Gemini for the same reason. Then comes the Moon, swiftest of all the heavenly wanderers, so the fair Luna gets the next sign Cancer for her house, then the Moon joins the Sun Leo, and from the conjoint principles of heat and moisture in union another gestation commences and so on ad-infinitum. ” “Steady, my friend,” says an objector, “why should the inferiorplanets Mercury and Venus and the small planet Mars (with his two recently discovered moons) have two houses allotted to each of them?” Why, my friend? because they move so swiftly. Mercury is only about a fortnight in a sign when not stationary in it, and for this reason has two signs for houses, and Venus likewise, and Mars, although really a superior, as he moves beyond the earth’s orbit, must, as far as his swift motion and small magnitude is concerned, be considered an inferior, unless he be stationary, being only about six weeks in a sign, hence Mercury, Venus, and Mars being swiftly moving planets, compared to Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, have for the aforesaid reason two houses each allotted to them, but the giant planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, on account of their slow and ponderous motion, have only one house each. The Sun and Moon being passive planets, and, according to Ptolemy, the most essential significators translating the influences of all the planets to our earth, have for this reason one house each only, even though the lesser luminary is the swiftest in motion of any of them.” In the second part of the same article, starting p. 241, “Sagittarius” argues for the exaltation of Uranus in Gemini and the exaltation of Neptune in Scorpio, concluding: “To summarise, Uranus is in his own house in Aquarius, in his “exaltation” in Gemini, and in triplicity in Libra. Neptune is in his own house in Pisces, in his exaltation in Scorpio, and in his triplicity in Cancer.” So, unlike Burgoyne and Nemo, “Sagittarius” is unambivalent about making Neptune the sole ruler of Pisces. Thus, his position is identical with that of the anonymous friend of J. T. Campbell as cited by Campbell in source 1 above. But it’s stated directly by the person who believes it, in first party form, and at length in a proper article, so it’s arguably the first proper exposition of this position in print. ***** In conclusion, and until and unless anyone can advance on this, the pioneers of the modern movement to accord Neptune its (sole) domicile in Pisces are both anonymous, the first being the friend of J. T. Campbell in November, 1888, the second “Sagittarius” in March, 1894. Nemo’s contribution in the pages of “The Future” in 1892 was also considerable but different in its analysis and conclusions from modern practice. ***** PS: The first substantial article on astrological Neptune was that of R. H. Penny, writing under the pen-name “Neptune”, in Urania (edited by Alfred Pearce), in 1880, but its focus is limited to mundane astrology and it does not make any attempt to accord dignities to Neptune. ***** PPS: James Herschel Holden, writing in ‘A History of Horoscopic Astrology’, cites John Ackroyd as the source of the primary account of astrological Neptune in the literary record. The account attributed to Ackroyd by Holden is a letter penned by a Prof. J. A. to Sheffield-based astrological publisher John Story, and published in Story’s 1890 reprint of W. J. Simmonite’s main work, as retitled by Story as ‘The Complete Arcana of Astral Philosophy’. [Story re-edited and republished four of Simmonite’s works posthumously in the 1890s, changing most of their names in the process; and some of the new editions went through further reprints over the decades to follow.] J. A., in his letter to Story, is ambivalent, stating simply (p. 8 of the appendix to Story’s edition of the aforementioned work by Simmonite): “According to Ptolemy’s theory, Aquarius should be Neptune’s house, but Scorpio or Taurus might answer well, as they are both of an obscure and mystical nature, but it will require more experience, observation, and practice to settle the matter”. Thus, J. A.’s account of Neptune’s dignities is non-committal and has nothing in common with the consensus of the contemporaneous writings I referred to in 1 to 4 above. It can therefore be safely disregarded as an atypical anomaly in the early literary record on astrological Neptune, at least so far as its advocacy of Neptune’s dignities is concerned. En ce qui concerne Pluton, on lire notre ouvrage La Vie Astrologique.Années Trente Cinquante, Ed Guy Trédaniel, 1995) JHB 29 11 22