Actually, the interpretations of the outers predate psychological astrology. John Varley and John Corfield worked on Uranus in the early 19th century by looking at the effects of transits. When you look at the myths of Uranus (and there's not a lot to look at) they don't have much to do with our interpretation. The meaning of Neptune was discovered in the same way by John Ackroyd, who made no mention of mythology in his description.
I didn't say it was impossible to interepret the planets without myth. I wouldn't bother with the fixed stars approach if I thought that they had to use myth. I said that it was virtually impossible to follow a modern psychological approach without reference to myths.
Uranus wasn't Uranus till 1850, it was either the Georgian Planet, or Herschel (after it's discoverer). So the use of myth would not have applied in the early nineteenth century and it's a pity that situation did not remain the case. It was not really until 1865 that some cautious interpretations were included in almanacs, and even then only when it was in aspect to another planet (Which I happen to think was a sensible approach at the time). There's evidence to suggest that the interpretations were controversial (it would be surprising if they were not).
As with Neptune the real change came with Alan Leo, who tried to reform Astrology. His interpretations for Uranus and Neptune are really the basis for the modern views, the Jungian overlay did come later but These two planets never really became established enough in the pre-Jung world to withstand the imposition of the psychological apprach. If not Tabulae Rasae, they were not far off. It's Leo who said of Neptune:
Viewed clairvoyantly in the crystal...Neptune appears as a Nebulous plasma'.
This and other statements relating to the dearth of 'Neptunian types' show that Leo really fabricated his definition of Neptune but it was 'nebulous' enough to allow the psychologists to have a field day with it.
Pluto never really stood a chance did it?. The sadly thing is that the attempts to build a non-mythical basis for these planets was swept aside before the non-mythical base became established.
David McCann said:
Except that the fixed stars, in my experience, only take effect when on the horizon (and possibly on the meridian and in bodily conjunctions) while the outer planets definitely make aspects. They can be difficult, but no more than Mars or Saturn. Like Crowley, I have Uranus rising and he's been very good to me on occasions.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'definitely make aspects'. Are you suggesting that Neptune for example in a square with Venus is reacting in a way that Cor Leonis or Algol cannot when Venus squares them? If so how can you identify the 'active' ingredient for Neptune that is not there for the fixed stars?
Or are you saying that Neptune can cast an aspect to the Ascendant (or other key point) which is by Trine or sextile or opposition,that has an Astrological effect, when a fixed Star can only produce an Astrological effect from Conjunction or possibly square (by paran)
Or do you mean that Neptune can aspect Uranus or Pluto in the sense that it produces an Astrological effect
Or possibly some combination of these.
I've found that quite often the effects of claimed aspects for the outers can actually be explained using traditional techniques. Sometimes even better, as I once demonstrated using an example from Geoffrey Cornelius' The Moment of Astrology.
A planet can 'aspect a star or a point or even an outer planet or an asteroid', The issue really is 'is the aspect of significance in the analysis of events? I don't deny the possibility that the outers may have astrological significance. I really hope that they do. However I've not yet found sufficient evidence to give them the importance that the psychological school heap on them.
