Related Articles Section
Rudolf Steiner's Exclusion of Uranus and Neptune
Over several years of observing modern astronomy and astrology, the outer planets Uranus, Neptune and Pluto had come to point to the presumptuous for me. In astronomy, the calculated orbits of these planets - never before documented by man - are presented as if equally well known as long documented orbits, for example. In astrology, these planets never indicated by the ancients are dressed up as equal partners in the mythical astrological properties of the long known planets.
It was hard to get much beyond this feeling of the presumptuous, and the logical consequence that these planets would not turn out to be as so many people want to think. Then gradually through a larger survey, it became clear that Dr. Steiner, in his spiritual research, explicitly excludes Uranus and Neptune from the level of influence the other planets have through being co-participants in solar system evolution.
I'd like to present the evidence of Dr. Steiner's point of view, in chronological order.
13 Sept. 1907
Our present Saturn received its name in ancient times when the wise ones could still give meaningful names to things. It was given its name out of its very nature. Today, this is no longer done. Uranus, for example, does not have such a justified name since it was discovered later. (Occult Signs and Symbols, 1972, pp. 9-12)
15 Feb. 1908
Thus there were beings at the very beginning of our Earth who were scarcely fitted to take part in further development, who were still so young in their whole evolution that any further step would have destroyed them. They had to receive a sphere of action, so to speak, on which they could preserve their complete youthfulness. This scene of action was the cosmic body which we call Uranus, and which therefor has but slight connection with earthly existence. Uranus has become the theatre for beings which had to remain at a very backward stage.
Then evolution proceeded. Apart from Uranus, all that forms our universe was contained in an original pap-like mass.
18 Apr. 1909
. . . As Jupiter contracted, the beings who withdrew pressed together something that has nothing to do with our evolution; it was essentially related to the withdrawing beings. Thus, first Uranus was formed and later, during Mars evolution, Neptune arose. The names Uranus and Neptune were not appropriately chosen as had formerly been the case, though some meaning remains in the name Uranus. It was given at a time when an inkling of giving the right name still survived; everything beyond our own planetary system was given the collective name Uranus.
Thus we see that the two planets, which our modern astronomy sets on a par with the other planets, have in fact quite another origin and have fundamentally nothing to do with our universe. They represent worlds that came about because beings, who still had something to do with us during ancient Saturn, withdrew and took up their dwelling outside our world. Many other facts can be deduced from this, for instance, that these planets have retrograding moons, and so forth. (The Spiritual Hierarchies and Their Reflection in the Physical World., 1970, pg. 126)
3 - 14 Apr. 1912
Let us take, for example, the planet which for a long period of time, has been reckoned as the outermost one in our system; Uranus and Neptune were added later, as we shall see; but to begin with we shall consider Saturn as the outermost. (The Spiritual Beings in the Heavenly Bodies and the Kingdoms of Nature, 1951, pp. 95-104)
. . . It is to be noted that the two outermost planets now reckoned as belonging to our system by physical astronomy - Uranus and Neptune - did not originally belong to our Solar System; they came much later into the sphere of attraction of our system: they then joined company and remained with it. They cannot therefor be reckoned in the same sense as the other planets as belonging to our system from Saturn onwards, for they, so to speak, belonged to it from the beginning. (The Spiritual Beings in the Heavenly Bodies and the Kingdoms of Nature, 1951, pg. 200)
30 July 1916
Then we consider yet another planet, one not known to the ancient Hebrews, They were, however, aware of its sphere, which they thought of as beyond the planets; they thought of it as the crystal sphere that formed the vault of the heavens. Much later it was discovered that one could speak of Uranus as being there. But we can consider Uranus, even though it was discovered much later. The only difference is that the ancient Hebrews thought of a sphere in the place where Uranus was later located . . . (The Riddle of Humanity, 1990, pp. 18-23)
13 Mar. 1917
Now the ancients rightly considered Saturn the most distant planet from our solar system; it is the farthest away. From the standpoint of materialistic astronomy it is quite justified to add Uranus and Neptune to our system; but they have a different origin and do not belong to the solar system; so that we may speak of Saturn as the outermost planet of our system. (Cosmic and Human Metamorphosis, 1989, pp. 65-69)
26 Mar. 1920
It is time today that the whole Copernican system was re-examined and superseded by another. The so-called outer planets are Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. (Uranus and Neptune are only members of the solar system in an astronomical sense; they do not really belong to it by origin; they are foreign bodies that have become attracted and attached to our system. They are guests, invited to our planetary system, and we are right to omit them.) (Spiritual Science and Medicine, 1989, pp. 83-85)
2 May 1920
Thus we may say that if we regard Saturn as the outermost planet (the other two, Uranus and Neptune, regarded today as of equal standing with Saturn, are really fugitives that have wandered in) . . . (Man - Hieroglyph of the Universe, 1972, pp. 151-156)
26 Nov. 1922
They appear to us in such a way that between death and rebirth we look back in gratitude to the outermost planet of our earthly planetary system (for Uranus and Neptune are not Earth planets; they were added at a later stage). (Man and the World of Stars, 1963, pp. 10-13)
The `outer planets' seem to need to be put in their place, and this done by watchfulness and lack of preconceived ideas. At least in terms of exclusion, Pluto is certainly part of this group. And people who rush to give occult symbols and meanings to Uranus, Neptune and Pluto probably tell us more about themselves than these - distant - visitors.