Myths and Marvels of Astronomy
oppose themselves irresistibly to any belief in planetary influences
upon the fates of men and nations, yet before those facts were
discovered it was not only not unreasonable, but was in fact, highly
reasonable to believe in such influences, or at least that the sun, and
moon, and stars moved in the heavens in such sort as to indicate what
would happen. If the wise men of old times rejected the belief that 'the
stars in their courses fought' for or against men, they yet could not
very readily abandon the belief that the stars were for signs in the
heavens of what was to befall mankind.
If we consider the reasoning now commonly thought valid in favour of the
doctrine that other orbs besides our earth are inhabited, and compare it
with the reasoning on which judicial astrology was based, we shall not
find much to choose between the two, so far as logical weight is
concerned. Because the only member of the solar system which we can
examine closely is inhabited, astronomers infer a certain degree of
probability for the belief that the other planets of the system are also
inhabited. And because the only sun we know much about is the centre of
a system of planets, astronomers infer that probably the stars, those
other suns which people space, are also the centres of systems; although
no telescope which man can make would show the members of a system like
ours, attending on even the nearest of all the stars. The astrologer had
a similar argument for his belief. The moon, as she circles around the
earth, exerts a manifest influence upon terrestrial matter--the tidal
wave rising and sinking synchronously with the movements of the moon,
and other consequences depending directly or indirectly upon her
revolution around the earth. The sun's influence is still more manifest;
and, though it may have required the genius of a Herschel or of a
Stephenson to perceive that almost every form of terrestrial energy is
derived from the sun, yet it must have been manifest from the very
earliest times that the greater light which rules the day rules the
seasons also, and, in ruling them, provides the annual supplies of
vegetable food, on which the very existence of men and animals depends.
If these two bodies, the sun and moon, are thus potent, must it not be
supposed, reasoned the astronomers of old, that the other celestial
bodies exert corresponding influences? _We_ know, but they did not know,
that the moon rules the tides effectually because she is near to us, and
that the sun is second only to the moon in tidal influence because of
his enormous mass and attractive energy. We know also that his position
as fire, light, and life of the earth and its inhabitants, is due
directly to the tremendous heat with which the whole of his mighty
frame is instinct. Not knowing this, the astronomers of old times had no
sufficient reason for distinguishing the sun and moon from the other
celestial bodies, so far at least as the general question of celestial
influences was concerned.
So far as particulars were concerned, it was not altogether so clear to
them as it is to us, that the influence of the sun must be paramount in
all respects save tidal action, and that of the moon second only to the
sun's in other respects, and superior to his in tidal sway alone. Many
writers on the subject of life in other worlds are prepared to show (as
Brewster attempts to do, for example) that Jupiter and Saturn are far
nobler worlds than the earth, because superior in this or that
circumstance. So the ancient astronomers, in their ignorance of the
actual conditions on which celestial influences depend, found abundant
reasons for regarding the feeble influences exerted by Saturn, Jupiter,
and Mars, as really more potent than those exerted by the sun himself
upon the earth. They reasoned, as Milton afterwards made Raphael reason,
that 'great or bright infers not excellence,' that Saturn or Jupiter,
though 'in comparison so small, nor glist'ring' to like degree, may yet
'of solid good contain more plenty than the sun.' Supposing the
influence of a celestial body to depend on the magnitude of its sphere,
in the sense of the old astronomy (according to which each planet had
its proper sphere, around the earth as centre), then the influence of
the sun would be judged to be inferior to that of either Saturn,
Jupiter, or Mars; while the influences of Venus and Mercury, though
inferior to the influence of the sun, would still be held superior to
that of the moon. For the ancients measured the spheres of the seven
planets of their system by the periods of the apparent revolution of
those bodies around the celestial dome, and so set the sphere of the
moon innermost, enclosed by the sphere of Mercury, around which in turn
was the sphere of Venus, next the sun's, then, in order, those of Mars,
Jupiter, and Saturn. We can readily understand how they might come to
regard the slow motions of the sphere of Saturn and Jupiter, taking
respectively some thirty and twelve years to complete a revolution, as
indicating power superior to the sun's, whose sphere seemed to revolve
once in a single year. Many other considerations might have been urged,
before the Copernican theory was established, to show that, possibly,
some of the planets exert influences more effective than those of the
sun and moon.
It is, indeed, clear that the first real shock sustained by astrology
came from the arguments of Copernicus. So long as the earth was regarded
as the centre round which all the celestial bodies move, it was hopeless
to attempt to shake men's faith in the influences of the stars. So far
as I know, there is not a single instance of a believer in the old
Ptolemaic system who rejected astrology absolutely. The views of
Bacon--the last of any note who opposed the system of
Copernicus[4]--indicate the extreme limits to which a Ptolemaist could
go in opposition to astrology. It may be worth while to quote Bacon's
opinion in this place, because it indicates at once very accurately the
position held by believers in astrology in his day, and the influence
which the belief in a central fixed earth could not fail to exert on the
minds of even the most philosophical reasoners.
'Astrology,' he begins, 'is so full of superstition that scarce anything
sound can be discovered in it; though we judge it should rather be
purged than absolutely rejected. Yet if any one shall pretend that this
science is founded not in reason and physical contemplations, but in the
direct experience and observation of past ages, and therefore not to be
examined by physical reasons, as the Chaldaeans boasted, he may at the
same time bring back divination, auguries, soothsaying, and give in to
all kinds of fables; for these also were said to descend from long
experience. But we receive astrology as a part of physics, without
attributing more to it than reason and the evidence of things allow, and
strip it of its superstition and conceits. Thus we banish that empty
notion about the horary reign of the planets, as if each resumed the
throne thrice in twenty-four hours, so as to leave three hours
supernumerary; and yet this fiction produced the division of the
week,[5] a thing so ancient and so universally received. Thus likewise
we reject as an idle figment the doctrine of horoscopes, and the
distribution of the houses, though these are the darling inventions of
astrology, which have kept revel, as it were, in the heavens. And
lastly, for the calculation of nativities, fortunes, good or bad hours
of business, and the like fatalities, they are mere levities, that have
little in them of certainty and solidity, and may be plainly confuted by
physical reasons. But here we judge it proper to lay down some rules for
the examination of astrological matters, in order to retain what is
useful therein, and reject what is insignificant. Thus, 1. Let the
greater revolutions be retained, but the lesser, of horoscopes and
houses, be rejected--the former being like ordnance which shoot to a
great distance, whilst the other are but like small bows, that do no
execution. 2. The celestial operations affect not all kinds of bodies,
but only the more sensible, as humours, air, and spirits. 3. All the
celestial operations rather extend to masses of things than to
individuals, though they may obliquely reach some individuals also which
are more sensible than the rest, as a pestilent constitution of the air
affects those bodies which are least able to resist it. 4. All the
celestial operations produce not their effects instantaneously, and in a
narrow compass, but exert them in large portions of time and space. Thus
predictions as to the temperature of a year may hold good, but not with
regard to single days. 5. There is no fatal necessity in the stars; and
this the more prudent astrologers have constantly allowed. 6. We will
add one thing more, which, if amended and improved, might make for
astrology--viz. that we are certain the celestial bodies have other
influences besides heat and light, but these influences act not
otherwise than by the foregoing rules, though they lie so deep in
physics as to require a fuller explanation. So that, upon the whole, we
must register as needed,[6] an astrology written in conformity with
these principles, under the name of _Astrologia Sana_.'
He then proceeds to show what this just astrology should comprehend--as,
1, the doctrine of the commixture of rays; 2, the effect of nearest
approaches and farthest removes of planets to and from the point
overhead (the planets, like the sun, having their summer and winter); 3,
the effects of distance, 'with a proper enquiry into what the vigour of
the planets may perform of itself, and what through their nearness to
us; for,' he adds, but unfortunately without assigning any reason for
the statement, 'a planet is more brisk when most remote, but more
communicative when nearest;' 4, the other accidents of the planet's
motions as they pursue
Their wand'ring course, now high, now low, then hid,
Progressive, retrograde, or standing still;
5, all that can be discovered of the general nature of the planets and
fixed stars, considered in their own essence and activity; 6, lastly,
let this just astrology, he says, 'contain, from tradition, the
particular natures and alterations of the planets and fixed stars; for'
(here is a reason indeed) 'as these are delivered with general consent,
they are not lightly to be rejected, unless they directly contradict
physical considerations. Of such observations let a just astrology be
formed; and according to these alone should schemes of the heavens be
made and interpreted.'
The astrology thus regarded by Bacon as sane and just did not differ, as
to its primary object, from the false systems which now seem to us so
absurd. 'Let this astrology be used with greater confidence in
prediction,' says Bacon, 'but more cautiously in election, and in both
cases with due moderation. Thus predictions may be made of comets, and
all kinds of meteors, inundations, droughts, heats, frosts, earthquakes,
fiery eruptions, winds, great rains, the seasons of the year, plagues,
epidemic diseases, plenty, famine, wars, seditions, sects,
transmigrations of people, and all commotions, or great innovations of
things, natural and civil. Predictions may possibly be made more
particular, though with less certainty, if, when the general tendencies
of the times are found, a good philosophical or political judgment
applies them to such things as are most liable to accidents of this
kind. For example, from a foreknowledge of the seasons of any year, they
might be apprehended more destructive to olives than grapes, more
hurtful in distempers of the lungs than the liver, more pernicious to