ASTROLOGY AND THE PRESS. 17 thrusts levelled at astrologers, there is not one that is definitely pointed at astrology, and there is nothing whatever in astrology that contradicts any one of the doctrines of the Christian religion. Milton, the poet, believed in it. Bishop Hall believed in it. Melancthon, the Protestant Reformer and helpmate of Luther, believed in it. Sir Mathew Hale, an eminently religious English judge, besides Lord Bacon, Archbishop Usher, and other eminent Christians, believed in it. With such great names to guarantee the purity of its principles, no man need have any religious fear of studying it. But still it is one of those bewildering and fascinating subjects which are very likely to interfere with the free use of a man's practical judgment; and if a man should happen to have a bad nativity and unfortunate directions, he is very apt to fall into despondency, if he puts faith in the certainty of the evils they portend. People are all too apt to confound astrology with astrologers, as they confound the clergy with the church. Most of the professional astrologers are ignorant of their profession, and give most contradictory opinions. An astrologer ought to be a zealous, religious, honest, and discreet man, as well as an excellent calculator, otherwise he is not worth expending a shilling upon." On the other hand, the Editor of the Manchester Guardian, a paper of the largest circulation, we believe, of any in England, in his number for 25th Nov. 1848, declares that astrological almanacs trade on the credulity and gullibility of the public. Heaven knows, the editors of political papers have long followed the trade of gulling the public, and care little for truth or virtue, so they but make out a case for their party. The Editor disputes the reality of the fulfilment of Zadkiel's predictions, asserting that "Zadkiel's so-called predictions are at best shrewd guesses; the majority of which the event, so far from verifying, has utterly falsified." Well: let us see how he makes out this assertion. He allows us to have "some sagacity;" but we fear he has but little, or he would not term those guesses "shrewd," the major part of which are "falsified;" for they must be as stupid, in that case, as his own arguments, if possible. He says, "Before entering into these comparisons, we may notice one circumstance, which, as it appears to us, strikes at the root of all these pretended predictions, whether as to the fate of nations or of individuals, as figured by certain horoscopes and nativities. The old astrologers worked these "schemes" by pretending to point out certain "planetary influences." But the only planetary bodies known to them (apart from the earth), were the Sun, the Moon, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, and Mercury; in all seven, counting our satellite. But, since that period, Uranus and Ceres were discovered; subsequently Pallas, Juno, and Vesta; and very recently Neptune, Astrea, and Flora. Here are eight other planetary bodies never taken into the account, their entire and aggregate influence, malefic or benefic, wholly disregarded, because their very existence was unknown to the old astrologers. And the same thing is true, to a proportionate degree, of the Raphael, Zadkiel, et hoc genus omne, of the present day. Zadkiel, as we shall shew hereafter, predicts direful effects by Uranus being in "the ruling sign of any land" (that of England, we presume, being Aries), and hence threatens us with a year of dis 18 ASTROLOGY AND THE PRESS. aster and affliction in 1849. Here he uses an element wholly unknown to the older astrologers, from Nostradamus down to old Lilly; yet he, too, seems not to take any notice of the more recently-discovered planets, or to permit them to exercise any influence over the destinies of earth's people or its nations." A lame argument is this worn-out objection, which has been answered a thousand times. Would the Editor allow that Priestley, and the chemists of his day, knew any thing of chemistry? or would he say that there was no such science in existence, because modern chemists have made enormous strides in discovery, and now possess a knowledge of principles utterly unknown to "the older" chemists? Every science is progressive; and though we know not what Neptune may do, we do know beyond dispute what Saturn does: for instance, if he afflict Mercury at birth, he makes men like the Editor of the Manchester Guardian, who presume to argue on a science of the very fundamental principles of which they are totally ignorant; men who are too idle or too dishonest to master their subject before they address the public. Hence do they become the laughing-stocks of those persons who read their poor attempts, as the Editor must be to all who peruse his paper-elderly ladies excepted. The Editor objects that the prediction of events which occurred lately to Louis Phillippe are not fulfilled. And because the Revolution in France was not named under the "voice of the stars" in February, it was not foretold at all. Excellent logic! "France has not yet been plunged into war," quoth the Editor; though Zadkiel, he shews, foretold such an event. In the name of, even editorial, honesty-if there be such a thing-what is it that has gone on in France? Have the THOUSANDS whose blood stained the stones of the cities of France in February, May, and JUNE, been the victims of merry-making? Is the Editor aware of what "WAR" really signifies? England, too, he says has not been plunged into war since this eclipse, "though more than twelve months have elapsed." Yet he has given long accounts of a bloody and disastrous war in India, in which our troops have been defeated! Then he quotes the prediction that " a new moon in April 1848 will affect Louis Philippe severely;" and that certain matters about the 5th of March 66 seem to denote danger of poison to the old man, who will certainly SUFFER about that time and bend his frame towards the earth." verily; and suffer he did, if to be hurled from a throne and driven a wanderer on the earth, with not a five-franc piece in his pocket, be to suffer. Where does the Editor learn the meaning of words? Yet, in spite of the hieroglyphic, and all that was said of Louis Philippe suffering by "sedition" and the "tur Yea, ASTROLOGY AND THE PRESS. 19 bulent scenes," &c. in Paris, it is coolly asserted, that the predictions did not "even glance at the real state of events as to France or its ex-monarch." And the Editor adds, "the only approach to poisoning we have heard of is the deleterious state of the water at Claremont." Very good: that was "danger of poison." Want of space compels us to leave this sapient Editor, who, we hope, will not be in danger of poison from the black bile of prejudice that rankles in his system and prevents him perceiving even the broad glare of truth. We must now turn to our old friend the Editor of the Athenæum, who, unlike the country scribe, has talent enough. Would that he might use it to uphold truth instead of error! He says "we cannot comply with Zadkiel's request, that we will refute astrology-because it is enough that it is not established after a trial of many centuries." Thus he strikes his colours, and eschews argument. Well; if his readers choose to consider that "it is enough," why, let them, say we. Yet we doubt whether they will not demur to this dictum, and say to themselves, "surely, if this said science of astrology be so very false, and so utterly ungrounded, it would be very easy for the Editor to refute it at once by reference to any well-known nativity, or to any case of a large eclipse." And they may even argue, that though Zadkiel be not worth setting right, yet the tens of thousands of his readers are worth saving from this delusion, which the Editor calls "detestable." And they may say, for example, "why not take the great eclipse of the sun on the 15th April, 1847, which was visible from the Cape of Good Hope to Ceylon, and most parts of Australia, and then shew that it was not followed, according to the laws of astrology, by warfare and battles at the Cape, or by insurrection and fearful bloodshed at Ceylon, and by great mortality of sheep, especially, in Australia, as Zadkiel foretold at page 33 of his Almanac for 1847?" Or, "Why not take the nativity of Louis Philippe, and shew that the planet Saturn was not in 20° of Virgo when he was born, and that the Moon was not in 20° of Virgo also on his birth-day 1847; and that the great eclipse did not take place on the place the Sun was in at his birth, as asserted by Zadkiel; and that the events that took place subsequently did not accord with the doctrines of astrology." Moreover, they may ask, "Why not shew that in March last, when the ex-king was a fugitive, suffering want and misery, Saturn was not 90°, a square aspect, from the place the Moon was in at his birth, and Mars also passing over that very place?" If the readers of the Athenæum be cute enough to think like this, what 20 ASTROLOGY AND THE PRESS. must they conclude of the poor Editor's integrity and critical acumen? Will they be satisfied that, instead of so "refuting astrology," the Editor displays the weakness of handing over his opponent to the law; and intimates that astrology, instead of a GRAND TRUTH, should be treated as "roguery and vagabondage?" Even if, for the argument's sake, the law be admitted to have forbidden its practice-which, as a fact, is utterly denied that cannot in anywise disprove the truth of its doctrines or the reality of its principles, but only proves that if these be true, the said law is a very wicked law, and both cruel and tyrannical. Might not these readers of the Athenæum quote the Editor's own words, page 1207, and say, "No amount of negative reasoning can upset a single well-observed fact?" and may they not think that if Zadkiel have observed facts for a quarter of a century in confirmation of astrology, as he has declared, and the Editor has observed no facts to disprove them, he has no right to assert that he "believes that Zadkiel imposed on himself before he tried to impose on others?" May they not add, moreover, that the Editor is the person who imposed on himself, by treating astrology as false, and denying astral influence, without any such process of induction as would be for a moment received by himself, as a critic, in any other matter of science or philosophy, or, indeed, in any thing else under the sun? As the hieroglyphic for 1848 has been mentioned by these editors, we here reprint it for examination by the reader. The reader will judge whether the tri-color flag in the hand of a crowned skeleton, and the Gallic cock exulting, standing on REVIEW THE POETRY OF SCIENCE. 21 the hour-glass, a type of the king's time of power being run out, be "a glance" at the event. Also, whether the armed man, holding the scroll shewing the Sun and Moon in Libra, pointing the sword to his own person, shewed that the armed men would turn their swords against each other. And whether the Pope's tiara being placed on the earth foreshewed that the Pope's power should come to an end. These events are those which will mark 1848 in the page of history; and we submit that they were very distinctly pointed at many months in advance. Let it be remembered, too, that a hieroglyphic does not profess to be a picture of future events, but merely a type to indicate their features. Review. THE POETRY OF SCIENCE, or Studies of the Physical Phenomena of Nature. By ROBERT HUNT. Reeve & Co. THIS work comes very à propos to the commencement of our critical labours; and, as it may be regarded as a fair and lucid exposé of the results of the achievements of modern science, we shall refer to it extensively; and if out of their own mouths we are forced to condemn our professed "lovers of truth," why the fault lies not with us, but is to be discovered in the one-sided principle upon which our men of science choose to make their researches. If they will explore the recesses of Nature's secrets, guided by the deceitful glare of prejudice, they must take the consequences. They cannot complain if we expose their fallacies, for they are considered as the salt of the earth; and we have a right, therefore, to shew that they have, for want of the light of truth, mistaken for genuine brilliants the mere rubbish of crystallized liquids, which dissolve into vapours on the first exposure to the test of examination. Let them adopt the fair and honest course that Bacon recommends; let them "make experiments;" but, at the same time, cast out of the alembics of their minds all their preconceived notions that the philosophers of old knew nothing, because they had not formed acquaintance with the jumble of geological phraseology and the barbarous lists of jaw-breaking terms now mis-called "science." Let them examine fairly and honestly the doctrines of the immortal Ptolemy (adopted as they have been by the oriental philosophers of all nations), which teach that there is a certain and never-failing connexion between the angles under which the sun, moon, and |