the science." Ptolemy is sometimes called "the Prince of Astrologers," and he is the great authority to which the modern student refers. Yet Zadkiel, in his introduction to the Grammar, confesses that— "As Ptolemy did not devote the whole of his time to this study, which would require the entire application of any man's. time to make himself thoroughly and entirely MASTER OF IT, we may fairly suppose that some of the less important rules had not been tested by him personally, but were merely adopted as the the current opinions of the day. This accounts for a few of his doctrines being in some degree erroneous, &c." From this quotation I infer, that as Ptolemy did not devote the whole of his time to this study, he never was a master of it, yet his "Tetrabiblos" has been the great text book of astrologers for ages. The truth is, a very considerable part of his life was employed in visiting many of the countries described in his cosmography, and he only passed a few years at his observatory at Alexandria. And with regard to astronomical instruments, we are assured that the ancients laboured under considerable disadvantages: Sir John Herschel, in his Treatise on Astronomy (page 65), says— "Astronomical instrument making may be justly regarded as the most refined of the mechanical arts, and that in which the nearest approach to geometrical precision is required, and has been attained. * Every imperfection of structure or division becomes magnified by the whole optical power of that instrument. An angle of one minute occupies on the circumference of a circle of 10 inches of radius, only about 1-350th part of an inch, a quantity too small to be certainly dealt with without the use of magnifying. glasses; yet one minute is a gross quantity in the astronomical measurement in an angle. With the instruments now employed in observatories, a single second, or the 60th part of a minute, is rendered a distinctly visible and appreciable quantity. Now, the arc of a circle subtended by one second is less than the 200,000th part of the radius, so that on a circle of 6 feet in diameter, it would occupy no greater linear extent than 1-5,700th part of an inch; a quantity requiring a powerful microscope to be discerned at all." Now, the ancients had neither telescopes nor microscopes, and when we consider "those inaccuracies which may arise from the unequal contraction and expansion of the metallic masses by a change of temperature, and their unavoidable flexure or bending by their own weight," we perceive that their observations must often have been grossly erroneous. Zadkiel also, in his new edition of Lilly's Horary Astrology (page 33) says— "Dr. Goad assures us that the astronomers could not, in the days of Charles II. calculate an opposition of the planets Jupiter and Saturn nearer than a week. How, then, can it be expected that the judgments of astrologers should have always been correct, when the VERY DATA on which they depended were often erroneous?" But have the principles been always the same upon which nativities have been calculated? Zadkiel, in his introduction to the Grammar (p. xvi), says, "All the host of English astrologers, such as Lilly, Colley, Sibly, Gadbury, White, &c. were immersed in error when they treated on NATIVITIES; they embraced the follies of the Arabian astrologers, &c." . But are they now agreed upon the subject? No: At page 74 of the Grammar, I find the following observations: "Mr. Wilson, in his Dictionary of Astrology (page 306), says, that the part of fortune 'is really nothing but a phantom, hatched in the figurative brain of Ptolemy, which has no influence whatever :' I certainly must demur to this dictum, as I have found by experience, &c." And at p. 79 of the Horoscope, the editor, in opposition to many authorities, says "We have no opinion of the power of the houses, or other essential dignities of the planets, in nativities." Raphael also does not hold the doctrine of Zodiacal Directions in very high estimation, and observes, that he only gives rules for their calculation, lest his work should appear incomplete without them; he coincides with a high authority, in opinion that those which are commonly denominated secondary directions should be considered as the primary ones; and I believe that the Zodiacal directions are entirely discarded by the Arabians. These remarks, together with other differences of sentiment, noticed in my former letters, are more than sufficient to prove that the professors of this art have never conducted their calculations upon uniform principles; and the ancients, being destitute of good instruments for observation, and having no correct lunar tables, so essential to an astrologer, were incapable of transmitting to us any certain conclusions, which should furnish a basis for the calculation of nativities. It was my intention, Mr. Editor, with this letter to close my remarks upon astrology, but finding that you cannot afford me sufficient space for this, on account of your report of parliamentary intelligence, I postpone till next week, the consideration of the remainder of the subject, with the promised facts, together with some remarks on the committal of an astrologer, mentioned in a London paper, as a rogue and a vagabond. I am, Sir, &c. T. H. MOODY. A SIR, REASON is that great and glorious faculty, which God has imparted to man, as a responsible being, to enable him to distinguish truth from error, that he may pursue the one, and avoid the other. Before the Fall, its exercise was perfect; but since that awful catastrophe, the clouds which have gathered over the human mind, forbid us to trust implicitly to its guidance. Infallibility is for ever departed from the human species, so that it is truly said “Humanum est errare." It is only in Gov's LIGHT that we can now see light; (Ps. xxxvi. 9.) and consequently it is written "Through thy precepts, I get understanding, therefore, I hate every false way." (Ps. cxix. 104.) It is further declared that "He that trusteth in his own heart is a FOOL." (Prov. xxviii. 26.) "Declare ye sages, if ye find WILKIE. |