Astrologers' evaluation of Uranus and the asteroids in 1834

1
In the short-lived 19-issue weekly publication 'The Horoscope' (1834), edited by the first Zadkiel, Commander Richard Morrison, the year after he had the first edition of his 'A Grammar of Astrology' published (1833), and the year before his first edition of his oft-derided abridgement of Lilly's 'Christian Astrology' went to print (1835), is to be found a most interesting discussion of the theoretical influence of Uranus, or rather Herschel, to use the parlance of the day, as well as the first four asteroids to have been discovered.

Since this material is all out of copyright by a margin of at least 89 years under US law, I see no reason not to directly cite the conversants in their own words. Please note that 'asteriods' is Morrison's consistent spelling of 'asteroids' so I have used it to represent him faithfully:

P. 39: Objections to astrology, with answers thereto:
2. If the Herschel planet have so much influence while it is at such an immense distance, why is not some - why is not much attention paid to the adjacent asteriods, Ceres, Pallas, Juno, and vesta?

Answer. - The asteriods are very small (the smallest is only 80 miles in diameter, and the largest only 1425 miles), whereas Herschel's diameter is 35,000 miles. Yet, this alone would be no sufficient reason why they should have no influence; and we are of opinion that they may have some, but very trifling, power. We have seen one nativity wherein Juno was rising, but there did not seem to be any very remarkable effect; though, as the boy lost his father, when young, we should not think Juno fortunate. There can be no doubt that the wise Creator placed them in the heavens for some good end; though, from their great distance from the Earth, compared with their size, we do not think that they were intended to have any great effect upon us. The distance of Juno from the Earth is 157 millions of miles, which is far beyond the relative distance of Herschel, as regards their mutual size. Herschel's diameter is 35,000 miles, his distance from the Earth, 1705 millions of miles, but Juno's diameter is only 1425 miles, therefore, to be at a proportionate distance from the Earth, it should be only 69 millions of miles away; whereas, it is 157 millions of miles distant, or 88 millions of miles beyond its due distance. If the asteriods be observed when all four are in conjunction, probably some influence may then be detected.
P. 61: Correspondence.
To THE EDITOR.

SIR, - I have been gratified by the early notice which you have taken of the difficulties which, as I stated to you, I have met with in my astrological investigations. Some of your observations on the subject have given me much satisfaction; but, you will permit me to remark, in perfect good feeling, that other explanations have not afforded me full conviction. The subject is really interesting, and I trust to your liberality for further assistance, or a frank avowal that, in the present state of the science, our knowledge will not enable us to surmount particular obstacles. I am persuaded that you will not care for the puny sneers of those who will "be forgotten as fools, or remembered as worse". Every science has, and probably ever will have, its obscurities and desiderata; and, by freely pointing them out to the student, we stimulate genius in the career of discovery.

The influence on the Earth of a heavenly body, is, in its physical action, in the direct proportion of the mass and the inverse square of the distance; and, reasoning by analogy, the same law may be assumed as the standard in estimating what may be denominated the astrological power.*

In reference, then, to Herschel and the Asteroids, taking Vesta as an example of the latter, we find, by an easy calculation, that, in round numbers, the proportion is, by the above rule, nearly as 6 to 1; and as the astrologers of the present day assign so much influence to Herschel, I see no reason that they should entirely reject four planets, each of which appears to have about one-sixth of his power in respect to the Earth. ^

The study of these planets may, at some future time, introduce more precision and certainty into astral judgments. It is to be hoped, therefore, that their nature will be soon investigated.

Another difficulty, under which I have laboured, I shall put, as before, in the form of a question; - Why has not Herschel a house assigned to him in the Zodiac?

Kepler, to whose fertile intellect Astronomy is so much indebted, made many of his discoveries by following up a pre-conceived notion of harmony; and an intelligent friend of mine, who is imbued with the same spirit, insists that as there are twelve signs, so we might expect twelve planets. Singularly enough, in favour of his hypothesis, we have, including the newly discovered planets, already eleven. As far, therefore, as this reasoning extends, we may presume that another heavenly body, belonging to our system, is yet to be found; in which case, in harmony with the principles of equitable adjustment, each planet might have its own house, instead of the present seemingly confused arrangement, according to which two signs are, without any obvious pretext, given to single planets. #

By calling the attention of your readers to subjects of research, you may render your interesting periodical subservient to discoveries which, while they extend the limits of human knowledge, may irradiate and more firmly establish your favourite science. I am, sir, your constant reader,

A STUDENT.
Footnotes by Morrison in response to the letter by A STUDENT:
*: We do not agree with this doctrine, for Mars is smaller than the Earth, and we KNOW, by repeated experience, that his power is equal to that of Saturn, which is a thousand times larger than the Earth; the difference of their distance will not account for this.

^: We wish our correspondent would favour us with this calculation, and a farther explanation on this head.

#: In a future number we will defend this 'seemingly confused arrangement'.
My own notes: 'Plus ?a change, plus c'est la meme chose...' as they say.

But seriously, I found the letter by 'A STUDENT' to be most interesting, underlining the fact that even as early as the 1830s a scientific understanding of astrology in accordance with the laws of physics was widely sought. I've come across debates of precisely this kind of nature within the past few years on an astrological discussion forum I used to manage. A STUDENT appears to me to have been extremely prophetic of some of the theoretical concerns of 20th and 21st century astrologers, including the problem of planetary domicile since the discovery of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, of which only Uranus had been discovered at the time of his letter, but his prediction of a further planetary discovery was timely in view of the fact that only 12 years later Neptune would be found.

And Morrison for his part expresses openness to the possibility that the asteroids (or asteriods as he insists on calling them) have some astrological influence, although he will not be drawn by A STUDENT into conceding any ground to the fanciful idea that the traditional system of dual planetary domicile should be disrupted!

Of course, nowhere in any of this discussion is to be found the slightest reference to mythology as a basis for reading the influence of the newly discovered 'planets'. Study, study, study, all the way....

Equally significant to me on reading these extracts is that they clearly show that in 1834 the assignation to Herschel (Uranus) of its domicile in Aquarius, which had been put forward firmly by Varley in 1828 and implicitly by Smith (Raphael I) in 1825 (as far as I can recall from reading the earlier extensive strand at Skyscript about the rulerships of the outer planets, as researched by Kim, Deb and others), had not been accepted as common currency by astrologers, neither Morrison nor one of his most eager correspondents being of the opinion that Herschel had been assigned a house at all then even though the student in question felt that perhaps it should be assigned one!

So some time between 1834 and 1852, in which in Simmonite's second edition of his 'The Prognostic Astronomer or Horary Astrology', first published in 1851, Uranus was unambivalently assigned its domicile in Aquarius as a given, there must have been a sea-change of astrological opinion. Either that, or Simmonite himself went against the grain, disregarding Zadkiel's opinion, and following the earlier examples set by Smith and Varley. Some time I'll have to dig out my first edition of Simmonite's 'The Celestial Philosopher' which was a few years earlier than his 'The Prognostic Astronomer' I believe, from the late 1840s, and see if his opinion about Uranus being domiciled in Aquarius had already been set by then. If so, it still will leave some 13 years of uncertainty during which there were few if any astrological publications apart from almanacs and Ebn Shemaya (ie David Parkes)'s 'The Star' from 1839, which accords Saturn its domicile in both Capricorn and Aquarius as by the tradition, but adds as a footnote (p. 179 of the original edition; I don't have the Ascella edition but if it was a facsimile this should be likewise):
'Herschell has the same fortitudes and debilities as Saturn'
which is neither the conventional opinion nor the modern one, but ultimately Parkes is still on the traditional side of the fence in granting Saturn dual rulership over Capricorn and Aquarius!

I'd love to know others' responses to these extracts anyhow.

Philip

2
'Herschell has the same fortitudes and debilities as Saturn'
See:

http://www.convivioastrologico.it/colla ... _urano.htm
Saturn and Uranus are two archetypes of our psyche that work like one complementary brace ... These two archetypes must work in perfect harmony and succession: persistence (Saturn) and change (Uranus).
Heinrich Daath, Vivian Robson, Georges Muchery and Sepharial (among others at the time) believed that Uranus is cold and dry (like Saturn) while Neptune is warm and wet (like Jupiter).

Uranus is further from the warmth of the Sun and the moisture of the Earth than Saturn; one might argue that it indeed ought to be cold and dry, more dry than cold by virtue of its greater distance from the Earth than the Sun (in the Ptolemaic system). Does it rest within the sphere of the fixed stars? Is it fixed? Or does it wander? Does it wander within the sphere of Saturn?

Neptune is further from the warmth of the Sun and the moisture of the Earth than Uranus; how could it be anything other than cold and dry? The playwright Clifford Bax, who knew Vivian Robson, introduced Gustav Holst to astrology, a hobby that was to inspire the Planets suite. Holst read horoscopes until his death, and called his interest in astrology his "pet vice." He interpreted and scored Neptune as cold and emotionless; cold and dry. How could Neptune be warm and moist?

Jupiter and Neptune both have internal heat sources; they both release more heat than they receive; and each exhibit a gigantic storm system (the Great Red Spot and Great Dark Spot, respectively) at the same southern latitude and of comparable size relative to the planet's dimensions. The embryos of Uranus and Neptune may have originated from anywhere within the Jupiter-Saturn region; perhaps the embryo of Uranus drew its nourishment from Saturn, whereas the embryo of Neptune drew its nourishment from Jupiter. This is, of course, purely conjectural.

How could Uranus be hot? It is nearer to Saturn than to the Sun. Neptune could be cold, but it could also be warm by virtue of its distinctive properties as a planet and its probable origin between Jupiter and Saturn.

Uranus is described by Raphael as cold, dry and magnetic in nature; Neptune is described by Raphael as warm, moist and hypnotic in nature. Perhaps magnetic (rather than energy-increasing) and hypnotic (rather than connection-creating) are better terms to use in characterizing these planets.

3
Very interesting, Philip, thanks for posting.

It's fairly evident that Morrison had no clue about the subject. Comparing distances and diameters to the level of astrological effect is misguided. If there is a physical force involved in astrology, our best guess of the strength of this effect at the moment is related to how gravity behaves as a function mass and distance. This was well-known in the 19th century, and it is what Student was writing about.

Simple calculation of the inverse square law shows the following maximum forces between Earth and other solar system bodies (log scale):

1 Sun 5.5
2 Moon 3.3

3 Jupiter 1.3
4 Venus 1.0
5 Saturn 0.1
6 Mars -0.4
7 Mercury -0.8
8 Uranus -1.4
9 Neptune -1.7

10 Ceres -4.3
11 Vesta -5.0
12 Pallas -5.1
13 Pluto -5.8
14 Juno -5.9
15 Eris -6.2
16 Hebe -6.2
17 Iris -6.2

To put things in perspective, the gravitational force due to the Sun is over 100 times that of the Moon. This is (partly) why the Earth is circling the Sun and not the Moon (note: tidal forces on the other hand are due to the differential gravitational field on the surface of Earth, and here the Moon plays a primary role). In turn, the Moon's gravitational force is 100 times stronger at Earth than that of Jupiter.

Apart from the overwhelming strengths of the luminaries, there is a very clear drop in intensity beyond Neptune: this body exerts about 400 times the gravitational force we "feel" from Ceres! Notice also how Pluto and Eris (the two other dwarf planets) are buried in the list of other asteroids.

I'm not quite sure what Student is talking about when he mentions that the influence of Vesta is only one sixth of Uranus: the difference is over one thousand times. So he appears to have made a mistake in calculation but at least is on a better track than Morrison. The latter cannot even follow Student's reasoning about gravitational forces by making an uninformed footnote about Mars and Saturn. As we can see from the above, the inverse square law puts them roughly in the same ballpark.

Even if gravity is involved in astrology, it obviously cannot be the whole story. The table however is a good illustration of how a physical principle can be more or less in line with astrological experience. I am also convinced that Pluto will gradually disappear from the astrological arsenal as a major force just like the asteroids are no longer reckoned on par with the other planets. I believe that we tend to ignore some very important fundamentals while at the same time relish all sorts of minor indicators. Ah, the trickeries of Mercurius and the frivolities of Herschel! :)
Peter

4
By the way, in Culver & Ianna's book, The Gemini Syndrome: A Scientific Evaluation of Astrology (also published as Astrology: True or False?), there is a table of gravitational forces (p.105), which is being cited by pseudo-skeptics all the time as the final blow to astrology. This table lists the forces acting on a child at birth from the Sun, Moon, the astronomical planets and their larger moons, as well as the mother, the doctor and the hospital building. The 'case' is being made for the latter three factors overpowering the planets.

This argument is partially dealt with at http://www.bobmarksastrologer.com/skeptics.htm . What Bob is saying is that skeptics shouldn't dismiss astrology just because we cannot think of a good causal (or physical) mechanism.

But there is more to this than that. To assert that the mother, doctor or hospital building has more gravitational influence on the child being born than the planets do is really silly. A beginner student of astrology will already know that he is dealing with cycles: the planets constantly move, and they have regular (repeating) patterns of movement. An elementary-level study of physics will reveal that cyclical phenomena will exhibit resonance under certain conditions. The collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge due to mechanical resonance induced by wind in 1940 is an excellent demonstration of this effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Taco ... uction.ogg . If a physical force is involved in astrology (which is assumed when one is looking at gravity), it is evident that one needs to reckon with resonance. That the mother, doctor or hospital building cannot induce resonance is also obvious. So what were the authors thinking? Were they and the pseudo-skeptics regurgitating this so blatantly fallacious argument thinking at all?

This same error is tripled by also including a table of tidal forces (p.108) and electromagnetic energies (p.110). In all cases, moving celestial bodies are compared to stationary objects and people on Earth. The authors are two astronomy professors in the US, demonstrating more than a cursory knowledge of astrology but apparently failing to properly construct a convincing physics argument.
Peter