The vanity of judiciary astrology. Or Divination by the stars. Lately written in Latine, by that great schollar and mathematician the illustrious Petrus Gassendus; mathematical professor to the king of France. Translated into English by a person of quality

CHAP. IX.

Their Chimeras of the 12. Signes in the Zodiack, and their Virtues, derided.

THese things I thought good to rehearse, be∣cause they are the General Fundaments, and as it were First Principles, upon which all A∣strologers Praedictions depend. Nor need I mispend much time in Refuting them; since to have heard the bare relation of them, is sufficient for every rational and sober person to detect; not only how Uncertain, but also how Vain and Ridiculous they are. For who doth not, after all this Canting, plainly perceive, that all those Fundamentals are meer Fictions, invented either at plea∣sure and by chance, or upon very little and most vain occasions? Certainly, this one consideration seems suffi∣cient to argue, that if we lived among our Antaeci, or Antipodes, this whole device or Machination would be turned topsy turvy: for then the quite contrary to their Theory in all points, would come to be ascerted, or the whole Art abandoned. And if we place our selves at the Equator, or in the middle of the Torrid Zone; then either both wayes, or neither, or mixtly all their sup∣positions

must be accepted: and if so, what can be more confused? If we seat our selves under the Poles; pray, what an Astrology shall we have, where no part is Orient, no part Occident; where the State of the Fixt Stars, and of the Zodiack is alwayes the same; where Saturn shall Rise or Set but once in 30 Years, and all the other Planets in like manner, according to their several courses and motions? And if we stand in those Regions, which are in respect of us toward the Equator, and Antaeci or toward the Poles how shall this whole Astrology consist, which on one part will be so changed by degrees, as at length to become quite contrary to what it is now; or on another part, will by little and little so Vanish, as at length to become none at all? Is it not hence of in∣evitable necessity that every particular Climate and po∣sition of the Sphear ought to have a particular Astrolo∣gy; that there can be no General one; and that though we should allow the Chaldeans, or Egyptians to have had Astrological Principles of some certainty, yet those cannot be of use in other Countryes? How could the Babylonians, over whose heads the Sky alwaies conser∣veth its cleareness and serenity; how could the Egypti∣ans, who are scarce ever acquainted with Clouds and Rain; how could These (I say) make Observations fitt to yeeld Rules for the prediction of those Rains, and all that turbulency and inconstancy of weather, to which our Cloudy Countries are commonly subject?

But the truth is, They did not make any such Obser∣vations at all; since it is manifest, that not the hun∣dredth part of those things we have touched upon, are to be observed in Nature. For though we do generally suppose such things as the Four Elements, here below;

yet who was ever so Strong-sighted as looking up to Heaven, to discern a twelfth part thereof to be Fiery, with two others Circumstant about it, the one Watery, the other Earthy? or hath that Man any brains, think you, who can beleeve any such thing observable? Who will be perswaded that Aries is Fiery, when the great∣est Rains commonly are under that Signe: and that Cancer is Watery, under which are the greatest heats? And since it is a meer imagination of men, that there are some Signes Human, and others Bestial; how come we to discern which of them are of a milder, and which of a Salvage nature? Likewise, because some persons of wild fansies have imagined some Signes to be Barren, as Virgo; others fruitfull, as Pisces: do we therefore know what those contribute toward sterility, what these to fertility of issue? Nor can they excuse themselves by saying that those Figures were not invented but upon frequent Observations of their Effects, as I shall hereafter more expresly declare. In the mean time, I demand of them, why Aries should be a Diurnal Signe, and Taurus a Nocturnal? Is it because Taurus is observed either more frequently, or more continuedly to remain under the Earth, than Aries? Or why should the one be Masculine, the other Feminine? If so be it were requisite to joyn a Feminine Signe to each Masculine, then certainly Aries ought to have had a Yew to ac∣company him, and Taurus a Cow to attend him; but not a Bull placed next to a Ram. Methinks, it is some∣what absurd to imagine the Ram to be more Masculine than the Bull, which doubtless is the hotter and stronger beast of the two.

What shall we say of the placing the Planets in the

Signes, as in their proper mansion Houses? Do not the Planets run through all the Signes indifferently, and make their stations and Apogea's in all parts of the Zo∣diack? Do not the Sun and Moon deserve as much honour in the Ethereal Republick, as the rest of the Pla∣nets? If so, why have they but one single Palace apeece assigned to them, when each of the others hath two? But the reason (forsooth) is, that otherwise the number of seven could not have been accommodated to the number of twelve, well, let that be granted; yet there is some indecorum in the assignement. For if the Sun, in respect of its vehement heat, was consigned to dwell in Leo; why was not Mars, to whom they allow so great a share of heat, placed next? Why was not the Moon the Queen of moisture consigned to remain in Aquarius, since He is chiefly opposed to Leo, and it is reasonable to conceive, that the Moon was created in opposition to the Sun? And it is the Astrologers conceipt, that the Pla∣nets hold and delight in their Houses, by no other title but that of their being at first Created in them. And here I cannot but observe, how skilfull an Astronomer Firmicus hath shewn himself, when in the Theme of the World, according to those Divine Men, he both placed the Sun in the 15^th degree of Leo; and set Venus in the 15^th degree of Libra, as if it were possible for Her ever to be, by the space of two whole Signes, absent from the Sun.

As for their Exaltations; it is very strange with what ardency our Astrologers have embraced what they had heard of the highest Absides of the Planets; and yet now, those Absides being changed, they nevertheless still retain the same Exaltations. Why do they not at

least appoint them to receive their Exaltations in their own Houses? Can they any where else provide them of a more illustrious and sublime throne? If Mars must have his Exaltation in the House of Saturn, why should not Saturn have his in the House of Mars, rather then in that of Venus? What hath a Malefical Planet to do in the House of a Benefical? The same may be said of their Triplicity; for what community can Venus have with Capricorn, an Earthly dull Signe, and in which Saturn hath his House, and Mars his Exaltation? A∣gain, what relation hath Mars with Pisces; a Watery Signe, and in which Jupiter hath his House, and Venus her Exaltation? What shall I say of their Decades of degrees? If all Aries be the House of Mars, is it not injustice to detract from him two third parts of it, by di∣viding the same into Tens? And is it not injustice to banish Mercury quite from his House, while one third part of it is usurped by Jupiter, another by Mars, and the last by the Sun? What shall I say of their Fines or Bounds, which after the same manner leave the least part of the Houses to be possessed by the right owners of them; when the Builders of them fall together by the ears here below about them, as about some weighty and difficult matter in dispute? What of their Mono∣maeria, which some Astrologers cannot hold without laughing at themselves for it? Is any thing more ridi∣culous, than to appoint particular Signes to be Presidents over particular Provinces, and Cities? Indeed if the Heavens stood still, there might be some slender pretence for the subjection of Countries to such Signes, as were directly over them; but since the Sphears are continu∣ally moving, with what reason can that be imagined?

Especially since in the allotment the Dominions are not chosen according to parallels, so that the places to be governed might be lookt upon with an equal aspect; but as it were by leaping from distant Parallels, and wholly confusedly toward the South and North; neer remote, coherent, interrupted, and however it chances without order. I confess, I cannot but smile to think, how when they have assigned a whole Kingdome or Country to the soveraignty of some one Signe, they yet referr par∣ticular Cities therein, to the presidency of other Signes, and such as are remote from the Signe, first made Lord Paramont thereof. Nor can I suppress the Rising of my spleen, when I consider the dominion of the Signes over the several parts of Mans body. For why should Aries be Governour of the Head, rather then Gemini, or Cancer, that are the highest Signes of all? Why should Pisces rule the feet of others, when they have no feet themselves? Why should Pisces that are next to Aries, be appointed to preside over a part so remote from the Head? Again nothing can be more wild and absurd, than to constitute the Signes Lords of several Years; as if they Ruled successively, and the Govern∣ment of one Signe being expired with the Year, the Scepter were to be surrendred to the next successor, at a sett time, and then each Governor remain idle for the space of eleven Years together.

To conclude; what shall we think of that poor re∣fuge of our Astrologers, when having observed, that the Asterisms have removed themselves from their ancient places, they transferr the virtues formerly attributed to the same, to the 12. parts of the first moveable Heavens? were not those virtues assigned at first formally, and ac∣cording

to the conceived nature of each particular Aste∣risme? Had the Heaven been 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Star-less; do you conceive that the Ancients would nevertheless have so named the twelve parts of the Zodiack, as they did in respect of the Asterismes; and have endowed them with the same virtues? Nor can you say, that their vir∣tues were then observed, when the Asterismes were each one in its proper twelfth part of the Zodiack; and that those virtues were attributed to the Asterismes, which of right belonged to the twelve parts of the Zodiack. For, since the Asterismes were in the twelve parts that beare their names only two thousand Years ago; before that time, the Asterisme of Aries was in the place of Pisces, Leo in the place of Cancer, and so of the rest and then no such thing could be Observed in the (sup∣posed) moist parts of the Zodiack, that would be a∣greeable to Fiery Asterismes, by which they were possessed, and from which the twelve parts, that were afterward possessed by them, were accounted and na∣med Fiery. And thus much in just derision of Astrolo∣gers conceipts of the 12. Signes.