_To the Editor of_ THE LANCET.
SIR,—I trust that with your well-known love
of fair play you will kindly permit me to make a few
remarks on this subject and to ask Dr Mercier a few
questions of public interest.
With all respect for the learned doctor, and with
due acknowledgment of his candid admission that
astrology was believed in and seriously studied
‘by the rarest intellects of their time, some of
them, like Roger Bacon and Albertus Magnus, the
rarest intellects of all time,’ I wish to ask: Does
Dr Mercier think that such rarest intellects were
incapable of distinguishing truth from error, and
could have accepted the superstitions associated in
their day with astrology? Surely not. They accepted
_astrologia sana_ as Bacon (Lord Verulam)
accepted it, as a part of physics and discarded
superstition. One might as reasonably proclaim
medicine nowadays to be ‘tomfoolery,’ on the ground
of the superstitions connected with it formerly, as
Dr Mercier condemns astrology and pronounces it as
‘dead’—officially. Dr Mercier’s only argument against
astrology on scientific grounds is the worn-out and
utterly unfounded assertion that it was overthrown by
Copernicus!
* * * * *
Dr Mercier ridicules the belief of that eminent man
Guy de Chauliac that the outbreak of the ‘Black Death’
in the middle of the fourteenth century was due to
the great conjunction of Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars in
_Aquarius_ on March 24th, 1345. Neptune was also
in the same sign at that time—a planet unknown then.
Such a doryphory of great planets in _Aquarius_,
a sign which is found to relate to epidemic diseases,
certainly foreshadowed the outbreak of a pandemic;
and if Dr Mercier will compare the periods of great
conjunctions in Aquarius he will find that great
epidemics always coincided therewith. If Dr Mercier
had directed attention to the immense difference made
by the discovery of Uranus and Neptune, he would have
recognised that many mistakes of ancient and mediæval
astrologers were due to their being unaware of the
existence and relative positions of these distant
planets.
I hope Dr Mercier will forgive me for directing
attention to the above points. I am sure that he
meant to be as fair as possible in his delineation of
mediæval astrology; in fact, he proved this intention
by the last paragraph but one of his second lecture. I
should be happy to meet Dr Mercier in friendly debate
on this important subject before any learned society
or private assembly.
I am, Sir, yours faithfully,
ALFRED J. PEARCE.
_Dec. 3rd, 1913._
⁂ Mr Pearce makes an appeal for publication which we
have not been able to resist, but the view that the operations
of nature are mysterious until they are understood cannot be
advanced as a complete defence of mysticism.—ED. L.
_To the Editor of_ THE LANCET.
SIR,—Like yourself, I am unable to withstand
the appeal that Mr Pearce makes to me. He asks me
whether I think that Roger Bacon and Albertus Magnus
were incapable of distinguishing truth from error. I
hasten to assure him that in my opinion these eminent
men were as incapable of making a mistake as I am
myself. The experience of mankind throughout the ages
shows that clever men never make mistakes. No clever
general has ever been defeated in battle; no clever
judge was ever upset on appeal; no clever counsel
ever lost a cause; no clever theologian ever held an
erroneous opinion, or at any rate an opinion that was
held to be erroneous by other clever theologians; no
clever doctor ever made a wrong diagnosis; no clever
schoolboy ever needs to have his exercises corrected;
in fact ability and infallibility mean the same thing.
Mr Pearce is certainly right in pouring contempt upon
my argument that Copernicus overthrew astrology; at
least, he would have been right if I had made the
statement, or if I had called it an argument.
I should be most happy to accept Mr Pearce’s challenge
to debate this important subject before a learned
society were it not that I am at present immersed in
a much more important investigation, which absorbs my
whole time and attention. That Saturn, Jupiter, and
Mars, in conjunction in Aquarius, must have produced
the Black Death in the following year is patent to
everyone and needs no demonstration, but it required
the insight of genius to discover that the burning of
York Minster was due to the superabundance of snails
in a certain back garden early in the same year. It is
the peculiar merit of the adept, be he an astrologer
or merely an haruspex, to recognise the significance
of such coincidences. It seems to have escaped
altogether the observation of the vulgar that this
year of grace 1913 has been characterised no less
by the superabundance of snails in back gardens
than by the number of conflagrations initiated by
suffragettes. The causal nexus needs no proof; but
if it did, proof would be found in the fact that
in Ireland, from which snails were banished by the
beneficent action of St Patrick, and where there are
no back gardens, the backs of the houses being in
front, there has been no suffragette incendiarism. I
will not pursue the subject further in this place, but
if Mr Pearce wants any further information he will
find it in my forthcoming book, ‘De Conflagrationibus
et de Multitudinibus Helicidarum in Hortulis Posticis.’
I am, Sir, yours faithfully,
CHAS. MERCIER.
_Dec. 13th, 1913._