HPB-SB-10-85

T i

vol. 10, p. 85

H. P. Blavatsky Scrapbooks

from Adyar archives of the International Theosophical Society

vol. 10

Legend

SBT, DT

• HPB note
• HPB highlighted
• HPB underlined
• HPB crossed out
• <Editors note>
• <Archivist note>
• Lost or unclear
• Restored

<<   ☰   >>

eng • рус

Astrology - Information Wanted

Sir,—It is one of the most interesting doctrines of astrology that the feelings of love and sympathy between two individuals are found to accord with the relationship which the sun and moon in one horoscope has to the sun and moon in the other. Certain aspects or positions in the heavens existing between planets at the birth of an individual are supposed to be friendly, and others are supposed to be evil. Thus two planets in opposite quarters of the heavens, or at 90 degs. apart, are supposed to be in evil aspect to one another, whilst those that are separated by 60 degs. or 120 degs. are supposed to aspect each other beneficially. These theories, no doubt, at first glance seem absurd nonsense, but those who pursue the subject, and compare the theories with facts, are apt to find startling confirmation of them. In many instances where love or close friendship is found to exist between individuals, it is found that a comparison of the respective places of the sun and moon at birth shows that the luminaries in the two nativities occupy the same place, or are in the particular relationship (60 degs. or 120 degs. apart) which the astrologers call “friendly.” This I have proved to be the ease in several instances. I also find that the case of Lord Byron and his wife abundantly proves the truth of the doctrine about uncongenial partners.

Since, however, a few isolated confirmations of a theory are not sufficient to build up any scientific opinion upon, I am desirous of obtaining as many dates and places of birth as possible of married couples and of close friends, in order to see whether the doctrines apply equally well to everyday life. What are particularly desired arc undoubted examples of perfectly happy married lives, or unquestionably unhappy ones.

I require no names, nor is the hour of birth of serious moment, though in each case it would be better to have it than not. It is so very easy for outsiders to imagine that couples are really suited to one another without such being actually the inner experience of the persons most concerned, that there may be some difficulty in finding good test cases. The ease of the late Mr. John Stuart Mill and his wife was unquestionably an example of a happy union, as that of Charles Dickens was the reverse; but I am not in possession of the necessary dates to apply the test in these instances.

If, therefore, any of your readers will favour me with striking examples either way, without communicating to me any further particulars than those I have asked for, it will be at least a strong presumption in favour of the doctrines of the astrologers, in case the positions of the planets do indicate which are the happily mated ones and which are the reverse. The result I shall be happy to communicate to your paper, if agreeable.

F. A. B.

24, St. Ann’s-square, Manchester.

Have Oysters Eyes?

Sir,—The words of Mr. Farquhar in his erudite and instructive paper, naturally produce echoes of admiration in the minds of those who accord with his theosophical instructions. The part of the lecture which is most interesting to me is that on the eyes of the bivalve mollusca. I confess that until I read his statement that “the bivalve mollusca have no eyesight, because none is required in their condition,” I was amongst those teachers who ventured to inform students that bivalve mollusca have eyes; in fact that one of them (Spondylus gæderopus) had perhaps sixty on the convex side, and ninety on the plane side of the mantle. The Pinna has, at least in the specimens I have seen, about forty eyes, or what Professor Owen (Anatomy of Invertebrate Animals, page 512) calls “eyes.’’ The Anomia has about forty pallial eyes, hidden amongst the marginal tentacles, and the oyster a greater number still. In Pecten and in Spondylus, the retinal expansion of the circumpallial nerve encloses a vitreous body composed of nucleated cells, in front of which is a flattened crystalline lens; the pigmental coat consists at the back part of staff-shaped corpuscles, and in front terminates by a circular pupil. In most other bivalves the simple elements for exciting touch to a sense of sight—viz., a nerve-mass and pigment-mass— are alone found without any dioptric adjuncts for the recognition of an image. The late Sir Anthony Carlisle (Hunterian Oration, 1826) first showed that oysters were sensible of light, having observed that they closed their valves when the shadow of an approaching boat was thrown forward, so as to cover them before any undulation of the water could have reached them.

A careful consideration of some of these facts may lead us to infer that the organ of sight not only exists, but is well developed in most bivalve mollusca.

The vicinity of Drury Lane Theatre shows me a house of refreshment termed the “Whistling Oyster;” but an oyster destitute of eyesight must be a being fated to sorrow; and indeed a monstrum horrendum, informe, ingens, cui lumen ademptum.

C. Carter Blake.

Astrological Evidences

Sir,—Zadkiel, in his Almanac for 1879, under October, has the following:—“A fortunate direction (midheaven to the sextile of the sun in the zodiac) in the royal horoscope tells of gain and victory for Old England; still the stationary position of Mars, So near the ascendant, will bring some trouble—the wise will understand.” The capture of Cabul is the “victory;” as to the “gain,” humph! and let us hope that the prediction of further “trouble” will be satisfied by that which has become politically inevitable, and will not affect Her Majesty personally. Good and evil in the horoscope of sovereigns may denote events of either political or personal concern.

C. C. M.

An Error Somewhere

Sir,—Will you kindly allow me to correct an error in your leading article of last week, which is likely to convey a false impression to the minds of your readers? To the best of my recollection I did not “refuse” you a copy of the “General Purposes Committee’s Report.” I could hardly have done so, for the report was then in the printer’s hands, and therefore beyond my power to give or withhold.

What I did decline to give you was a copy of the answers sent to the memorialists, because, these being addressed to private persons, they could not be made public until they had been sent to the individuals for whom they were intended. I was in this acting under instructions.—Yours faithfully,

C. A. Burke, Sec. B.N.A.S.

38, Great Bussell-street, Bloomsbury, W.C., Oct. 20th, 1870.

[There is some mistake here. It was only in my mind to ask for the report of the General Purposes Committee, and I did not want the letters to the memorialists, which were certain to reach me in due course.— W. H. Harrison.]

On the Weighing of Mediums

Sir,—I have read with much interest your description of the seance testing the self-registering machine presented by Mr. Blackburn, and offer some remarks thereon in the light of some previous theorising in your pages. I wish in these remarks to be considered simply as a seeker after truth, and not as writing in any dogmatic spirit.

I have never personally witnessed a materialisation; but the “Sceptic” who wrote in your pages as “W. H. C.” is well-known to me, and about a fortnight previously I had an almost identical description of what took place at another of these meetings from another gentleman who described what he also had witnessed. Hence, combined with the engravings and letterpress relation in The Spiritualist, I feel satisfied that I am dealing, to a certain extent, with facts. About the alleged reduction of the weight of the medium, I do not see that this <... continues on page 10-86 >

Editor's notes

Sources

• 

  London Spiritualist, No. 374, October 24, 1879, p. 201