The Reversible World: Symbolic Inversion in Art and Society ed. by Barbara A. Babcock (review)

Books 163 Astrology Disproved. Lawrence E. Jerome. Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1977.254 pp. $14.95. Reviewed by Michael Zeilik, 11* I felt very uneasy abut this book when I read its title. How would Jerome disprove astrology? Many people I know-astrologers included-take astrology on faith, like a religion. Since faith is ultimately irrational, it cannot, in my opinion, be proven or disproven by rational argument. Jerome states otherwise: 'the basic premise of this book is that astrology canbe disproved, that it is possible to clear up the confusion and deception that has long shrouded the ancient "art" in mystery.' How does Jerome go about his disproof? He first looks back into astrology's historical roots and connects them with early peoples' magical view of the world. He contends that astrology has never shaken its magical aspects, such as the often-used 'principal of correspondences'. He then traces astrology's development in Babylonia, Egypt, Rome and Greece, its survival after being attacked by followers of Christianity and its revival in the Renaissance. Next Jerome gets to the core of the matter by looking in detail at horoscopes and astrological claims. He shows how the casting and interpretation of a horoscope (a seemingly scientific matter) rests essentially on magic. From this basis he attacks the traditional apologies for astrology and then takes aim at a recent apology based on biological clocks and on the vaguely known terrestrial effects caused by celestial bodies (loosely called astrobiology). He points out, correctly, the faults of statistical studies that have been alleged to find astrological claims valid. Finally, he launches into what he seems to consider the worst aspect of astrology: astrologers' deceit in claiming to be able to guide people's lives, a claim admitted by those who may also say they 'don't really believe' that astrology is a science. (That is what I have been told by a few astrologers and a few believers.) That is a very brief outline of Jerome's critique. How convincing is it?-for me, not very. As a sceptic of astrology, I nodded in agreement with many ofJerome's points, but they had a familiar ring to them. In my opinion, he provides no new refutations of astrology, and I am not certain what audience Jerome had in mind for his book-not me or the 192 scientists in the U.S.A. who signed the Bok-Kurtz-Jerome Statement of Objections to Astrology in 1975.(I refused to sign this statement when invited to do so, for I believed then-and still do-that it would not convince anyone to give up their faith in astrology.) Nor does it appear to me that Jerome's book will sway 'those individuals who continue to have faith in astrology ... in spite of the fact there is no verified scientific basis for their beliefs....' Finally, I feel compelled to comment upon the underlying tone I found in the text. I sensed Jerome's attitude sometimes to be impatient, flippant, condescending and arrogant. In a few instances, Jerome appeals to scientific authority rather than to objective proof to assert his position. For example, in arguing against the idea that biological clocks are run by cosmic forces from celestial objects, Jerome states that 'the evidence is slim, the mechanism in doubt, and very few scientists in the field of biological clocks ascribe to the theory'. Although the statement is carefully qualified, some readers might assume that it provides authority for his position. I do not find that the book meets the expectations generated by its title. It is, however, a useful reference for those who are curious about astrology and do not know much about it. I recommend it as such to the readers of Leonardo [see also L. E. Jerome, Astrology and Modern Science: A Critical Analysis, Leonardo 6, 121 (1973)). The Eclipse of Symbolism. Peter Fingesten. Univ. of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC, 1970. 172 pp., illus. Reviewed by Hugh Mercer Curtler** I was first impressed by the attractive appearance of this book and then taken slightly aback by the fact that eight of the ten *Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Mexico, 800Yale...