Skyscript Astrology Forum

In my often less than humble opinion, John Worsdale (1766 - 1828) gets less press than he is entitled to. Part of the reason is that he had the bad timing to be born and between the big sleep of astrology after about 1700 and its mid 19th century rebirth (all dates are admittedly highly arbitrary). His text Celestial Philosophy or Genethliacal Astronomy Containing the Only True Method of Calculating Nativities Made Plain and Easy went through two editions, the first in 1798 or 99 and the second about 1828 the probable year of his death. There doesn't appear to be much known about him, but he did leave us a detailed explanation of his methods which were highly technical in nature.


For better or for worse, Worsdale's text deals mostly in death with a few side trips to crippling injuries and horrible illnesses. Sometimes he can combine all three. There is a reason for this besides morbidity. Death is unambiguous. We are either dead or alive. If an astrologer predicts so and so will die on such and such a date or time period, at the end of that period, the native is either dead or alive. Therefore being able to predict death settles all arguments in favor of astrology (providing you can do it).

Worsdale gives us an entire book of death predictions and little else. We have his word for it that the subject died on schedule and perhaps we might be able to check local records to see if at least the named individuals did die when he said they did or would as the case may be. He had little patience for skeptics as witness the following anecdote taken from his text:

A lady came to see him and gave him the relevant birth data for a reading. Worsdale claims he was given the birth data of a woman by one of the woman's relative's and inquired as to whether the relative would travel and enjoy general good fortune in this life. After performing the necessary calculations Worsdale determined that the relative was dead. The client admitted as much and said she was not a believer and wanted to see if it was true or not. She said she changed her mind and the astrologer asked for her birth data. He did his calculating and ...

I informed her that before the end of the Month of June 1832 she would then, no longer remain an inhabitant of this earthly World.

One did not mess with John Worsdale. Sad to say the date he gave her was four years after he passed, so we don't know if he was correct or not.

How did he do it? Mostly he used primary directions the way a modern astrologer would use transits. He used minor aspects and both direct and converse directions. He references secondary progressions from time to time as well and he probably used transits. He would cast the nativity and then make a list in chronological order of the primary directions or hits to angles as well as conjunctions and aspects to planets. By first delineating the nativity and then looking at periods of intense planetary activity, he would note that something important was happening in the life. In his text that was always or almost always death.

He had a few quirks. He calculated the part of fortune the way he said Ptolemy instructed people how to cast it. For example in my own chart (diurnal) the POF calculated the usual way is at 6 Capricorn 00. Calculated the way Worsdale/Ptolemy say to calculate it, it moves to 9 Sagittarius 48. According to what he tells us in his text, he was blunt without any hint of a bedside manner when discussing a client's death or the weather.

In the next post I'll give a chart and demonstrate what he did. His methods are not so far different from other masters, but they are worth looking at and studying.

James Attersall
Oct 1, 1817
4:435 PM LMT + 0:02:12
Lincoln, UK
53 N 14
000 W 33

7 Pisces 59 Rises



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The cusps differ from Worsdale's calculations by 3 - 4 degrees or so. The planets work out very close to Worsdale's. For our purposes the differences don't really matter. He begins by delineating the nativity and he doesn't like what he finds.

As soon as I had attentively investigated the positions of the Celestial Bodies at the time of Birth, with their various qualities and configurations, etc, I was convinced that a violent Death (emphasis in the original) was certain and inevitable, which was not in the power of any human efforts to prevent. I then delivered my impartial judgment, which was that dissolution would take place at, or before the Age of two years ...

What did he see?

the ASC is afflicted by Saturn. Using his calculations 1 Pisces rises and Saturn is at 0 Pisces and Rx. He also notes Saturn and the ASC are square the Moon. At a 16 degree orb this is a hefty orb. But he tosses in Mars at 20 Gemini which is close enough to the Moon, but still a huge way off from the ASC and Saturn (Solar Fire calculates the ASC at 7 Pisces so this helps a little). What he is doing is using mundane aspects, i.e. what ever is conjunct the IC or MC is square the ASC or planets near the ASC regardless of longitude. SO the orbs don't matter.

Moon and Mars are conjunct "evil stars," according to our author. In fact they are quite near Bellatrix, Alnilam and Capella. He also notes these planets approach the terms of Saturn. Moon is also applying by mundane motion to the square of Saturn. Since Moon and Jupiter are close to the IC all of this is ominous.

The part of fortune is, according to Worsdale, opposite Mars and the Moon. The longitude is not in the reproduced chart, but recall he does not calculate strictly by longitude, so we trust him on this point and note the POF is representative of the body. He says he is most concerned about the Sun, the life force is in trine to Mars and the Moon without any interruption by a benefic.

He goes on:

" ... particularly because the Hyleg is near the body of Mercury, and rapt parallel of Saturn; and I shall observe that Mercury is of the nature of the enemies in the celestial configuration."

I believe this last is a reference to Virgo on the 7th cusp. But the larger point is that there are several testimonies of violent death in the nativity coming particularly from Moon - Mars.

A couple of points: in this case at least he is not adverse to using aspect by sign. He does use the hyleg and anareta in his work. He is less concerned with orb of aspect than he is with the primary directions and where the planets will be in terms of their relationship to each other rather than where the aspects are in the nativity.

The primary directions that may have caught his eye are these:

1) Sun to the sextile of Jupiter Converse
2) MC to the opposition of Mars in mundo
3) ASC to the square of Mars in mundo
4) Moon to the quintile of Venus in zodiac

The directions involving the ASC and MC would be off by today's calculations. However a direction of the ASC to the body of Saturn in mundo may have occurred at the right time whereas he had it occurring after the child was gone.

So we have the nativity and the primary directions. Next we'll look at the solar return.

James Attersall Solar Return



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The solar return is based on Solar Fire's Calculations not Worsdale's. Worsdale does not give the calculations or the chart. He notes:

" ... [the]furious and alarming motions of the stars ..."

In particular a retrograde Saturn is posited in the ASC of the nativity (Saturn is conjunct the MC in the return chart) in a tight square to the natal Moon-Mars conjunction. Here we see the reason for noting the wide, wide square in the nativity. In the SR, Saturn, after only a year would still be in Pisces and therefore still be in the natal first house, but now in the return he is in a much tighter square to the natal configuration. The chart is unfolding in an ominous way. He mentions other difficult configurations in the Return. Jupiter in Capricorn squaring the natal Sun, Mercury opposing the natal ASC and recently separated from Saturn. The opposition is very, very wide, Venus in a violent part of the chart and he says is afflicted by Mercury as Mercury is Rx and near his station.

I have to wonder if it isn't the other way around. Mercury is very powerful in Virgo and Venus is in Scorpio, her detriment and in a mutual reception with a debilitated Mars in Libra. Worsdale refers to these positions as "astonishing," and I think this gives us a clue as to his reasoning. By themselves there is little here that is astonishing, but taken together the accumulation of difficult testimonies indicate something bad will happen.

That's what happened here. The little tyke got kicked in the head by a horse and died as a result. Worsdale had thoughtfully gone to see the parents 10 days before the accident to remind the parents of what was going to happen. He tells us that the planets were even more astonishing on the date of the child's death.

" ... there was a new Moon three days previous to his dissolution, when both the luminaries were in opposition of Saturn, and also in square to the place of the Moon and Mars in the nativity. Venus had the declination of Saturn, and was combust; the Moon was also cadent in the terms of Saturn at the time of Death and Jupiter was nearly on the radical place of that Malefic. When he received the mortal wound, the Sun was afflicted by the opposition of Saturn, who was retrograde and under the Earth; such a train of evil testimonies, suited with those corresponding positions, and primary directions of an anaretical nature in the radix, are worthy of admiration."

Did all this happen exactly the way he relates it? Probably not. For one thing his description of the child running out into the street near the horse in order to play with other children doesn't ring true. The child was less than two years old. At that age they don't run; it's more like a controlled fall. Inside the house they are seemingly everywhere at once. Outside they are easy to catch. I'm not buying it.

I'm also not buying the idea that he is so devoid of human feeling that he would stop by the house to remind everyone that the child would likely be dead soon. If he did that more than likely he would have ended up wearing a few fire irons. I do believe he had the chart of a real child who was killed in an accident and he worked with it.

Anecdotal as the tale may be, the astrology is impressive. Worsdale zeroed in on the importance of the Moon - Mars conjunction. He demonstrated that in mundo aspects, for that is what this is, are important in natal astrology. Mars is conjunct the IC and therefore is square the ASC regardless of longitude. The Moon is keeping company with Mars so she comes for the ride. Moon rules the 6th house of accidents and Mars the 8th house of death. This is truly ominous.

Worsdale loosely follows Morin and others in that he delineates the nativity first, uses directions and returns to make his predictions. He uses the minor aspects and things like mundane aspects in order to find out when the planets will combine to tell him what is going to happen.

Tom

Hi Tom,

Glad to see someone else taking an interest in grumpy old Worsdale! I gave a paper on Placidean teachings in early nineteenth-century Britain: John Worsdale and Thomas Oxley at the Sophia conference in Bath this July; the conference volume should be out next year.

he had the bad timing to be born and between the big sleep of astrology after about 1700 and its mid 18th century rebirth

Did you mean 19th century?

His text Celestial Philosophy or Genethliacal Astronomy Containing the Only True Method of Calculating Nativities Made Plain and Easy went through two editions, the first in 1798 or 99 and the second about 1828 the probable year of his death.

That's what I said in my Primary Directions book as well, following others; but having now studied Worsdale's first work (with the similar but not identical title Genethliacal Astrology), I have to conclude that they are two different books. In fact, the later work contradicts the earlier on certain technical points. The earlier one is available in full as a PDF at Google Books:
http://books.google.com/books?id=PbtCAA ... &q&f=false

Incidentally, Ellic Howe claims that Worsdale died in 1826 and that the 1828 edition was published posthumously by his son (also John).

He used minor aspects and both direct and converse directions.

He did; but the 'converse directions' he used were not calculated the way they are today, by reversing the natural diurnal motion of the celestial sphere. (When I have time I will finish the article on the changing definitions of 'converse motion' which I began work on earlier this year. Working title: Back to the future. )

He references secondary progressions from time to time as well and he probably used transits.

That's right, he did.

He calculated the part of fortune the way he said Ptolemy instructed people how to cast it. For example in my own chart (diurnal) the POF calculated the usual way is at 6 Capricorn 00. Calculated the way Worsdale/Ptolemy say to calculate it, it moves to 9 Sagittarius 48.

I'd be interested to know how you worked that out. Did you follow Worsdale's method (which is cumbersome and not very clearly explained, besides which he also bungles the calculation one of the times he tries to demonstrate it!), or is there some software actually allowing for this very esoteric mode of calculation? (It is different from both the methods that Placidus experimented with.)

The cusps differ from Worsdale's calculations by 3 - 4 degrees or so.

I think you will find that they are closer than that if you use Local Apparent Time (which is what Worsdale and his contemporaries did) rather than Local Mean Time.

What he is doing is using mundane aspects, i.e. what ever is conjunct the IC or MC is square the ASC or planets near the ASC regardless of longitude. SO the orbs don't matter.

Or rather, the 'orbs' are also calculated in mundo. Worsdale, like Placidus, insists that the angles can receive only mundane aspects, not zodiacal.

Moon and Mars are conjunct "evil stars," according to our author. In fact they are quite near Bellatrix, Alnilam and Capella.

Although I can't be absolutely sure, I suspect that Worsdale uses 'star' in the sense of 'planet' here. That's what he usually does.

He goes on:
Quote:
" ... particularly because the Hyleg is near the body of Mercury, and rapt parallel of Saturn; and I shall observe that Mercury is of the nature of the enemies in the celestial configuration."

I believe this last is a reference to Virgo on the 7th cusp.

By 'enemies', Worsdale means 'malefics'. The idea is that Mercury takes on the nature of the planets with which it is configured.

Worsdale's first work (with the similar but not identical title Genethliacal Astrology), I have to conclude that they are two different books. In fact, the later work contradicts the earlier on certain technical points. The earlier one is available in full as a PDF at Google Books:

Thanks Martin,

I have had a look at the second edition too on google books. The introduction is very colourful. Worsdale, like Morin, wastes no opportunity in seeking to settle old scores with his astrological contemporaries describing their work as 'rubbish' and some practitioners as 'pirates'. By the time of the second edition James Wilson's Dictionary of Astrology (1819) had appeared and Worsdale devotes space to criticism of this work.

I see charts located for Lincoln. Was Worsdale born in Lincolnshire?

Would it be fair to see Worsdale as stemming from a Placidean tradition originated in England by John Partridge in the later 17th century?

Look forward to seeing your paper being published next year. In the meantime could you share a little bit detail on Thomas Oxley and his relationship to Worsdale?

Mark

Martin wrote:

Did you mean 19th century?

Sure did.

We had a discussion here a few years back about exactly how Worsdale calculated the POF. We did discover that he is as clear as mud, but I thought someone figured it out. I might be wrong about that.

I took mine from Kolev's Placidus. He gives the option of calculating it in mundo. I just fired up the program and quoted from it. I don't know how to do it.

Thanks for the link. I had just about hit "reply" to ask where you found the original. Phillip Graves could probably locate an original for me, but the price would be out of range.

Holden gives 1826 as well, but I've read 1828 in other places. Again I'm going from memory, I think if we take one of the charts and add to the birth date the time of the delineation deduced from the text, there is at least one reading from about 1828 definitely later than 1826. It is possible his son could have added one or more charts prior to publication.

Luke Broughton claims he hand copied Worsdale's personal translation of Tetrabiblos and he uses the name John Worsdale. Broughton was born in 1828 so he surely didn't know our John Worsdale personally.

Worsdale interests me for several reasons, not the least of which is his idea of a piling up of testimonies shows the highlights in the life. Frawley teaches that death can be reliably predicted with that approach, and I think he got it from reading Worsdale. He recommends it highly to his students. I struggled with it off and on for years - picking it up and then putting it down for months at a time or even a year. This time the light dawned and I finally have enough background to grasp what he is saying.

Finally a few years back I received a note from a descendant of Worsdale's who was looking for his grave. Come to think of it, she may have had an 1828 death date as well. I should really keep notes. I placed the task in the capable hands of Kim Farnell who may have found the grave site. We should ask.

Looking forward to reading your latest.

Tom

Mark wrote:I have had a look at the second edition too on google books. The introduction is very colourful.

Indeed!

I see charts located for Lincoln. Was Worsdale born in Lincolnshire?

Yes, he was. I don't have his precise birth details, but I believe he moved from a village or smaller town in Lincolnshire to Lincoln itself as an adult.

Would it be fair to see Worsdale as stemming from a Placidean tradition originated in England by John Partridge in the later 17th century?

That's exactly right. Worsdale hated Catholics with a fervour reserved today for Muslims, so he doesn't mention Placidus at all in his later work; but he is full of praise for his fellow Protestant Partridge.

Look forward to seeing your paper being published next year. In the meantime could you share a little bit detail on Thomas Oxley and his relationship to Worsdale?

Thank you. Oxley was born when Worsdale was around 20 years old, and I do not know if they ever met; but they both practised a largely Placidean astrology, although they held diametrically opposite views on many contemporary political and other issues, such as Napoleon. Oxley criticized Worsdale in no uncertain terms, although using somewhat less vitriolic language than Worsdale himself. Oxley was also something of a scientific polymath, an inventor, and generally progressive in his outlook, whereas Worsdale was a dyed-in-the-wool reactionary. And as Philip Graves has shown in this thread, Oxley seems to have been largely responsible for the popular shift from square to round charts in the 19th century.

Tom wrote:We had a discussion here a few years back about exactly how Worsdale calculated the POF. We did discover that he is as clear as mud, but I thought someone figured it out. I might be wrong about that.

I took mine from Kolev's Placidus. He gives the option of calculating it in mundo. I just fired up the program and quoted from it. I don't know how to do it.

What you get from Kolev's software is the PoF calculated by the method of Negusanti, which was later accepted by Placidus. Worsdale accepts that method in his 1789 book but rejects it in the 1828 one, giving one of his own invention instead.

I believe the earlier discussion you refer to may be this one, which concerned Worsdale's self-invented 'terms'. But I may be wrong.

Martin Gansten wrote: That's exactly right. Worsdale hated Catholics with a fervour reserved today for Muslims, so he doesn't mention Placidus at all in his later work; but he is full of praise for his fellow Protestant Partridge.

Still with such a title "the Celestial philosophy" the idea that Worsdale is following the monk Placido can jump to the mind....

p.s. Tom read in my mind, because it was days I would ask information about that book, there is some part I should read in particular or nothing else than Placido?

margherita

margherita wrote:p.s. Tom read in my mind, because it was days I would ask information about that book, there is some part I should read in particular or nothing else than Placido?

It's a slightly simplified or watered-down version of the teachings of Placidus. It might be interesting to you as an intermediate stage between Placidus in the mid-17th century and the birth of modern astrology at the turn of the 19th/20th, but I doubt that you would learn much that was new from reading it.

What you get from Kolev's software is the PoF calculated by the method of Negusanti, which was later accepted by Placidus. Worsdale accepts that method in his 1789 book but rejects it in the 1828 one, giving one of his own invention instead.

I'm beginning to get worried about myself because I'm getting Placidus and Ptolemy mixed up. Hey what's 15 centuries difference?

In the 1828 version on page xi, Worsdale says this:

I have given the true computation of the place of the part of fortune, and the method of directing it from the original Greek Quadriparte of the learned Claudius Ptolemy, which has never been published in the English language.

Isn't Quadripartite the Latin name given to the book? Anyway looking at this sentence it appears I misread it. A reader could take it to mean that Worsdale took the true computation method and the method of directing it from Ptolemy, or we could take it that Worsdale is giving us the true method of computing it (his own) that does not come from Ptolemy, and he gives us Ptolemy's method of directing. I suspect the latter is what he is doing.

Did he dump the Negusanti/Placidus method of calculating the POF because he hated Catholics? Shades of Morin who hated non-Catholics, particularly Arabs so he dumped what he mistakenly believed were Arab contributions that really came from the Greeks.

I took a quick look at Celestial Astrology and clearly that is not he same book and it is a second edition. It is mostly a defense of astrology and a "how to" reference for chart calculation.

Thanks for the LAT tip. I did that on Solar Fire and it brought the cusps right in line with the text.

Tom

Tom wrote:I'm beginning to get worried about myself because I'm getting Placidus and Ptolemy mixed up. Hey what's 15 centuries difference?

There is a long tradition of confusing Placidus' ideas with those of Ptolemy, begun by Placidus himself.

I am sure Worsdale had convinced himself that he was following the 'true intention' of Ptolemy, just as others had done before him. The problem is that Ptolemy is so terse, he lays himself open to all manner of interpretation. In the present context, all he says is that Fortune should be, as it were, a lunar ascendant. I think it takes theological training to make that statement into an argument for in mundo calculation!

Did he dump the Negusanti/Placidus method of calculating the POF because he hated Catholics?

I don't know, and he doesn't say. He kept most of what Placidus had taught, though without acknowledging the debt. My guess would be that he just thought he had found a more rational way.