Observations of Venus by James I
                                       
   by

Charles Raspil

   Discussing the observations of solar eclipses in the Former Han
   Dynasty of China (206 BC to 23 AD), the eminent historian of
   astronomy, Robert R. Newton, remarked that "in about a fourth of the
   records . . ., the date listed is not that of an eclipse visible in
   China .... further, of all the solar eclipses recorded in the annals
   of the Han Dynasty ... only four are correct to within a degree of
   Right Ascension (the expected celestial longitude of the eclipsed
   sun)..."

   Given the reputation for accuracy of ancient Chinese astronomical
   observations, Newton's remark is surprising. Were these observations
   of eclipses an accurate description of a past reality? If one examines
   the entire record of astronomical observations from China and other
   areas of the world from ancient times through the 20th Century A.D.,
   even more surprises appear. The record teems with anomalies.

   In documenting these anomalies it will be shown only that they suggest
   that episodes of celestial instability have occurred in the past.
   Questions about the original observer's accuracy I will leave to the
   reader.

   To begin, we will examine an unusual sighting of the planet Venus. The
   reader is probably aware that the order of the solar system places
   limits on Venus' sightings from the Earth. First, like a the planets,
   Venus' celestial latitude now does not deviate more than a few degrees
   north or south of the ecliptic. Second, because Venus is an inner
   planet, it never appears to an earthbound observer more than 47" east
   or west of the Sun. With these parameters in mind, let us look at some
   past observations of Venus that seem to conflict with present
   observations.

   Because Venus' present orbit is closer to the Sun than the Earth's,
   and because the planet's orbital plane is roughly parallel to the
   ecliptic (the Sun's visible annual path through the Zodiac), an
   earthbound observer will always see the planet near the Sun. Venus
   will not stray more than about 47" east or west of it, nor more than
   3624' north or south of the ecliptic. Further, again because it is in
   inner planet, our observer can never sight Venus at an angular
   distance from the Sun of 90° or more.

   Yet over the past centuries, Venus' orbit may have deviated from the
   orbital values we now observe. Let us look at some material that hints
   of such variations.

   The "King's Quair" (King's Poem) is a poem that King James I of
   Scotland may have composed in 1424 while a prisoner in the Tower of
   London. The gist of the poem James' Venus-induced reverie - will not
   concern us here. Rather, we shall concentrate on the poem's first
   seven lines, the prologue to James' reverie:

     "Heigh in the hevynnis figure circulere
     The rody sterres twynklyng as the fyre;
     And in Aquary, Citherea the clere,
     Rynsid hir tressis like the goldin wyre,
     That late to fore in fair and fresch atyre
     Through Capricorn heved hir hornis bright
     North northward approchit the mydnyght."

   The first six lines tell us that Venus (Citherea the clere) had passed
   from the constellation Capricorn into Aquarius. A student of the poem,
   John Norton-Smith, in order to date its composition precisely,
   retrocalculated Venus' position for late 1423 and early 1424. By the
   retrocalculation, it was expected, to have spent the second half of
   1423 as the Evening Star, pass inferior conjunction about January 30,
   1424, and then appear as the Morning Star on the boundary between
   Aquarius and Capricorn throughout February, 1424. The first six lines
   of James' poem do seem to match its expected position reasonably.

   But the seventh line, "north northward (Venus) approchit the
   mydnyght", puzzles Norton-Smith. He asks, what are the meanings of
   "north northward" and " mydnyght". Continuing his retrocalculation,
   Norton-Smith finds that during the period Feb. 10-18, 1424, Venus was
   a little north of the Sun in declination and moving slowly southward.
   He therefore assumes that "north northward" merely describes its
   declination north of the Sun.

   Researching "mydnyght", Norton-Smith finds that Skeat, a 19th Century
   commentator on Chaucerian literature, defines it as the line of
   midnight, the meridian (the observer's zenith). But Norton-Smith must
   reject Skeat's view. He realizes that on its present orbit, James
   could not have observed Venus near his zenith at any time during the
   night (the time of his reverie): Venus' declination would then be
   about 606 too far north, and its Right Ascension at least 800 too far
   west of the Sun.

   So Norton-Smith looks for another meaning of "mydnyght". He says, ". .
   . the word may be a kind of poetic variation on the well-attested
   Middle English use of 'midday" to mean "the south" (compare with Latin
   meridies)." Using "the south", he can now satisfy the imperatives of
   retrocalculation: recall that Venus was expected to have moved
   slightly south between Feb. 10, and Feb. 18, 1424

   In Figure 1, Norton-Smith's retrocalculation is used to show how James
   should have sighted Venus on a night in mid-February, 1424. Notice in
   the diagram how close Venus is to the Sun, being about 10° west of it
   at a time just before sunrise.

   Thus Venus could be seen only dimly in the half-light of dawn. Yet,
   James sees to have composed his poem some time before dawn ("the rody
   sterres twynklyng as the fyre"); and the text describes a visually
   bright planet ("Citherea the clere", "golden tressis"). Let us suspend
   Norton-Smith's explanation temporarily and with it the dicta of modern
   astronomy, and dare to read the first seven lines as James may have
   intended.

   Figure 2 shows how James would have observed Venus if it had moved
   from Aquarius towards the zenith (located at the declination of
   London, about 50.5° north). Such a radical difference from Venus'
   present movement implies, at least, that Venus was not then within her
   present orbital limits. To have it appear at James' zenith, at least
   90° from a Sun still hidden beneath his eastern horizon, Venus could
   not have been on its present orbit. Its orbital distance from the Sun
   would have to have differed greatly from the orbital path we see
   today.

   Two descriptions of "Citherea the clere" in James' text not only
   support the supposition that Venus was then on a different orbit, but
   also imply that it periodically approached the Earth more closely that
   it does today.

   [*!* Image: Figure 1 - Venus mid-February 1424: the flattened ellipse
   marked NESW (the cardinal points) is James' viewing horizon at London
   (latitude 50½° N.). J is the position of James, the observer. NCP and
   SCP are the North Celestial and South Celestial Poles; Z is James'
   zenith, his overhead point. QQ[1] shows the line of the Celestial
   Equator; VV[1] is the path taken by Venus (and the Sun) during a 24
   hour period at about 10° south of the Celestial Equator.]

   [*!* Image: Figure 2 - Venus as seen by James, taking literally the
   first 7 lines of his poem. AZB shows the path of an object directly
   over his head. VV[1] shows Venus approaching this path from its
   position at midnight beneath the horizon. Venus has moved over the
   southeastern horizon and has headed west and north toward James'
   zenith.]

   In the sixth line, Citherea the clere "through Capricorn heved hir
   hornig bright." If we translate "hornis bright" as "bright horns", we
   recall a similar reference to the horns of the crescent Moon. Did
   Venus appear as a bright crescent in Capricorn after leaving inferior
   conjunction with the Sun? We know that through a telescope, the planet
   appears as a crescent following inferior conjunction. But had Venus
   reached a distance from the earth where her crescent phase would
   become visible to the naked eye?

   Evidently, this possibility also struck Norton-Smith because he
   quickly seeks a different meaning for "hornis bright" he argues that
   to translate the term as bright horns would imply that "Citherea the
   clere" was the Moon, the only celestial object whose crescent phase is
   visible to the naked eye; yet, the appellation "clere" in James' times
   always identified Citherea with the planet Venus, not the Moon; and
   after all, Venus was the only celestial subject of James' poem.

   So, Norton-Smith suggests that "hornis" refers to "the elaborate
   dressing of women's hair in a horn shape, popular at this time. He
   adds that the text's phrase "in fair and fresche atyre" supports his
   interpretation. (But why doesn't he mull over the source of this hair
   style?).

   In the fourth line, Citherea the clere "rynsid hir tressis like the
   goldin wyre." Norton-Smith simply translates "tressis..." as unbound
   golden hair. the phrase doesn't strike him. But it should strike the
   readers of Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision. They will recall that in
   his scenarios of Venus' celestial role in the centuries preceding the
   7th Century B.C., Velikovsky cited many ancient sources that Venus had
   a hair-like (the word "comet" is derived from the Greek word for
   "hair"- see W in C, pp. 163-167.* ) train, a guise that he attributed
   to the planet's origin as a comet-like proto-planet which entered the
   solar system in historical times. Did Venus grow new tresses in 1424
   because it then varied more in its orbit, or was James' description
   merely a recollection of Venus' classical description over two
   millennia before?

   In future issues, other historical material that suggests anomalies in
   the retrocalculated position of Venus will be explored.

   *Page numbers refer to Doubleday's hardback edition of Worlds in
   Collision (N.Y., 1950).