Support for Astrological Practices
All was not lost for the astrologers. The historian Valerie Flint has argued that astrology survived in the Early Middle Ages (ca. 500-1000) precisely because it could be employed to combat more dangerous forms of magic. Flint essentially claims that astrology was able to survive the early medieval attacks upon it, especially from the Patristic writers, because Christianity did not have a full-fledged system with which to replace it, and that it was rehabilitated in later centuries because it was “Christianized” and used against what were perceived to be far more dangerous challenges to the Church, witchcraft among them. She offers three reasons why early medieval churchmen supported it: 1) there were mentally, socially, and spiritually far more destructive forms of “magic,” 2) supporting materials could be found for astrology if one decided it was valid, and 3) astrology properly exercised the mind to a high degree, which appealed greatly to the more ascetic life of the monasteries.[1] Astrology was then rehabilitated based on several early medieval scientific premises. Heavenly bodies influenced growth and decay, the change of the seasons and may be practically (medically and agriculturally) beneficial. The moon was commonly believed, even by detractors of astrology, to exert a great deal of influence over the “murky demon-filled air” and the dispassionate study of this could be beneficial, especially in countering more maleficent magic. Comets and falling stars were very commonly believed to be important phenomena, and their study was also viewed to be equally important.[2]
Despite the charges leveled against astrologers with the aid of the Bible, Scripture could be utilized to the advantage of Christian astrologers. The Bible certainly encouraged prophecy, and indeed, several of its passages were interpreted as being sympathetic toward astrology and prophecy. Examples include the prophecy of the Coming of Jesus in the Old Testament that a descendant of King David would become the King of the Jews and the Savior of all mankind (2 Samuel 7:12-14) as well as the belief that a virgin would give birth to the Son of God (Isaiah 7:14).[3] The gift of retrospect allowed Christians to affirm that all predictions of the future turning out to be true must certainly have been inspired by God, while those false predictions were bunk to begin with.
Those Christians who accepted astrology were quick to point out the influence of the stars on the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus. The hour of His death was supposedly marked by an eclipse as “there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, while the sun’s light failed” (Luke 23:44), and the Second Coming would be heralded by “signs in the sun, moon, and stars and upon the earth distress of nations in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and waves” (Luke 21:25). Most famously, the calling of the three wise men, or Magi, carried astrological overtones:
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold wise men from the East came to Jerusalem saying “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and come to worship Him. When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. And they told him “In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it is written by the prophet: ‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; from you shall come a ruler who will govern my people Israel.’” Then Herod summoned the wise men secretly and ascertained what time the star appeared; and he sent them to Bethlehem, saying “Go and search diligently for the child, and when you have found him bring me word, that I too may come and worship Him.” When they had heard the king they went their way; and lo, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came to rest over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy; and going into the house they saw the child with Mary, His mother, and they fell down and worshipped Him. Then, opening their gifts, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh. And being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed to their own country by another way (Matthew 2:1-12).
That the star of Bethlehem was a sign was not in doubt. The precedent for this type of stellar portent harkened all the way back to Genesis 1:14 which stated “…let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and for years.”[4]
Many believed that the star the Magi followed to Jesus in the manger was a new star created especially by God for the occasion, and this was substantiated by appearances of comets and meteors and, most spectacularly, novae in the eleventh and seventeenth centuries. Since the realm beyond the moon was thought to be unchangeable, the only thing capable of producing these effects was God himself. This is why stellar phenomena were regarded as omens and why astrologers held fast to their belief that the will of God was manifested in celestial events. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), one of the first modern observational astronomers, meditated often on the importance of these astrological indications and made as serious a study of astrology as he did of the astronomy that went a long way to disproving Aristotelian theory.[5] His own interpretation of the events surrounding the birth of the Christian Savior depended heavily upon astrological understanding:
This effect of the great conjunctions cannot be adequately explained by nature; God himself had to arrange it in some way…This is why he decided to place the birth of His son, Christ, our Savior, at the very moment of the great conjunction of the signs of the Fish and Ram…by emphasizing this dual fact, the event that occurred on earth and the conjunction revealed in the sky through the appearance of a new star; by means of this He guided the Magi from the East to Palestine, to the important village of Bethlehem and the stable where the King of the Jews was born.[6]
By associating God’s actions temporally with stellar events, Kepler rendered the skeptics’ arguments unimportant in that if all astrologically influenced events were subject to the action of God, then there was no reason to squabble about the Christian implications of removing God from the equation, for He was always not only present but also in control. These myriad examples helped scholars of the Middle Ages to deduce that these observable influences could be applied to human relations and temperament, as always, conscious of the fact that free will must remain untouched. Apologists of astrology would use this appeal to religious tradition well into the Middle Ages. For example, Roger Bacon, alluding to the work of Abu Ma‘shar, stated that according to his records of planetary movement, all major religions had begun when certain planets had been in conjunction: Judaism, when Jupiter and Saturn aligned; Islam, with Jupiter and Venus; and even Christianity, when Jupiter and Mercury joined. Bacon believed that this conjunction was in fact the star the Magi saw in the sky above Bethlehem and that the conjoining of Jupiter with the moon would indicate the coming of Antichrist.[7]
Finally, it is important to note that the Malleus mentions astrology and some passages shed some light on Institoris’ and Sprenger’s interpretation of witchcraft. While the Malleus does not necessarily offer support for astrology, neither does it condemn it outright. Book I, Question 5, begins by asking “What is the source of the increase of works of witchcraft? Whence comes it that the practice of witchcraft hath so notably increased?”[8] The Malleus posits that some people believe that astrology may contribute to the cause of witchcraft, questioning
Is it in any way a Catholic opinion to hold that the origin and growth of the works of witchcraft proceed from the influence of the celestial bodies; or from the abundant wickedness of men, and not from the abominations of Incubi and Succubi?...But it is submitted that the true source of witchcraft is the influence of the celestial bodies, and not devils. Just as every multitude is reduced to unity, so all that is multiform is reduced to some uniform beginning. But the acts of men, both in vice and virtue, are various and multiform, therefore it seems that they may be reduced to some beginnings uniformly moved and moving. But such can only be assigned to the motion of the stars; therefore those bodies are the causes of such actions….if the stars were not the cause of human actions both good and bad, Astrologers would not so frequently foretell the truth about the result of wars and other human acts: therefore they are in some ways the cause….[9]
Institoris and Sprenger refute this by stating that
It is impossible to produce an effect without its cause; and the deeds of witches are such that they cannot be done without the help of devils…Witches are so called for the enormity of their magic spells; for they disturb the elements and confound the minds of men, and without any venomous draught, but merely by virtue of incantations, destroy souls, etc. But this sort of effects cannot be caused by the influence of the stars through the agency of man. Besides, Aristotle says in his Ethics that it is difficult to know what is the beginning of operation of thought, and shows that it must be something extrinsic. For everything that begins from the beginnings has some cause. Now a man begins to do that which he wills; and he begins to will because of some pre-suggestion; and if this is some precedent suggestion, it must either proceed from the infinite, or there is some extrinsic beginning which first brings a suggestion to a man. Unless indeed it be argued that this is a matter of chance, from which it would follow that all human actions are fortuitous, which is absurd. Therefore the beginning of good in the good is said to be God, Who is not the cause of sin. But for the wicked when a man begins to be influenced towards and wills to commit sin, there must also be some extrinsic cause of this. And this can be none other than the devil; especially in the case of witches, as is shown above, for the stars cannot influence such acts. Therefore the truth is plain.[10]
The source of witchcraft owed its origin to devils and not the course of the stars, and astrology and witchcraft are clearly demarcated by Institoris and Sprenger. It was the free will of the witch to act in concert with devils that contributed to their crimes. The Malleus answers that
…It is not possible that it originated from astromancers and casters of horoscopes and fortunetellers. For if it is asked whether the vice of witchcraft in men is caused by the influence of the stars, then in the consideration of the variety of men’s characters, and for the upholding of the true faith a distinction must be maintained…[11]
Astrology was regarded as essentially impotent in this cause since to Institoris and Sprenger, astrology had power only over general populations and not individuals:
It is also to be noted that Astronomers often foretell the truth, and that their judgments are for the most part effective on one province or one nation. And the reason is they take their judgments from the stars, which, according to the more probably view, have a greater though not inevitable, influence over the action of mankind in general, that is, over one nation or province, than over one individual person…[12]
The authors of the Malleus held to the Augustinian viewpoint that, as long as free will remained, astrological discourse was perfectly reasonable and rational, though the fatalistic determinism of some astrologers was “so heretical and contrary to the Christian religion, that the true faith cannot be maintained in such an error.”[13] This dichotomous nature of astrology was of supreme importance in both interpreting the denunciation and upholding of certain astrological practices.
[1] See next post for an example of the early medieval use of astrology.
[2] Flint, Valerie I.J. The Rise of Magic in the Early Middle Ages. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991, p. 100-150.
[3] Isaiah 7:14 states, “Behold, a young woman will conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel (‘God is with us’).” “Young woman” comes from the Hebrew ‘almah, feminine of ‘elam, meaning “young man.” Many versions of the Bible have translated this word as “virgin.”
[4] See also Bobrick, Benson. The Fated Sky: Astrology in History. New York: Simon & Schuster Press, 2005, p. 81-84 for an interesting, if incomprehensive, survey of the astrological references in the Bible.
[5] Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion disproved the crucial Aristotelian notion that the planetary orbits were perfectly circular.
[6] Kepler, Johannes, De Vero Anno (On the Year of Truth, 1613), quoted in Couliano, Eros and Magic in the Renaissance, p. 185. Couliano writes in his notes that he received this information via Will-Erich Pueckert’s L’Astrologie: son histoire, ses doctrines.
[7] Erickson, Carolly, The Medieval Vision: Essays in History and Perception, New York: Oxford University Press (USA), 1976, p. 24.
[8] Institoris, Heinrich and Jacob Sprenger. The Malleus Maleficarum. trans. by Rev. Montague Summers. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1971, p. 31. Due to its better accuracy and more updated translation, I have referenced the Maxwell-Stuart version of the Malleus where possible. However, due to its frequent editorial abridgment, several passages relevant to my paper have been omitted or severely truncated by Maxwell-Stuart. Therefore, I have deferred to the Montague Summers translation when necessary and have noted as such.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid. p. 32.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid. p. 34.
[13] Ibid. p. 32.
No comments:
Post a Comment