Astrological Writings Research Articles

É Astrologia MA non É Astrologo: John Aubrey's Brief Lives and Astrology

This article explores John Aubrey's (1627–1697) extensive use of astrology in his biographical collection Brief Lives (1680–1681), which has been widely celebrated for its vivid portrayal of seventeenth-century English culture and society. Aubrey's life writing was not only informed by his antiquarian pursuits, the vibrant coffee house culture of his time and his lively scientific community, but also by the practice of astrology. Through Aubrey's horoscope collection, Collectio geniturarum (1674–1690), and his correspondence with a wide astrological network, this article traces his deep engagement with the practice. In squarely focusing on these two sources, I argue that Aubrey greatly relied on astrological methods to inform his life writing. In making his collection of horoscopes, Aubrey drew on a long tradition of astrological data gathering. Aubrey's careful collation and calculation of data to verify birth times, identify major life events and determine ‘ingenious’ traits also contributed to a wider effort to reform astrology considering the nascent experimental philosophy. By examining Aubrey's multifaceted astrological writings, this article clarifies one of Aubrey's key techniques used in his early sketches of Brief Lives . More broadly, it further complicates the historical narrative that astrology was largely marginalized in late seventeenth-century English intellectual and scientific communities.

The Impact of Hagin le Juif's French Translations on Subsequent Latin Translations of Abraham Ibn Ezra's Astrological Writings

From the Middle Ages until the present, the development of astrology among Jews has been associated with Abraham Ibn Ezra (ca. 1089–ca. 1161). He created the first comprehensive set of Hebrew astrological textbooks, which addressed the main systems of Arabic astrology and provided Hebrew readers with access to the subject. Some of his works became known to Christian scholars during his years in the Latin West and shortly after his death. However, Ibn Ezra's astrological writings remained outside the mainstream of Latin astrological literature until the last decades of the thirteenth century. An Ibn Ezra renaissance took place in the Latin West, thanks to a number of almost simultaneous translation projects. This essay aims to shed light on a limited but fundamental facet of the Ibn Ezra renaissance in the Latin West: the impact of the earliest datable translation project—Hagin le Juif's French translations, carried out in 1273—on subsequent Latin translations of Ibn Ezra's Hebrew astrological writings. The current study examines all of Hagin's French translations and all the relevant Latin translations of Ibn Ezra's astrological writings. In addition, the current study presents hitherto unknown biographical information about Hagin le Juif and attempts to explain the cultural context of his French translations.

Zwei Himmel – zwei Körper

This article focuses on Paracelsus as an astrologer and the development of his cosmology in his intra-vitam publications. Paracelsus seems to have used his astrological writings as a testing ground to present his heterodoxical concept of the two heavens and two bodies to the public. The article also traces the reappearance of these ideas in practicas and calendars in the 17th century.

Henry Bate, Translator of Abraham Ibn Ezra's Astrological Writings

Henry Bate of Mechelen (1246–after 1310) was the first to bring the astrological work of the twelfth-century Jewish polymath Abraham Ibn Ezra (ca. 1089–ca. 1161) to the knowledge of Latin readers. Ibn Ezra created the first comprehensive set of Hebrew astrological textbooks that addressed the main systems of Arabic astrology and provided Hebrew readers with access to the subject. The present study, divided into three parts, studies Henry Bate as translator of Ibn Ezra's astrological writings. The first part focuses on Bate's complete translations, authenticates Bate's authorship, determines their title and the time and place of composition, and consolidates information about their source texts. The second part reviews Bate's numerous references to Ibn Ezra and translations of individual passages from his astrological works. The third part examines the most salient features of Henry Bate's modus operandi as translator of Ibn Ezra. This begins with his use of double or triple translations for a single word or locution, a feature that readers of his translations recognize as his hallmark. This is followed by an investigation of Bate's familiarity with Hebrew and how he applied this knowledge in his translations. Finally, it looks at the additions and glosses Bate incorporated into the translations and considers his motives for doing so. The conclusion summarizes the findings and asks how Bate prepared these translations.

Pietro d’Abano, traductor de las obras astrológicas de Abraham ibn Ezra

Desde la Edad Media hasta el presente, el desarrollo de la astrología judía ha sido asociado con Abraham ibn Ezra (ca. 1089-ca. 1161), quien compuso el primer corpus de textos astrológicos hebreos que trata los principales sistemas de la astrología greco-árabe y que otorgó amplio acceso a lectores hebreos a la astrología. Algunas de sus obras fueron conocidas por estudiosos cristianos durante su vida en el Occidente Latino y poco después de su muerte. Sin embargo, los escritos astrológicos de Abraham ibn Ezra quedaron fuera de la corriente principal de la literatura astrológica latina hasta las últimas décadas del siglo XIII. Entonces tuvo lugar un renacimiento de Abraham ibn Ezra en el Occidente Latino gracias a varios proyectos casi simultáneos de traducción de sus tratados astrológicos. El más amplio y famoso de esos proyectos fue el realizado por Pietro d’Abano, el filósofo, astrologo y profesor de medicina italiano durante su residencia en Paris (1293-1307). El principal propósito de este artículo es estudiar el contenido, estructura y los textos de origen de las traducciones latinas de Pietro d’Abano. Este artículo estudia también la correspondencia entre las traducciones latinas de Pietro d’Abano y los textos hebreos originales de Abraham ibn Ezra, las referencias de Pietro d’Abano a sus propias traducciones, y su modus operandi como traductor latino de Abraham ibn Ezra.

The Ibn Ezra–Henry Bate Astrological Connection and the Three Abrahams

This paper studies the astrological connection between Abraham Ibn Ezra (ca. 1089–ca. 1161), who created the first comprehensive corpus of Hebrew astrological textbooks that address the main systems of Arabic astrology, and Henry Bate (1246–1310), who first translated into Latin a collection of Ibn Ezra’s astrological writings and brought Ibn Ezra to the knowledge of the Latin West. The first part of this paper offers a brief chronological survey of how Henry Bate became acquainted with Ibn Ezra’s astrological treatises. The second part focuses on a surprising element: when Bate refers to astrological treatises that we now know were written by Ibn Ezra, he assigns them to one of three different authors. All three are ‘Abraham’, but they have distinguishing cognomens. Here we determine which astrological treatises Bate assigned to each of the three Abrahams, try to identify the historical figure behind each of them, and explain Bate’s reason for trisecting Abraham Ibn Ezra.

L’Homosexualité féminine dans l’Antiquité grecque et romaine by Sandra Boehringer (review)

Reviewed by: L’Homosexualité féminine dans l’Antiquité grecque et romaine by Sandra Boehringer Kirk Ormand Sandra Boehringer. L’Homosexualité féminine dans l’Antiquité grecque et romaine. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2007. 405 pp. Paper, €35.00. Until recently, I held several informed assumptions about sexuality in the ancient world: (a) that without exception the ancient Greeks and Romans did not define categories of sexual activity by the sex of the object of desire (as in the modern categories of hetero- and homosexual); (b) that female homoerotic activity occupied roughly the same space of social value in ancient Greece as in ancient Rome; (c) that in so far as it could be discerned, female homoerotic activity was depicted in Greece and Rome according to the male pederastic model; (d) that no significant discourse existed about a form of female homoeroticism that was outside of the asymmetric norm defined by such a model; (e) that in keeping with the male pederastic model, women who were sexually attracted to other women were figured as gender deviants, and particularly as being masculine; and (f) that such women were regularly figured as having monstrously large clitorises which were thought—fantastically—to mimic an erect phallus. Thanks to Sandra Boehringer’s incisive study, I now believe every one of these assumptions to be wrong. Boehringer does three things remarkably well in this book. She argues for the presence of an ancient Greek and Roman discourse about female-female sexual behavior. She demonstrates convincingly that there was an understanding of such behavior that was entirely outside of discussions of hermaphroditism and/or women with unusual masculine traits. And finally, she traces shifts and developments in attitudes toward this idea of female homoeroticism with acute attention to the historical contexts of her literary, visual, and scientific sources. Unlike some other critics who have wanted to see a notion of modern “lesbianism” in the ancient world, moreover, Boehringer develops her arguments within a careful Foucauldian framework. As she says late in the book, “une catégorie n’a de valeur que dans un système, et le système de valeurs des Anciens n’est pas le nôtre” (362). Unlike that of Hallett and Brooten, then, Boehringer’s female homoeroticism is not a transhistorical essence that has been curiously interpreted by the Greeks and Romans. Rather, Boehringer sees a separate category of sexual behavior about which the Greeks and Romans wrote, often obliquely, sometimes disparagingly but, surprisingly, only very rarely with a suggestion that such behavior presented a problem. After laying out her theoretical approach, Boehringer proceeds chronologically, beginning with Greek lyric poetry, including sections on early Greek myth, Attic pottery, Greek comedy, Greek philosophy (esp. Plato and Aristotle), Hellenistic poetry, Augustan poetry (esp. Ovid), Roman satire and invective (Petronius, Martial, Juvenal), a brief section on scientific and astrological writings, and ending with an epilogue on late imperial Greek literature (Lucian). I will focus here on some of the readings that provide the most important challenges to current scholarship on ancient sexual practice. Boehringer’s reading of Sappho, which draws on the work of Winkler and [End Page 163] Stehle, is important for later developments in the book. She is careful to distinguish the “I” of the poem (sometimes, as in poem 1, the multiple Sapphos within the narrative frame) from the figure of Sappho the author (54). She then goes on to demonstrate that, contrary to the arguments of scholars in the middle of the last century, the language that the narrator uses to describe her love affairs is the (usually euphemistic) language of physical pleasure typical of archaic Greek lyric (56–58). But what is particularly important about Sappho’s expressions of desire is that, “cet érôs n’est jamais décrit comme une différence stigmatisée par le monde extérieur et condamnée par la société.” Even more to the point, in a complex poem like 31 (φαίνεταί μοι), the speaker draws no distinction between the feeling of desire expressed by the speaker and the desire suggested to be felt by the young man in the poem who sits opposite the beloved. In fact, as Boehringer makes abundantly clear, no...

Book Review: Abraham IBN Ezra on Elections, Abraham Ibn Ezra on Elections, Interrogations, and Medical Astrology: A Parallel Hebrew—English Critical Edition of the Book of Elections, the Book of Interrogations and the Book of the Luminaries, Abraham Ibn Ezra's Astrological Writings, Études sur le Judaïsme Médiéval

ABRAHAM IBN EZRA ON ELECTIONS Abraham lbn Ezra on Elections, Interrogations, and Medical Astrology: A Parallel Hebrew-English Critical Edition of the Book of Elections, the Book of Interrogations and the Book of the Luminaries. Shlomo SeIa Abraham lbn Ezra's Astrological Writings, iii; Etudes sur le Judaisme Medieval, 1; Brill, Leiden, 201 1). Pp. xii + 657. $257. ISBN 978-90-04-21220-6.This is the third volume in the series of lbn Ezra's astrological treatises, composed in the twelfth century (a review of the first two volumes appeared in this journal, xlii (201 1), 120-1). Once again we are given a critical edition of the Hebrew texts, together with a reliable English translation and valuable notes: the Book of elections (3 versions), the Book of interrogations (3 versions), and the Book of the luminaries. The astrological system of elections concerns finding the best time for beginning some activity; interrogations concern responses by an astrologer to questions related to daily life; and the Book of the luminaries concerns astrological doctrines related to critical days in the course of a disease. In all cases lbn Ezra depended on Arabic sources, which are identified by the editor. The appendices include a list of the manuscripts consulted, a concordance of topics discussed in the various treatises, a list of authorities and sources mentioned in the three versions of the Book of elections and in the Book of the luminaries. In addition to a bibliography, there is a glossary of technical terms arranged in English alphabetical order, followed by a Hebrew index to the glosssary, an index of technical terms in English alphabetical order (with references to the notes), and a general index.To get the flavour of Ibn Ezra's approach to astrology, here is one passage from the Book of the luminaries:The great physicians investigated why the crises of diseases take place on the seventh, fourteenth, twentieth or twenty-first, and twenty-seventh or twentyeighth day [after the onset of the disease]. The only explanation they could find involved the Moon, as long as the disease lasts for up to one month and passes; but if it does not pass they look at the Sun, which is above the Moon, as I shall explain (pp. 455-7).Sela's note (pp. 493-94) refers to the corresponding passages in Galen's On critical days as well as to the Arabic translation of Galen's work by Hunain Ibn Ishaq (d. 873).John North (d. 2008), the eminent historian of astronomy, used to say that if you seek a clear exposition of any astrological doctrine, the best place to look is in alBiruni's Book of astrology, ed. and transi, by R. R. Wright (London, 1934). Among the virtues ofthat book are diagrams and tables: it is to be hoped that in a final volume SeIa will move away from notes tied to specific passages and give us an overview of Ibn Ezra's astrological doctrines in a more systematic way than that presented by the twelfth-century author himself. …

Essay Review: Planetary Order in the Long Sixteenth Century, the Copernican Question: Prognostication, Skepticism, and Celestial Order

PLANETARY ORDER IN THE LONG SIXTEENTH CENTURY The Question: Prognostication, Skepticism, and Celestial Order. Robert S. Westman (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 2011). Pp. xiv + 681. $95/£65. ISBN 978-0-520-25481-7.Robert Westman's book, whose harbinger dates back 1993, has finally arrived. In contrast other recent studies of the author of De revolutionibus, such as that by Anna De Pace presenting Copernicus as a Platonist or by Andre Goddu who roots Copernicus in the Aristotelian tradition, the present book embraces a much larger Copernican extending from the end of the fifteenth through the beginning of the seventeenth century (the 'long sixteenth century'). In fact, Westman's survey continues up Newton, which explains its bulk: 500 pages of text, nearly 100 pages of notes, 40 pages of bibliography and a very detailed index running more than 30 pages, with everything in two columns of small type. In a standard typography, the book would surely require more than 1000 pages. The work is imposing by its mass, by its synthesis of decades of published previously reflections. It is an ambitious work, not only for the number of texts considered but even more for the audacity of its thesis. In effect, Westman proposes a radically new approach his subject, which will surprise more than one specialist in studies.It is Westman's hypothesis concerning the trigger that launched Copernicus and the place occupied by astrology in his thought that I will especially consider in this review.Fully accepting the results of recent research on Copernicus - Westman summarizes the fundamental works by Noel Swerdlow and Bernard R. Goldstein on the way in which Copernicus technically conceived of a new celestial order leading heliocentrism - the author considers it necessary go further. If the earlier analyses provide a reasonable explanation of the 'how', they do not propose hypotheses for the 'why' of Copernicus's steps. According Westman, it is necessary understand the circumstances that made the question of the order of the inferior planets, considered as uncertain since Ptolemy, a view reiterated by Regiomontanus, appear urgent in the eyes of Copernicus. What caused him take seriously the 'law' of proportionality between the distances and periods of the planets, a question posed only in principle by his predecessors? What caused him take the Sun as the centre of all planetary motions, including the Earth, as had the Pythagoreans before him (p. 6 1 ) ? With what urgency would Copernicus have responded these questions?In 1989 the late Gerard Simon published an important book entitled Kepler astronome astrologue, arguing that for Kepler the two branches of the science of the stars were indivisible, each considered from the double view of theory and practice. Kepler, we might add, was the only who sought establish a truly heliocentric astrology.Is Westman now in turn proposing a Copernicus astronomer astrologer! This question seems at first paradoxical, for Copernicus, unlike Kepler, left no astrological writings and apparently never compiled a horoscope. This well-known silence on astrology, a discipline often considered intellectually reprehensible by earlier intellectual historians, is why the vast majority of Copernicus scholars have treated his heliocentrism as only an astronomical hypothesis and have at times vigorously denied that he could have fallen into the errors of a 'false science' like astrology.Westman, however, frames paradox differently, asking how historians could have examined Copernicus and the origins of his reflections on celestial science without: (1) recalling that Georg Joachim Rheticus, his first and only disciple, in 1540 presented the world the new cosmology illustrating its astrological fecundity by means of a prophesy (it can be assumed that Copernicus approved this publication); (2) considering Rheticus 's interest in astrology, which no one has ever denied, which is evidenced by his various writings in this area, even if his larger project remained unfinished; (3) noting that Copernicus, in passing through Bologna, lived four years with the astronomer-astrologer Domenico Maria Novara, not as a student but a collaborator with this recognized master of the science of the stars; and (4) emphasizing, finally, the remark by Rheticus that Giovanni Pico della Mirandola would have had no occasion criticize astronomy in his Disputationes adversus astrologiam divinatricem had he known of the work of Copernicus, viz, knowledge of the heliocentric order of the planets would have removed for Pico any opportunity to attack not only astrology but also astronomy. …

Translations of Kepler’s Astrological Writings Part III. Kepler on Astrological Theory and Doctrine Section 1. On Directions, 1601-1602

The treatise on directions is among the most difficult material in this collection of Kepler’s astrological writings, in terms of both translation and comprehension. Aside from discovering what Kepler is doing astrologically, many sentences in the treatise have to be read carefully to be fully understood. This is not astrology writing (or reading!) for the faint-hearted. We need to keep in mind that this treatise was never formally published; it exists only in this manuscript form. When Kepler uses the term ‘directions’ in this treatise, he does not always mean primary directions, as in the style of Ptolemy. Although he is comparing primary, or diurnal, motion to secondary, or zodiacal motion, Kepler’s system in general is more or less what modern astrologers would call secondary progressions, using a day for a year symbolism. But in his worked examples (in ‘On Directions’ these include his own chart and those of his children Heinrich and Susanna; and elsewhere the chart of Rudolf II1 ), he appears to be using, at different times, a variation on quotidian progressions, secondary progressions using solar arc in right ascension, and solar arc directions. He uses (mostly) right ascension for the Midheaven, oblique ascension for the Ascendant, and solar arc for both the Sun and the Moon. He does not direct any other planets. Greater detail of the way Kepler analysed directions can be found in his interpretation of Rudolf II’s chart. Kepler seems to take some standard techniques and improvise on them. He is not really ‘making things up’ but rather pushing against the boundary of standard techniques, just as he did in his work with aspects. It appears that Kepler’s techniques were 1) modifications of Ptolemaic ones, 2) modifications of Regiomontanus and 3) modifications of his mentor Tycho’s system, which appears to be similar to the modern idea of secondary progressions, though they are called directions. We can see this from the table at the end of Kepler’s interpretations of Rudolf II’s chart (see Part I.2.1, p. 100 in this volume). If we are to take anything away from this treatise, it is that Kepler privileges the motion of the Sun in developing a system for directions. But neither does he neglect the importance of the Moon, the Ascendant and the Midheaven. It is also striking how much emphasis he places on the relationship between the day, the month and the year, and how the present and the past intertwine. As Kepler eloquently puts it, ‘life is a multiplication of the first breath’. For the notes to this section, I am indebted to the astrological expertise of Joseph Crane, Nadine Harris, Bernadette Brady and Geoffrey Cornelius, who helped me immensely. For translation and palaeographic assistance, I am also indebted to Charles Burnett.

Translations of Kepler’s Astrological Writings Part III, Section 4. Kepler on Aspects, 1602

Translations of Kepler’s Astrological Writings Part III, Section 4. Kepler on Aspects, 1602

Translations of Kepler’s Astrological Writings Part I, Section 2.2. Kepler’s Astrological Interpretation of Rudolf II by Traditional Methods, 1602

Translations of Kepler’s Astrological Writings Part I, Section 2.2. Kepler’s Astrological Interpretation of Rudolf II by Traditional Methods, 1602

Translations of Kepler’s Astrological Writings Part I, Section 1.4. Kepler and Michael Mastlin on their Sons’ Nativities, 1598

Michael Mastlin was Kepler’s mathematics professor at Tübingen and subsequently became a lifelong friend and correspondent. Though some scholars have claimed that Mastlin was an opponent of astrology, others find evidence that, in fact, he considered astrology to be valid at least for certain natural and political phenomena; he also taught the rudiments of astrological principles to students at Tubingen. As this series of letters shows, Kepler and Mastlin also corresponded on astrological interpretations of their own family members, in this case their two sons. Taken from Opera Omnia 1, pp. 297-99; Gesammelte Werke 13, letter no. 89, pp. 179-83; GW 13, letter no. 97, pp. 208-209; GW 13, letter no. 99, p. 228.

Translations of Kepler’s Astrological Writings Part I, Section 1.3. Kepler’s Delineations of his Family’s Astrology

Here we find Kepler’s comparisons of his, his wife’s, his son’s and his step-daughter’s birthcharts. It consists of two tables: the first lists the planetary and angle positions of each of the four family members, classified into cardinal, fixed and mutable signs; it is followed by a commentary. The second table compares similar aspects in the charts under discussion, also with commentary. Finally, Kepler speculates on a conception chart, almost certainly for his son Heinrich, again with commentary. The text is particularly interesting because it gives insight into the way that Kepler went about interpreting a chart, and into the way he compares charts (the modern astrological term for this is ‘synastry’). Unfortunately, since it was clearly written only for Kepler’s use, it is quite terse and difficult to decipher. However, there are parallels between this text and a series of letters Kepler wrote to Michael Mastlin, in which Kepler compares his own and his son Heinrich’s charts, as well as Mastlin’s and his son August’s charts (see Part I.1.4 in this volume). No date of composition is given; it may have been written around the time of Heinrich’s birth in early 1598 or, alternatively, after the death of Barbara Kepler in 1611 (see p. 61, ‘Son’s mother is going to die’). Taken from Gesammelte Werke 21, 2.2, pp. 41-45. Note: because of the table format, I have left the astrological glyphs as they appear, without writing them out. In the commentaries to the tables, I have written out the names, with the glyph used shown in square brackets. [GW 21,2.2, p. 41].

Translations of Kepler’s Astrological Writings Part I, Section 1.3. Kepler’s Delineations of his Family’s Astrology

Translations of Kepler’s Astrological Writings Part I, Section 1.3. Kepler’s Delineations of his Family’s Astrology

Translations of Kepler’s Astrological Writings Part I. Kepler as Practising Astrologer Section 3. Historical Charts Subsection 1. The Nativities of Mohammed and Martin Luther, 1604

Translations of Kepler’s Astrological Writings Part I. Kepler as Practising Astrologer Section 3. Historical Charts Subsection 1. The Nativities of Mohammed and Martin Luther, 1604

Translations of Kepler’s Astrological Writings Part III, Section 4. Kepler on Aspects, 1602

Translations of Kepler’s Astrological Writings Part III, Section 4. Kepler on Aspects, 1602

Translations of Kepler’s Astrological Writings Part II. Kepler on the New Star: De stella nova, Chapters 7-9 Astrology on Trial: Kepler, Pico and the Preservation of the Aspects

Translations of Kepler’s Astrological Writings Part II. Kepler on the New Star: De stella nova, Chapters 7-9 Astrology on Trial: Kepler, Pico and the Preservation of the Aspects

Translations of Kepler’s Astrological Writings Part I, Section 2.2. Kepler’s Astrological Interpretation of Rudolf II by Traditional Methods, 1602

This section actually precedes the material in the previous section, but has been put here because the techniques discussed are easier to understand when the other material has been introduced first. Kepler provides what he describes as the ‘common teaching of the more renowned astrologers’, i.e. standard astrological techniques, for interpreting Rudolf’s astrology in 1602 and 1603. Though he later adds his own, personal interpretation using techniques he considered valid (see Part I.2.1 above), Kepler did send Rudolf this delineation based on standard techniques (perhaps to cover all the bases?). At the end of this section I have added some of the preliminary notes Kepler made for himself about Rudolf’s astrology, including calculations, and the draft interpretation of the solar returns which was later incorporated into the letter to Rudolf.

Translations of Kepler’s Astrological Writings Part II. Kepler on the New Star: De stella nova, Chapters 7-9 Astrology on Trial: Kepler, Pico and the Preservation of the Aspects

Translations of Kepler’s Astrological Writings Part II. Kepler on the New Star: De stella nova, Chapters 7-9 Astrology on Trial: Kepler, Pico and the Preservation of the Aspects