You are right to point out that monism is the better term for what I am talking about - thank you. Stoicism was only one of the many philosophies that expressed monism, but it is the link between stoicism - which is so strong in Hellenistic astrology, and Christianity that I think needs to be accepted (although I am not by any means claiming that astrology is a 'Christian teaching'! One of the reasons why I like the philosophy of astrology so much is because it is a place where many different faiths can meet).

But just to clarify the point I am making, according to E.V. Arnold in The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Stoicism paved the way for Christianity because:

From the 3rd century onwards Stoicism was rapidly absorbed in Christianity. A youth nurtured in Stoic principles rebelled against the continuance of animal sacrifices, and submitted gladly to the authority of a ?wise man? visible in the flesh? It is greatly desired that modern Christian Theologians should be equipped with a better knowledge of the philosophy which more than any other was a nursing-mother to the church ...

Here we have an independent authority commenting on the continuation of the philosophical tradition that John Frawley denies. Misunderstanding of this is the reason why there is so much confusion over whether Firmicus was a pagan, or a stoic, or a Christian, when actually what he wrote could be claimed by all of these.

Deb wrote:To be honest, I thought the point that members would find most interesting, and which ought to be known, is that JF has revised his views on temperament.

You must be unpleasantly surprised then.

Deb wrote: This is monotheism is it not?

I'd say no. It is definitely speaking of a Creator of all things who we can call God. In Plato's Timaeus, for example, the Creator is the creator of the gods and only indirectly the creator of mankind.

Timaeus wrote:
Now, when all of them, both those who visibly appear in their revolutions as well as those other gods who are of a more retiring nature, had come into being, the creator of the universe addressed them in these words: "Gods, children of gods, who are my works, and of whom I am the artificer and father, my creations are indissoluble, if so I will. All that is bound may be undone, but only an evil being would wish to undo that which is harmonious and happy. Wherefore, since ye are but creatures, ye are not altogether immortal and indissoluble, but ye shall certainly not be dissolved, nor be liable to the fate of death, having in my will a greater and mightier bond than those with which ye were bound at the time of your birth. And now listen to my instructions:-Three tribes of mortal beings remain to be created-without them the universe will be incomplete, for it will not contain every kind of animal which it ought to contain, if it is to be perfect. On the other hand, if they were created by me and received life at my hands, they would be on an equality with the gods. In order then that they may be mortal, and that this universe may be truly universal, do ye, according to your natures, betake yourselves to the formation of animals, imitating the power which was shown by me in creating you. The part of them worthy of the name immortal, which is called divine and is the guiding principle of those who are willing to follow justice and you-of that divine part I will myself sow the seed, and having made a beginning, I will hand the work over to you. And do ye then interweave the mortal with the immortal, and make and beget living creatures, and give them food, and make them to grow, and receive them again in death."

Deb wrote: And it is the reason why the Christian Church has traditionally held a very tolerant attitude towards the philosophical basis of astrology. (Hence the reason why Popes could use astrology).

That's not quite true either. Popes could get away with it, of course; who's going to tell them otherwise? In that period, popes got away with having wives and children! If anything, it was the long legacy of nobles in the West that kept astrology alive, as they had their own considerably more martial powerbase, and to them astrology was something they could use to protect and expand their power.

Deb wrote: Whether we are compelled or impelled is really the deeper philosophical issue that had to be delicately handled by the church fathers.

And with the exception of Origen (and probably a few others), the considered opinion was that astrology didn't work, and if it did work, it was simply the result of demons the astrologer had working for them.

Deb wrote: I don't think the monotheistic issue ever caused any real problems, because Christianity borrowed just as heavily from Stoicism as astrology did.

Both Chrisitianity and astrology probably have more then a little Platonic philisophy as well, if not more then they have Stoicism. Hell, the Stoics were borrowing from Plato too; but then again, in those days, people were much freer with their borrowings that would be considered permissible or prudent now.

And with the exception of Origen (and probably a few others), the considered opinion was that astrology didn't work, and if it did work, it was simply the result of demons the astrologer had working for them.

I dont think that is quite correct. Even Augstine of Hippo who was probably the strongest critic of astrology in early Christianity criticises astrology not because he doesn't think it works but because it leaves the astrologer open to influence of evil spirits! He does use the argument of twins against astrology but I get the view its more to discourage people away from such practises.

In the medieval period Thomas Aquinas is willing to accept the validity of astrology for things like medicine and weather forecasting. However, he is opposed to its use for natal astrology as it denies the free will of the individual from his perspective.

In both the case of Augustine and Aquinas the concern seems more about the potential spiritual effects of relying on astrology rather than its actual effeciveness.

MarkC wrote: I dont think that is quite correct. Even Augstine of Hippo who was probably the strongest critic of astrology criticises astrology not because he doesn't think it works but because it leaves the astrologer open to influence of evil spirits! He does use the argument of twins but I get the view its more to discourage people away from such practises.

In the medieval period Thomas Aquinas is willing to accept the validity of astrology for things like medicine and weather forecasting. However, he is opposed to its use for natal astrology as it denies the free will of the individual from his perspective.

Thanks! I was thinking I missed something here, I just sometimes lose perspective on this particular topic.

But then we have stuff like this http://www.catholic.com/library/Astrology.asp

Thanks Gabe,

Very interesting quotes!

However, I think the main condemnation of astrology would be restricted to its use for natal or divinatory work. In this period astronomy and astrology were regarded as synonymous so it would have been seen as quite 'scientific' to use astrology in medicine or weather forecasting.

We see the last stage of the process of Christian ascendancy and the end of the classical world when the Neoplatonic Academy in Athens was closed by order of the Byzantine Emperor of Justinian in the year 529 AD. There is no doubt when identified with paganism astrologers could find themselves persecuted.

The spread of astrology from Byzantium to Persia has been interpreted by some historians as a response to the persecution of astrology in the Eastern Empire during the 6th century. However, I would imagine the problem was more pagan astrologers than astrology itself.

To adapt to the new Christian world astrologers had no choice but to adopt the religious language acceptable to the Christian world view. Increasingly this would not have been disingenuous on their part as most of these astrologers would be Christian themselves anyway.

Moreover I suspect things were somewhat more tolerant than these quotes imply. For example astrology continued to be practised in Byzantium right up until the fall of Constantinople in 1453. However, the conservatism of Byzantine astrology may well reflect the pressure of possible persecution it continually faced if astrologers appeared to clash with Christian teachings. From what I can establish astrology in Byzantium followed very closely the earlier astrology of the hellenistic world despite the changing religious world view of the Eastern Empire. This continuinty seems another argument undermining John Frawley's rigid demarcation of hellenistic and Christian astrology.

The lack of continuous state control in the west following the fall of the western empire with the barbarian invasions created a more conducive environment for astrology in the long term when classical learning was rediscovered. By the time these texts were rediscovered from the Islamic world the west was fully Christian and pagan ideas no longer posed a real threat to the supremacy of the Church the way they did to the Eastern Church in the late classical era. I assume that is why medieval theologians like Thomas Aquinas were less hostile to astrology than the earlier Church fathers. Hence we see Popes with their own astrologers and sometimes practising the art themselves. These facts seem to be conveniently forgotten by some modern religious writers within the Roman Catholic tradition.

About temperament:

Hah, I said for years that the example of Hitler was clearly a mistake, when compared to other things he wrote, but people kept looking for "deeper meaning"

yuzuru wrote:About temperament:

Hah, I said for years that the example of Hitler was clearly a mistake, when compared to other things he wrote, but people kept looking for "deeper meaning"

This confirms to me more and more that one should always think with his/her own brain
Margherita

Hello Kirk,

Sorry, I completely missed your earlier post.

You have taken issue with my statement below:

It is undeniable that astrology existed in an increasingly Christian Empire in both the East and West. However, this came long after ther astrological tradition had taken root.

In particular your comment:

Not particularly. It looks like Western astrology wasn't all that old during the lifetime of Christ. As far as historical eras go, Christianity and Western astrology ? the astrology we now know and use ?coincide quite closely.

I think you are confusing two things here. The life of Christ and the ascendancy of Christianity as the dominant faith in the Empire. The latter took literally hundreds of years to occur

Its clear all of the early astrologers were not Christian. In fact the whole astrological tradition of signs, houses, aspects, dignities, sect theory all developed before Christinaity became a significant social force in the Empire.

What religious beliefs we do find evidence of in early hellenistic astrology indicate these astrologers were mostly neo-platonists, neo-pythagoreans , hermeticists or followed various mystery cults. Focusing on Alexandria , the birthplace of hellenistic astrology there is no evidence of Christian beliefs whatsoever amongst the early hellenistic astrologers. Firmicus writing in the 4th century AD is the first astrological source that might have been Christian but there is no certainty on this point.

Its was not until the 4th century AD that Christianity began to emerge as the dominant faith of the Empire after Emperor Constantine began to officially favour Christianitty over pagan beliefs. There was a major counter-revolution to Constantine's Christianity with the pagan Emperor Julian. His death in 363AD marked the passing of the last pagan Roman Emperor. Julian had sought to reverse the pro-Christian policies of his grandfather Constantine and restore the the old pagan faith to the Empire. Julian was an enthusiast for astrology too. While we like to see the rise of Christianity as inevitable today the pagan counter-revolution of Julian might have succeeded if he had lived longer. However, as the winners write the history books Julian has been known ever since as 'Julian the Apostate'.

I highly recommend Adrian Murdoch's excellent book on Emperor Julian,
The Last Pagan: Julian the Apostate and the Death of the Ancient World.

Following Julian the Christian Emperor Theodosius I (Emperor from 379-395) was the last Emperor of both the Eastern and Western halves of the Empire and instituted various laws prescribing pagan religious practices. In particular, during 380-381 with the Edict of Thessalonica and the Council of Constantinople the Emperor Theodosius I enforced Catholic/Orthodox (Nicene) Christianity as the sole State religion, persecuting pagans and heretics.

Even in his time however there was still a very substantial pagan ruling class represented in the Senate who lobbied Theodosius I against his legal reforms. It is Theodosius I not Constantine, as is commonly assumed , who finally made Christianity the state religion of the entire Roman Empire.

I have just noticed that John Frawley will be delivering the Carter Memorial Lecture at the Astrological Association (UK) Conference this September.

The information on the AA website states: CARTER MEMORIAL LECTURE: 'The Western Tradition in Astrology:

What it is. What it is not. Why this matters'. John's conclusions are radically different from the usual view.

I think that is fair assessment. It sounds like John Frawley will now be sharing his idiosyncratic take on astrological history with the wider community of astrologers. If this thread is anything to go by it should be a lively evening.......