Skyscript Astrology Forum

This thread has gone from essential dignities to the persecution of Christians (or lack thereof), anything to do with Chrisitanity and astrology, to whether to have McDonalds or Taco Bells for lunch. We seem to have moved away from my original point to the stage where I am now considered to have been defending an entirely different view from the one I first intended.

My original point, and one I stand by, is not that Christians didn't attempt to rid the world of astrology, but that there is no hard evidence that astrologers were persecuted in the large numbers that history has suggested and that astrologers were not always targeted as vigorously as has been suggested.

The philosophical incompatibility between the two is a relatively new derivation of Christianity. We can't be fooled into thinking that the Christianity of today is basically the Christianity of the past. They are polls apart. Read some early Christian cosmology that talks about the heavenly spheres with the earth being surrounded by the primium mobile and the empyrean heaven. This sort of writing can be found in Christian cosmology well into the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The problem with astrology, according to the Christian Church prior to the Reformation, was not that they were incompatible but that they were so similar. Christianity developed from the same worldview as did astrology. They even encouraged this in the early centuries as a way of syncretising the beliefs of those they were attempting to convert. But there came a time when Christianity had to assert its uniqueness. Christianity took a very ancient story and made it literal. To emphasis the literalness of Christianity it had to be seen to be unique. Hence, any belief system that was similar had to be either squashed or subsumed. However, astrologers were often the least of their worries. Far bigger threats came from things such as Arianism and you were more likely to be persecuted for being an Arian than an astrologer.

Sue, the original point made that I questioned was:

?As much as many want to believe, the Christian Churc did not set out to destroy astrology. There were isolated times and cases where certain pockets of the Church tried to discredit it but at no time was there a serious push to punish astrologers or destroy it.?

Which has now been substantially modified to:

?My original point, and one I stand by, is not that Christians didn't attempt to rid the world of astrology, but that there is no hard evidence that astrologers were persecuted in the large numbers that history has suggested and that astrologers were not always targeted as vigorously as has been suggested.?

What are the ?large numbers? of astrologers referred to/suggested? Who?s done a quantitative-qualitative analysis on the number of astrologers persecuted of the total population persecuted at any given time?
To start with, this ?large? number is limited by education.

The Vatican released a figure of 138,000 people (Spain & Portugal) hauled before the inquisition on charges ? do we know what percentage of these were astrologers, charged for possessing astrological literature etc?

What we usually have at any given time are records of those foremost in their field, and the one?s already mentioned were directly impacted by the ?Church?. Including the Roman Inquisition, some of the latest figures suggest somewhere in the vicinity of 5,000 were convicted and killed ? to carry through the Vatican?s conservative percentage of 1% then that offers a toll of 500,000 people accused and persecuted, what percentage of this were astrologers requires deeper, more specific research.

However, for another perspective ? the Jewish Encylopedia [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... nquisition] cites 8,000 killed in a 15 year period during the Spanish Inquisition before looking further afield.

To suggest the ?Church?, as a prevailing power at certain times, did not follow through on it?s threats is little different to suggesting that government today will not follow through on terrorist legislation it enacts. Rules are not written, boundaries not set by upper echelons of certain hierarchies without a purpose that?s also acted upon.

?The philosophical incompatibility between the two is a relatively new derivation of Christianity.?

Relatively new? I?m not sure what?s meant by this ? last century or two? Philosophical incompatibility commenced when one group ? in this instance you raised the Christian Church (for which I turned to the Church in Rome as an example) interpreted and owned a universal truth and attempted to impose that interpretation onto the masses, followed by persecution of those who through their study and practice of astrology etc were seen as a threat to its interpretation. Philosophic incompatibility was there from the start.
Universal truth is not ?owned? by any one organization etc ? it?s universal (all-inclusive). Ownership is exclusive ? it excludes.

?The problem with astrology, according to the Christian Church prior to the Reformation, was not that they were incompatible but that they were so similar. ?

According to the Christian Church? Source? Are we discussing the same ?Church??
As Andrew mentioned, along with the examples he provided: ??there is not a single ecumenical council (either Eastern or Western), nor an episcopal statement, nor a papal magisterial decree, nor an officially sanctioned and approved theological doctrine, which in any way approves or supports the tenets of astrology,??

?Hence, any belief system that was similar had to be either squashed or subsumed.?

Copernicus? systematically developed belief was not ?similar?. It put forward a fundamentally ?new? order. Astrologers were persecuted etc for adhering to this system of belief. Around 1700 years earlier, Aristarchus of Samos was said to face accusations of impiety for the same systematically developed belief, as were other followers of this particular belief system along the way.

The numbers persecuted at any one time are inconclusive ? if it includes ?large numbers? of astrologers, then that large number?s viewed in the context of the total number of astrologers at any one time/place. Do we have that sort of information? What wasn?t inconclusive was the ?Church?s? assertion of proprietary over 'truth'. It was exclusive & final.

?Far bigger threats came from things such as Arianism and you were more likely to be persecuted for being an Arian than an astrologer.?

Leaping back to 4th century? Arius a Christian theologian who?s systematically developed belief was dubbed heresy, not unlike Copernicus?.
What was the system studied that led to his belief?
A conflict over symbolic (astrological) interpretation of the relationships within the Holy Trinity ... 9th(Sag), 1st (Aries) & 5th (Leo) as an example of one trinity residing within the whole (or ?holy?) goings on.
And, in addition to the primary disputes, some contended Jesus became divine through exaltation (the Sun's [son's] exaltation in Aries. From another pov, Capricorn, the sign he was appointed leading/directing in the Piscean age, Saturn as ruler of Capricorn is exalted in Libra ? eg. exalted leader in political debate, the political debate of the times being largely about 'God') ? an echo of the battle between torches (fire/inspiration) and swords (air/words).

So if 'Arianism' was a system of belief developed upon astrological study, how can one separate the two?
Unless of course Arius, as a theologian, was not well versed in the art/science of astrology and didn?t attempt to divine the workings of 'God' through studying the cosmos.
One set of astrological interpretations vs another, which has led to the persecution and death of astrologers who lost the debate ? but they?re not astrologers, they?re priests?
And if they used astrology to practice medicine instead ? it would be one medical opinion versus another, but they?re not astrologers, they?re doctors?
If astrology is what largely informs and directs the practice should it be overlooked or discounted as not being astrology, or the person practicing it in this way not an astrologer but something else?
During certain times it was safer this way, as the proprietary nature of some establishments prohibited a direct line to ?God? ? forced to go through them, do it their way or else.
Truth, if it?s truly universal, is not 'owned' it's recognised, but interpretations are attributed ownership.

Hi Andrew,

Was this:

Is astrology contrary to Christianity??

In relation to the quote I grabbed from a reference and commented on, ie:

?It was the Church alone that Christ commissioned to guard the deposit of faith and to decide the true meaning and interpretation of the devine pronouncements.? Astrology runs contrary to this ? in origins, philosophy and practice.

I don?t believe astrology runs contrary to Christianity (astrology is all-inclusive) but I do think Christianity has run contrary to astrology at times (the exclusive divisions within Christianity which established proprietary rights and excluded ? but this of course not just the sole [soul?sol?] domain of Christianity!)

Andrew:

"Our Canon law prohibits people from believing in astrology. In fact, Canon 36 of Laodecia in 369, casts out of the Church people who make, sell, buy or wear the zodiac signs."

I think that should mean ?images of the zodiac signs? don?t you? One has to be especially careful with images.

Do you think the title of the thread is appropriate? If so by all means suggest another. I agree the subject matter is too broad, and it would help to know if we are meant to be talking about a particular church or period of history. I don't see how opinions on Lilly are relevant here - it's best to start a new thread if you want to develop a different discussion.

TS:

Including the Roman Inquisition, some of the latest figures suggest somewhere in the vicinity of 5,000 were convicted and killed ? to carry through the Vatican?s conservative percentage of 1% then that offers a toll of 500,000 people accused and persecuted, what percentage of this were astrologers requires deeper, more specific research.

But it would be meaningless research because it wouldn?t show that they were persecuted because of their astrological beliefs. You could research how many of them were fishermen, but that wouldn?t mean they were persecuted for fishing.

Copernicus? systematically developed belief was not ?similar?. It put forward a fundamentally ?new? order. Astrologers were persecuted etc for adhering to this system of belief.

So were scholars who were not astrologers, so again this doesn?t show that there was an intention to persecute astrologers for being astrologers.

Around 1700 years earlier, Aristarchus of Samos was said to face accusations of impiety for the same systematically developed belief, as were other followers of this particular belief system along the way.

We don?t know if there was any action or verdict on the charge, but we know he was charged with impiety for ?supposing heaven to remain at rest and the Earth to revolve in an oblique circle, while it rotates, at the same time, about its own axis?. If anything this was for not thinking like an astrologer of that time.

Arius was a Christian theologian who taught that the Son of God was not eternal ? his heresy was being a Christian who didn?t think like the rest of the Christian Church.

No one would suggest that the Chuch (any Church) hesitated to persecute or prosecute those who stood in its way, but that is different from claiming that it actively punished astrologers just for being astrologers.

Including the Roman Inquisition, some of the latest figures suggest somewhere in the vicinity of 5,000 were convicted and killed ? to carry through the Vatican?s conservative percentage of 1% then that offers a toll of 500,000 people accused and persecuted, what percentage of this were astrologers requires deeper, more specific research.

These figures are completely meaningless. This is the sort of thinking that leads to unsubstantiated claims. You cannot take a figure and assume that a certain percentage of those persecuted by the Inquisition must be astrologers without first establishing that astrologers were persecuted. There is no such proof that they were. And Deb makes a very good point that, even if some astrologers were persecuted, you could not be sure they were persecuted for their astrological beliefs.

There has already been quite a substantial amount of research done specifically on the position of astrologers during such times as the Inquisition and the evidence suggests that very few astrologers were killed or even persecuted. There is quite a bit of evidence in regard to others being persecuted for being heretics but virtually none for astrologers. In fact, most of the evidence points to astrologers and astrology being ignored. Even those who were killed were usually not killed for their astrology. Cecco d'Ascoli was not killed because of his astrology. Some historians, Lynn Thorndike for example, say that there is no evidence for astrologers being killed in the fourteenth century other than Cecco - that this was a one off. He, and others, argue at great length as to why Cecco was not killed because of his astrological beliefs. This was an excuse.

Thorndike made it his life's work to research these things and spent many years going through manuscripts all over the world. He looked at as much evidence as he could and came to the conclusion that none of the evidence supported the belief that astrologers were persecuted by the Christian Church. Historians of the Inquisition, for example Henry Charles Lea, say that astrology was largely left alone. To quote from the third volume of his three volume set on the Inquisition 'It is observable that astrology is not included as a forbidden practice in the inquisitorial formulas of interrogation during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.' He gives examples such as the fact that astrology does not appear for condemnation in the Articles of the University of Paris in 1398 or no astrology book was prohibited in the great list of books prohibited by the Inquisitor and Bishop of Paris in 1290.

One could argue that just because there is no evidence of persecution it doesn't mean it didn't happen. This may be true. However, there is no possibility of being sure it happened without the evidence to support it. There is very little evidence to support the belief that astrologers were persecuted at all other than in isolated incidents, let alone to the extent that has often been suggested. Unless evidence is found supporting the claim we cannot justifiable continue to suggest otherwise.

I think Astrology was attacked more by collateral damage than direct assault. When you go out of your way to destroy knowledge, you are definitely going to hit astrology with the collateral damage. When passing along knowledge is labor intensive and destroying it as simple as lighting a fire, you are going to get collateral damage. I think that the church was happy about the damage, and encouraged the disintegration of knowledge in an effort to gain power, but I dont think it was an intentional hit, because Mystics and astrologers are such a small part of the population that to attack them is unlikely to cause significant social upheaval. they are more likely to be attacked for things other than the practice of astrology(how many witches were astrologers? how many heretics (galileo)? etc.). Also I think that its a mute point. Whether or not it was the intent of the early church to cause damage to Astrologers and Astrology, they caused it. In the degradation of education and the destruction of documents they caused damage we have yet to recover from. I find it Ironic that the church claims to have been the protector of Knowledge through out the dark ages, when they were the root cause of the dark ages. It was the unwashed zealots of early christendom that burned the libraries, that eschewed education, that murdered scholars, That squashed any questions of the catechism, sending knowledge into darkness. It seems rather obvious that for whatever reason education broke down, without advanced mathmatics, astrology becomes mute. The church very notably saved the education it wanted to pass along... thankfully other scholars managed to keep some info hidden from them and people managed to escape beyond the control of the church where other knowledge was not silenced.

my opinions, others may vary...
Granny

?Do you think the title of the thread is appropriate??

Well, it was originally about whether or not the Christian Church ?set out to destroy astrology? and ?punish astrologers? ? not whether Christianity was/is contrary to Astrology (which I think is a different topic).

?But astrology as a natural philosophy wasn?t controversial ??

Professing Naturalism, Rationalism etc was Aspostasy a Fide, or Perfidiae. In the Middle Ages both civil and canon law classed Apostates with Heretics.

"But it would be meaningless research because it wouldn?t show that they were persecuted because of their astrological beliefs."

Why wouldn?t it show what they were persecuted for?
The Vatican has at least 138,000 trial summaries (for Spain & Portugal) ? those trial summaries showing what people were charged and persecuted for.

I borrowed the Vatican?s 1% ratio (could have used it?s 5.7% ratio for Portugal instead) which simply suggests that for the 5,000 killed there were some 500,000 charged/persecuted and therefore potentially 500,000 trial summaries to be looked for and researched.
Between 1481 to 1826, 464 ?autos da fe? took place, 6,448 of whom the names and fates can be obtained.

Are you suggesting examination of trial summaries (both secular and church) would not reveal who was charged and persecuted and for what?

If we wanted to establish whether something had a "large" impact or not on a particular segment of society, then we usually compare the number of people impacted within that segment to the total number of people who represent that segment to determine how ?large? the proportion was ? we don?t include information unrelated.

If we're talking about astrology, then the place to start would be comparing the number of astrologers charged for breaking what constituted astrological prohibitions in comparison to the total population of astrologers at that time to determine whether the number persecuted was 'large' or not.

Also requires defining what constituted astrology and what it was to be an astrologer during those times.

So far, around 12 astrologers have been identified in this thread as being persecuted for their astrology during a certain period. Is that a large or small proportion? And while the period mainly flagged has been the Inquisition, the Inquisition comprised the Medieval Inquisition, the Spanish Inquisition, the Portuguese Inquisition & the Roman Inquisition ? each one building upon the previous.

Astrological beliefs are simply beliefs arrived at through the study of astrology.
If, as a result of studying astrology someone arrived at a belief/theory contrary to the prevailing view and promoted that belief - that was heresy (apostasy/deism etc). The risk increasing if one was both an astrologer and not of the faith being promoted. Beliefs are formulated and promulgated through study materials (books) amongst other things ? and astrology books were prohibited.

"You could research how many of them were fishermen, but that wouldn?t mean they were persecuted for fishing."

If the prohibition was 'Fishing', then yes fisherman would get charged and persecuted for ?Fishing? ? they?d be the first port of call scrutinized. And if the intention was to eradicate fishing, it wouldn?t be just fishermen persecuted, but those who also taught fishing, wrote/published books on it, were in possession of fishing paraphernalia (bait, tackle etc) and so forth? such a prohibition would threaten people ranging from professional fishermen to fishing hobbyists to marine scientists through to those who simply bought fish (clientele) etc.
So ?fishing? and all that related to fishing would go into decline as a result.

To be accused of a crime marks the start of being persecuted ? not whether someone?s finally found guilty or not. And if trial summaries revealed charges unrelated to a Fishing Prohibition then those summaries wouldn?t get included in the research specifically to do with fishing.

A prohibition - be it fishing, or astrology ? also includes specific charges in relation to the nature and level of the crime which includes intent, guilt by association, possession, participation etc ? and insofar as the Inquisition was concerned, also charged posthumously.

Sue changed her position from the original to saying history had incorrectly suggested large numbers of astrologers were persecuted. I was interested in the source for this generalisation and who?d done the hard yards in terms of qualitative-quantitative research for the basis of such a statement to be made - either way. What was this large number?

"So were scholars who were not astrologers, so again this doesn?t show that there was an intention to persecute astrologers for being astrologers."

What shows the intention was the prohibition against astrology, the banning of astrology books etc.

I?m not sure what you?re driving at by comparing scholars who weren?t astrologers to people who were astrologers.
What have scholars unrelated to astrology got to do with identifying those who were persecuted for astrology during a time astrology was prohibited?
Except perhaps for the purpose of identifying those scholars who weren?t astrologers so as to exclude them from specific research.

"If anything this was for not thinking like an astrologer of that time."

Okay, so he was charged for thinking like a progressive astrologer who through studying astrology advanced an astrological view which ran contrary to the prevailing view. But not for his astrology?

"Arius was a Christian theologian who taught that the Son of God was not eternal ..."

And how did he arrive at such teachings - via the study of what?

Yes, ?not eternal? in that the son, Jesus Christ, who was considered a divine being but not always a contemporary of God the Father, not equal ? that the Son was a ?creature? (created being) of God the Father who?d always existed, before time began etc.
Socrates Scholasticus on Arius: "?If,? said he, ?the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing.?"

A view which has been adopted by certain groups within Christianity.
Whereas the Nicene creed described the relationship between the Father and Son as being of ?the same substance? or ?one being? ? the equality and co-eternity of the Trinity. The ?substance? the same in the astrological trinity mentioned earlier ? fire.

In the Talmudic tradition of astrology, the 12 constellations represent the 12 tribes with the standards of the tribes corresponding to the zodiacal signs of the constellations (the 12 constellations also corresponding to the 12 months beginning with Nisan, and the 12 organs of the body). And the Talmud etc was banned and burned.

"but that is different from claiming that it actively punished astrologers just for being astrologers."

How does an authority bring out a specific prohibition against astrology and enforce it - but not punish astrologers? Appears there's a need to define what constituted astrology and what it was to be an astrologer during those times.

If people are accused of breaking the law and persecuted, made to serve penance or cast into jail etc for making astrological predictions, developing/advancing a theory based on studying astrology, writing/publishing/possessing/promoting astrological texts, teaching astrology, medical prognosis using astrology etc then that?s being punished for being an astrologer, and doing what astrologers do. And such a prohibition doesn?t just catch astrologer?s in it?s net, it also catches those seeking astrological advice etc. As a result, astrology went into decline, as would fishing or anything else ? but not eradicated.

Sue wrote:

?without first establishing that astrologers were persecuted. There is no such proof that they were.?

We?ve already raised about 12 that were persecuted. No proof? Trial summaries as well as secular summaries, the prohibition (bull), banning of books as well as other historical resources, eg. universities etc. Or did you have some other sort of proof in mind?

?there is no evidence for astrologers being killed in the fourteenth century other than Cecco - that this was a one off.?

That?s a pretty broad generalization to make. No astrologer killed in the 14th century other than Cecco (by the Inquisition)? Juda ibn Verga perhaps? Or Petrus de Apono - nope sorry, he was persecuted, died during second trial and found guilty after death.

?or no astrology book was prohibited in the great list of books prohibited by the Inquisitor and Bishop of Paris in 1290.?

Inquisitor General Gaspar Quiroga's two-volume work, Index et Catalogus Librorum prohibitorum and Index Liborum Expurgatorum, Madrid, 1583-1584 (held at the University of Notre Dame), was the first index reflecting the Spanish Inquisition's own listings ? including criteria for prohibition: e.g., all books by Moors and Jews, books on Astrology, as well as all vernacular bibles.
http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/exhibits/in ... anned.html

Books from Bacon to Newton were on the ?Church?s? forbidden list ? as well as those mentioned previously.

In 1398 the Faculty of Theology of the University of Paris determined ?sorcery? was a form of heresy. Sorcery had previously been considered a problem, and Inquisitors previously dealing with sorcery if it was clearly related to heresy. From this point forward there was no distinction ? sorcery was heresy. Some of Bernado Gui's questions on The Practice of Sorcery:
? The sorcerer, soothsayer, or demon-worshipper should be asked the nature and number of the spells, divinations, or invocations he knows and who instructed him in them.
? Also, one must stoop to details and consider the status and condition of the persons involved: the interrogation should not be the same for all and should differ for men and women. The accused may be asked the following questions: What does he know? What has he learned?
? Also, in connection with lost or damned souls.
? Also, in connection with thieves, to be unmasked.
? Also, in connection with marital discord.
? Also, in connection with making the sterile fruitful.
? Also, in connection with the prediction of events to come.
(Practica Inquisitionis Heretice Pravitatis, Bernardo Gui. trans. Peter Amann, in The Medieval World and its Transformations, ed. Gerald M. Straka, Vol.II of Western Society: Institutions and Ideals. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967)

What was judicial astrology concerned and in connection with?

?Cecco d'Ascoli was not killed because of his astrology.?

If not for his astrology, then what? And if you?re going to cite politics, then what was the political reason please?

From Bologna University, Department of Astronomy:

?Around 1220 he (the Emperor) ordered that three years of "logica" should precede medical studies and we find that, before taking orders in 1230, the Magister Moneta da Cremona (XII cen.-c.1260) read Aristotle to the "artisti", i.e. medical, students of Bologna. Apart from the law school, we know that the teaching of medicine also began quite early in Bologna. The medical school ? already flourishing at the beginning of the XIIIth century as witness the bull of Honorius III which forbade the clergy undertaking this kind of study.

?... at about the same time as teacher Moneta was making his comments on Aristotle, we find in Bologna ? the most famous astrologer of his time: Guido Bonatti (beginning XIII cen.- c.1296). We do in fact know that in 1233 he was engaged in a public debate in Bologna with friar Giovanni Schio da Vicenza (?-1260), a vigorous opponent of astrology.

?The first lecturer in astronomy at the University of Bologna that we have a record of is Bartolomeus de Parma (XIII-XIV cen.) who began teaching somewhere around 1280 and was still teaching in 1297. In that year he did in fact write a Tractatus Spherae intended to combine the classical excursus of Sacrobosco with more "physical" (in the aristotelian sense) and astrological considerations. ... Given the evidence offered ? before 1297, the teaching of the mathematical part of astronomy was based on the treatise of Alfraganus and that therefore the treatise of Sacrobosco had only recently come into use.

?This is confirmed by the fact that we have at least one other early comment on Sacrobosco written for the students of Bologna, the comment by Cecco d?Ascoli (1285?-1327) in 1322.

?A different attitude comes to the fore at the beginning of the next century. Both Pietro d?Abano (1250-1315), the famous Paduan professor of Medicine, and Francesco Stabili, better known as Cecco d?Ascoli, displayed enormous interest for what would be called "medical astrology".

?Cecco d?Ascoli did in fact write: "It is indispensable that the physician knows and examines the course of the stars and their conjunctions so that he has an idea of the various diseases and the critical days"; adding also the saying attributed to Hipparcus: "a physician without astrology is like an eye that cannot see".

?Medical astrology involved the use of horoscopes and this called for a more detailed understanding of mathematical astronomy than had been the case when the discipline had been broached for its cultural content, within the context of the liberal arts. ... All of this is confirmed by a comment on the Theorica Planetarum of Gerard of Sabbionetta (XIII cen.) written in 1318 by Thadeus de Parma for the students of Medicine in Bologna.

?In 1289, for the first time, the municipality provided a salary for the teaching of Medicine. In 1334 this privilege was extended to lecturing in Astrology which thus became the ninth salaried discipline at the university; ?In 1379 Blasius de Parma, better known as Biagio Pelacani (?-1416), was appointed lecturer in both Philosophy and Astrology, confirming the close ties between lecturing in astrology and medical studies.

?The first thing to note about this programme, clearly addressed to the students of Medicine, is the coordination between the mathematics, astronomy-mathematics and astrology parts. ? the main points of the programme are based on the teachings of Cecco d?Ascoli.

?Between Bartholomeus de Parma?s commentary on Sacrobosco and this latter?s (d'Ascoli's) there are not only profound differences in attitude towards astrology that have already been mentioned and continuous cross-references to Arabic astrological texts, but also signs of the courses being organized over a period of years, as witness the declared intention of continuing the course, "Si Deo placuerit" (God willing), by commenting Ptolemy?s Centiloquium. God was most probably not pleased since poor Cecco d?Ascoli was soon after burnt at the stake in Florence and no trace remains of the commentary promised on the Centiloquium.

?The astrological part came to a close with the treatise De Urina non Visa written in Marseilles in 1219 by Guilielmus Anglicus. This treatise, condemned to being burnt as a work of black magic by the Sorbonne in 1494, explained how the horoscope could be used, strange though it may seem to us today, to enable the physician to assess the quality of a patient?s urine.

?With astrology?s decline, astronomy began once more to be considered in its own right, for its contribution to human learning, as a "liberal art" and not just a technical instrument in the service of medicine. It did of course take some time for this attitude to win out ? many astronomers had to navigate carefully between the two, even after judicious astrology had been officially condemned by the Roman Church in 1586, with a papal bull of Sixtus V (1520-1590).?

The Academy and the Institute of Science were inaugurated on 13 March 1714 (subject to the consent as well as financial commitment of the Holy See).

?The working programme of the Institute - and hence of the Specola - banned all theoretical research for obvious reasons of coexistence with the University, but, since those attending the one also attended the other, the division was not always that clear. Much more drastic was the ban on all metaphysical subjects ? Limiting science to a carefully prescribed field did however avoid any dangerous clash with theology and in many ways made it actually supportive of Church doctrine.?
http://boas3.bo.astro.it/dip/Museum/MuseumHome.html

The Church's position was very clear in relation to medical astrology, judicial astrology, astrological theory (metaphysical, alchemical, naturalism etc) - plenty of evidence and plenty of evidence to show the enforcing of its position.
And part of this question on astrologers being persecuted etc includes physicians accused of ?sorcery? or ?heresy? because of their ?medical astrology?, the study of which the clergy were banned from taking according to that earlier bull.

The evidence is there ? just depends whether it gets looked at or not.

So far, around 12 astrologers have been identified in this thread as being persecuted for their astrology during a certain period. Is that a large or small proportion? And while the period mainly flagged has been the Inquisition, the Inquisition comprised the Medieval Inquisition, the Spanish Inquisition, the Portuguese Inquisition & the Roman Inquisition ? each one building upon the previous.

I realise my maths is a bit poor and my memory is even worse but I do not recall that we have identified 12 astrologers as being persecuted for their astrology. You have mentioned several people, many of whom were not astrologers and others who were not persecuted. You cannot include them in a list of persecuted astrologers. Bruno, for example, was not an astrologer and he did not write on astrology except in relation to astrological images. He was an expert in mnemonics and used the astrological images as a way of learning this art as did many before him. He obviously approved of astrology but he was not an astrologer. He got almost all of his ideas about astrological images straight from Agrippa. There is unfortunately no evidence that tells us exactly what Bruno was charged with that lead to his death. He was convicted of eight charges of heresy. There is no record of what these charges were as his trial records are missing but there is a long list of accusations against him from which these final eight charges were taken. These include denouncing the virgin birth as impossible, the fallacy of transubstantiation and, the most serious, claiming that there are other universes with beings similar to us. Nothing in the long list of accusations had anything to do with astrology. Even if he was an astrologer, which he wasn?t, it was not his astrology that sent him to the stake.

Same goes for Galileo. He did do some astrology from time to time but spent just as much time arguing against astrology. He was not particularly known for his astrology and it was not his astrology that saw him under house arrest. It was for saying that the Sun was the centre of the universe, which was against what had been written in Genesis. He was finally pardoned in 1992, the same year that Pope JP II again reiterated the Catholic Church stance against astrology. If his charges were to do with astrology he would never have been pardoned because astrology is still against Church doctrine.

Also, Ficino was never persecuted for his astrological writings or practises. He didn?t come close. He even corresponded with the pope about astrology from time to time. The only real danger was when Savonarola was briefly leader of Florence and he despised astrology. Even then, Ficino was never singled out. And it was Savonarola who met his fate at the stake, not Ficino. Like Galileo, astrology was a very small part of what Ficino wrote about. His major interest was on the immortality of the soul and it was his writings on this topic that were made into official Church doctrine in about 1504 or somewhere around there. Not only was he not persecuted but he was one of the most well respected theologians of the time.

As for Cardano, he was reportedly put under house arrest for publishing the geniture of Christ. However, several others, including Pierre d?Ailly, had done this before without consequence. But one of Cardano?s other charges was the book he wrote in praise of Nero. This got him into trouble more than the chart of Christ did. Cardano was seriously disliked and had many enemies. This is no reason to put him under house arrest but it certainly contributed. But even when he was under house arrest, all reports suggest that he was treated leniently. His negative reputation became even worse after his son was executed for murdering his wife. He was always trying to find ways to enhance his reputation, which was largely as a mathematician, not as an astrologer. There is evidence to suggest that Cardano deliberately set himself up to be arrested, with the help of his other son, who himself had an appalling reputation, in order to contribute to his fame. There is also the story (could be apocryphal of course) that, after predicting the date of his own death, he committed suicide on that date so that his reputation after death would be enhanced. He ended up receiving a lifetime annuity from Pope Gregory XIII, hardly a sign of persecution.

Sue changed her position from the original to saying history had incorrectly suggested large numbers of astrologers were persecuted. I was interested in the source for this generalisation and who?d done the hard yards in terms of qualitative-quantitative research for the basis of such a statement to be made - either way. What was this large number?

I have not changed my position. I have merely expanded it. My original comment was that, despite the issuing of bulls etc., the Christian Church did not make an all out assault on astrology. I still stand by that. I also did not say that history had incorrectly suggested persecution but that there is a general perception that this is true. In fact, most history books that talk about this topic argue that there is very little evidence to support the idea that astrologers were persecuted. Evidence for persecution of astrologers is almost non existent. In most books on the Inquisition, astrology is either never mentioned or there is a throwaway comment that astrologers were not subject to persecution. Henry Lea has a bit more to say, all of it arguing that astrology and astrologers escaped persecution. If anyone was going to mention persecution of astrologers during the Inquisitions (any of them) it would have been Michael Baigent. However, in his book on the Inquisition, the only time he mentions astrology is when he mentions Agrippa and Paracelsus in passing. And, as I have said before, Lynn Thorndike, who spent about 40 years and wrote an eight volume set researching this stuff says that the evidence suggests Cecco was the only astrologer in the 14th century who was burned at the stake. Thorndike has read an extraordinary amount of original manuscripts from all over the world, the full list of which is available in his History of Magic and Experimental Science. If the evidence was there he would have found it. He is one person who has done the qualitative-quantitative study that you insist on. He is not the only one but he is probably the most well known.

You cannot argue that the Papal Bulls against astrology prove persecution. You have to look closely at the reasons behind this. Urban VIII, for example, reissued the bull partly because an astrologer predicted his death. This no doubt pissed him off even though he often used astrology himself to predict the deaths of others. He would have the charts of the Cardinals of Rome drawn up and would openly predict their deaths. But when his own death was predicted, he reacted by reinforcing the bull and then calling on an astrologer (Campanella) to perform some astrological magic in the nature of Ficino?s work to ward off death. There is a substantial amount of written evidence of these activities with Campanella in the diplomatic reports for Rome around that time.

Sue wrote:

?without first establishing that astrologers were persecuted. There is no such proof that they were.?

TS wrote:

We?ve already raised about 12 that were persecuted. No proof? Trial summaries as well as secular summaries, the prohibition (bull), banning of books as well as other historical resources, eg. universities etc. Or did you have some other sort of proof in mind?

No, we haven?t raised 12 astrologers who were persecuted. You?ve raised about 12 and I have disagreed with almost all of them. You have ignored any evidence that does not support your own argument. Your argument is not supported by the facts. The bulls, the banning of books etc. is still not proof that astrologers were actively persecuted. There were hundreds of books banned. Most of them had nothing to do with astrology. There were also hundreds of bulls. Again, most of them had nothing to do with astrology. When they were about astrology, the bans were largely ignored. There is no evidence that the banning of books had an influence on the availability of astrology books. Some scholars argue that there was a paucity of astrology books during the period from around the 6th century to the 11th or 12th century but this had nothing to do with the banning of books.

You keep mentioning that the proof will be in places such as the records of the Inquisition. You are right that the records show mostly what people were charged with. Many scholars have gone through those records of trial summaries. The proof that you insist is there somewhere is not there. The Inquisitions were horrible events in the history of the Church and the Church has a lot to answer for. Persecution, often leading to murder of so-called heretics was devastating and no-one would ever argue otherwise. The persecution of Bruno and his subsequent murder was tragic. But to suggest that it was related to astrology and that astrologers were part of this persecution is misleading and inaccurate. I am not interested in hyperbole or apologist astrology. I am only interested in understanding the truth, whatever that truth turns out to be. I have not said that astrologers were not persecuted, although I seriously believe this to be the case. What I have said is that there is no evidence to support the position that they were persecuted. This is not a case of the evidence being there but it hasn?t been investigated yet as you keep alluding to. This is a case of the evidence being closely examined by very experienced scholars who have concluded that there is no support for the belief that astrologers were persecuted.

Sue,

I?ll suggest it again ? define what it was to be an astrologer and define astrology.
And while cycling back in time, define persecution and define what constituted heresy etc.

?The bulls, the banning of books etc. is still not proof that astrologers were actively persecuted.?

? so if today?s authorities prohibited astrology, marched into your home uninvited and confiscated and burned your astrology books as an act of faith, it would be simply a bad dream? You?d feel free to practice as you wished once they?d departed (if you were fortunate enough to be left behind)? Or maybe you?d relocate?

?I do not recall that we have identified 12 astrologers as being persecuted for their astrology.?

Re-read the thread.

?I have not changed my position. I have merely expanded it.?

This:

?As much as many want to believe, the Christian Churc did not set out to destroy astrology. There were isolated times and cases where certain pockets of the Church tried to discredit it but at no time was there a serious push to punish astrologers or destroy it.?

is a very different position to this:

?My original point, and one I stand by, is not that Christians didn't attempt to rid the world of astrology, but that there is no hard evidence that astrologers were persecuted in the large numbers that history has suggested and that astrologers were not always targeted as vigorously as has been suggested.?

It?s poles apart - not mere expansion.

And how?s this:

?Sue ? saying history had incorrectly suggested large numbers of astrologers were persecuted.?

different to this:

?there is no hard evidence that astrologers were persecuted in the large numbers that history has suggested?

The differential being ?no hard evidence??
Without ?hard evidence? what does this make ?the large numbers that history has suggested??
What are these large numbers suggested by history? According to who?s history? Define ?hard evidence?.
Simple questions have been raised throughout this thread for consideration and the sake of clarity which have been fudged, side-stepped or ignored. And if the answers to these questions are unknown, then it can reveal bias, misconstruing the facts and shaky conclusions.

Lacking substantiation, it can only leave someone to conclude these general opinions lack the ?hard evidence? repeatedly referred to and they're based upon something else. Now it?s ?general perceptions? ? who?s general perceptions by the way? The nameless/faceless minority/majority? How does this help in the search for truth?

From this side of the screen it appears your generalizations have run rampant, changing tacks into the mists when substantiation has been asked for, or when they?ve been contradicted by evidence that?s openly available in the public domain.
That?s okay. I?ve simply asked for you to clarify your position in the search for ?truth? and to be open to new discoveries. There was a time the name ?Goliath? was also thought to be some sort of myth due to lack of ?hard evidence? too.

But here?s a question for your consideration, when one adopts a public position in ?generalizing? ? what position encourages the search for 'truth':
a) to generally diminish what occurred citing lack of hard evidence (while openly ignoring evidence presented that contradicts certain assertions); or b) to generally illuminate the magnitude of what occurred from a variety of sources?

?My original comment was that, despite the issuing of bulls etc., the Christian Church did not make an all out assault on astrology.?

No it wasn?t, and we can shift positions again ? but no matter how many times you change tacks still arrive back at the original assertion that was questioned.

?Thorndike has read an extraordinary amount of original manuscripts from all over the world, the full list of which is available in his History of Magic and Experimental Science. If the evidence was there he would have found it.?

1923? Was Gaspar Quiroga?s work which included the specific banning of astrology books (part of the Inquisition Collection purchased by the University of Notre Dame in 1996 from private collector) considered in what you cited?

The examples you?ve given to support your opinion have been countered by ?hard evidence? ? links & references to a variety of sources.

?You cannot argue that the Papal Bulls against astrology prove persecution.?

So are you now suggesting the issuing of Papal Bulls specifically against astrology had no impact on the climate within which astrology was pursued & practiced? (Persecution is as much a climate as an act). As I mentioned earlier, the Bulls reveal intent. What was the intention of banning astrology?
And actions taken pursuant to and in accordance with the prohibition prove acts of persecution.

?Also, Ficino was never persecuted for his astrological writings or practises. He didn?t come close. ?

In 1489 Ficino was accused of magic before Pope Innocent VIII.

?What I have said is that there is no evidence to support the position that they were persecuted.?

Evidence disproves this opinion. And based on the evidence available I still disagree with this:

?As much as many want to believe, the Christian Churc did not set out to destroy astrology. There were isolated times and cases where certain pockets of the Church tried to discredit it but at no time was there a serious push to punish astrologers or destroy it.?

and it would appear from your change of position, so do you.

I also disagree with this opinion:

?But to suggest that it was related to astrology and that astrologers were part of this persecution is misleading and inaccurate.?

Of course it also related to astrology ? the documents that specifically prohibited astrology say so (otherwise they?d have written something else) ? and of course astrologers were persecuted, they were not exempt and living in some alternative reality.

But I do agree with this:

?The Inquisitions were horrible events in the history of the Church.?

TS,

I must admit, after reading your earlier statement ?so far, around 12 astrologers have been identified in this thread as being persecuted for their astrology during a certain period? I was loathe to comment further.

These 12 astrologers are ones you have identified, but you seem to have ignored the responses that argue the identification is not justified. I think Sue is right to suggest that we need to keep a more balanced view of things. The word ?truth? keeps getting brought up, but where we admit we don't know it, we should be a bit hesitant. Taking Cardan as an example, I can?t help thinking, if he were able to tell his own tale; would he be happy to think that the persecution he did suffer has been properly explained? After reading detailed biographies on this man, I think he would want to scream in frustration at the thought it was all just attributed to his astrology.

By his own admission he brought troubles on himself, and they started by the fact that he had a chip on his shoulder from his illegitimate birth. He felt that his blighted social status was used against him to prevent him receiving the proper respect and admiration that his self-proclaimed genius deserved.

Quotes from the St. Andrews website:

"Cardan was awarded his doctorate in medicine in 1525 and applied to join the College of Physicians in Milan, where his mother still lived. The College did not wish to admit him for, despite the respect he had gained as an exceptional student, he had a reputation as a difficult man, whose unconventional, uncompromising opinions were aggressively put forward with little tact or thought for the consequences. The discovery of Cardan's illegitimate birth gave the College a reason to reject his application.
?

He humiliated a fellow medical professor in front of his students by pointing out errors in his lectures. After a few years Cardan's colleagues tried to get the Senate to dismiss him, by spreading rumours that his lectures were practically unattended."


His early life was one long battle to get the respectful position he felt he deserved, despite the ?system? that stood in his way. He became a doubly motivated genius - brilliant, but also longing for revenge, and to be able to rise above the people who had once been able to hold him down. Which he did, and then gleefully poured public scorn and humiliation on many high-ranking people in an almost self-obsessive manner. Today, he would probably have been taken to task in a law suit over libel or slander, but one way or another Cardan made himself so insular and despised by a wide number of politically powerful people (inside and outside of the Church), that he had an influential circle of enemies just waiting for any opportunity to bring him down.

I don?t think the situation with his son made him unpopular, but it became a poignant reminder to him of how, at a time when he needed some powerful allies, his life was full of self-acquired enemies who were plotting to see his ?come-uppance?. This was his beloved son, and he believed that mitigating circumstances existed that would avoid the death penalty, and that he was in a race against time to get the support he needed to save his son?s life. He also felt that the real objective wasn?t to bring justice for his son?s actions, but to bring revenge upon him, and to make him suffer. After that, Cardan?s hatred towards his own enemies was even more dangerous, though he reported at the end of his life that he was satisfied to learn that all the men who plotted against him in this met their own deaths soon afterwards. To say that there was bitter personal enmity underlying all the events of his life is an understatement.

Nothing we say in this forum can do justice to Cardan?s life, but the charge of impiety in 1570 (for which he got 12 weeks house arrest), has never been fully understood.

Some people say that the publication of the Horoscope of Christ contributed to this, but some feel that it was actually one of the least impious things he did, because he was very careful in how he wrote it, to express the view that Christ was divine. The most stinging criticism he got at the time was literary ? that it wasn?t his ?own? work, just plagiarism of earlier astrologers who had done the same thing.

Some people feel the charge arose out of comments in another publication, where the Dominican brotherhood were described as ?rapacious wolves? who hunted down ?witches and despisers of God? not because of their crimes, but to gain access to their wealth. One charge was that he wrote a book on the mortality of the soul, which wasn?t officially published, but circulated privately to associates.

H.G. Watters writes ?Out of such a heap of self-accusation it would have been an easy task for some meddlesome enemy to gather up a plentiful selection of isolated facts which by artful combination might be so arranged as to justify a formal charge of impiety?.

But why should they do this? Because he had spent a lifetime infuriating the pope, and criticising and ridiculing, and actively working against the interests of a large number of important political and academic figures. This is what he said of himself:

This I recognise as unique and outstanding amongst my faults - the habit, which I persist in, of preferring to say above all things what I know to be displeasing to the ears of my hearers. I am aware of this, yet I keep it up wilfully, in no way ignorant of how many enemies it makes for me.

No one has ever suggested that the charge of impiety levied against Cardan was because he was an astrologer. He wrote widely and freely on astrology and cast personal horoscopes at will ? this never presented any sense of danger to him.

He was an astrologer, yes; but he was principally a mathematician and philosopher. He wrote many astrological works ? not one of these has ever been subject to the slightest suspicion of impiety or impropriety, with the exception of his published Horoscope of Christ which, at the most, is proposed as a possible contributing factor. He definitely felt himself that he was persecuted, but not because he was an astrologer ? initially because of the social status of his birth, and later because of the personal enemies he generated. We can be very sure that astrologers were numbered amongst the people doing the persecuting!

Even in his ?slap on the wrist? he was treated quite leniently according to contemporary standards. Again from St Andrews:

On his release Cardan went to Rome, where he received an unexpectedly warm reception. He was granted immediate membership of the College of Physicians and the Pope, who had now apparently forgiven Cardan, granted him a pension.

In this thread we have to be careful that the views aren?t getting so polarised that we lose touch with reason. But I cannot see how it is accurate to consider Cardan as someone who was persecuted on the basis of him being an astrologer, and the same applies to the others you have identified.

Hi Deb,

I see you?ve changed the title ? think the new one nails it!

?These 12 astrologers are ones you have identified, but you seem to have ignored the responses that argue the identification is not justified.?

No, this is not right. If you re-read what I?ve written you?ll find those responses arguing identification have been addressed with additional questions raised ? which remain unanswered. What has been ignored have been the questions and sources given in response to specific assertions made ? either that, or they've been dismissed as irrelevant.

I think it?s important the criteria for identification be considered. And hence the call for clarification on how astrology/astrologer is being defined.

Because if we?re applying the way astrology is currently defined in ?modern times? (ie. ?He was an astrologer, yes; but he was principally a mathematician and philosopher?) then it?s out of context with the times being referred to and skews the criteria.

It's reported he was primarily renowned in his own time for being a physician and astrologer.

Today we view the branches as separate streams primarily because of the Roman Church?s stance on the doctrine of the Sun, and the imposition of that stance which resulted in astrologers distancing themselves from astrology because it was a safer place to be.

Since then we?ve seen those divisions multiply, and at varying times attempt to gain credibility by undermining the others. An astrologer before these divisions occurred, and depending on which language one spoke, was a magus, sorcerer (chance/lots), mathematician, philosopher etc ? astronomy and astrology were one.

Astrology = interpreting the sanctity of science.

It involved learning the skills of interpretation (the word, the letter, the number, symbols); understanding ?sanctity? and science.
And we can?t apply modern definitions of ?science? to what it was back then ? back then it included metaphysics, theology, mathematics, geometry etc , all of which informed and were part of astrology.

But if you or Sue define astrology as something different (as this from Sue would suggest: ?Christianity developed from the same worldview as did astrology?) then it?s important we?re clear on that too.

I?m not sure what this means, ie "Christianity developed from the same worldview as did astrology?, but taking this statement at face value ? no, it didn?t.

Astrology was around long before Christianity (the vsn arising from the crucifixion of Jesus) ? and astrology primarily developed from observing the passage of the Moon, which was the closest 'planet' to earth and the fastest moving translator of light.

The months (which equaled the signs) commenced on the first sighting of the crescent Moon. And the first day of each month began at sunset. The first month was Nisan (March-April) - which was the first sign - and the New Year was 1st of Tishri (Sept-October) which was the 7th month and sign.

Moon = Sin. In Babylonia, Assyria, Arabia etc (areas where astrology originated) the Moon God was ?Sin? ? Lord of Wisdom. It was the stated objective of Christianity to eradicate ?Sin? and convert ?Sinners?. Christianity ? the age of the ?sword? (also granted status as the age of the fishes, where ?the big fish consumes the smaller, like what happens in the ocean?) was/is the age where the truth of ?words? were out of order, where ?s? obscured the truth of the ?word?.

To understand the qualities of the signs involves also understanding something of the calendrical orientation from which they originate, ie. the Moon. The primary orientation was to the cycles and phases of the Moon, before being annexed to Roman rule.
I think it?s understandable that people in the west have difficulty coming to grips with the signs ? because not only is it a hemispheric shift (west to east) it is also a calendrical shift and re-orientation which effectively is also cultural (that from solar to lunar). It involves a leap of faith if the primary orientation is solar, because if it's solar it leaps past the wisdom of the Moon.

The observational calendar based on the first sighting of the new crescent moon was in place in the Hebraic tradition until the Romans (solar calendar) destroyed the Temple in 70 CE, after which the doctrine of the Sun of the prevailing Roman rulers was incorporated and a luni-solar calendar adopted.

The Babylonians were already using a luni-solar calendar ? balance between the two ?lights? ? however, the luni-solar cycle still begins with the Moon.

The Roman solar calendar was reformed by Julius Caesar in 44BC ? the Julian Calendar. At the time of Jesus, the law of the Sun ruled (the solar calendar of the Romans), and the meaning and interpretation of the light of the Sun was the central focus of much debate. The Sun as father, the Sun as Son etc.
Julius Caesar, Julian Calendar and Jesus Christ (not Jesus the Man ? ?Christ? is his anointing by the roman rulers, which occurred after he was crucified by the rulers of that time) bears thinking about.

Christianity developed from a solar world view, and as the 2nd evolution of the solar principle ? the ?Son? ? it advocated solar views.

Astrology developed primarily from observing the Moon, and the Moon?s cycles and phases within the larger orbit of the Sun ? natural order, natural balance.

The origin of the initial source of light between astrology and Christianity is very different. One?s Moon. One?s Sun.

With astrology, there?s an inherent balance between ?left? (the Moon?s orbit in relation to the Sun) and ?right? (the cycle of the Sun).

Christianity, the doctrine of ?right?, attempted to control (convert) or eradicate the Moon (Sin) because of its polarized solar view.

Of the Abrahamic faiths, the Hebrew calendar was lunar, under Roman rule evolving into luni-solar; the second being Christianity is solar; and the third, Islamic is lunar.

The polarity in world-views depends on which source of light?s first recognized and used as the basis for calculating the calendar as it sets the over-riding rhythm of life.

If one dominates to the exclusion of the other - ie. Sun dominates to the exclusion of the Moon, or vice versa (instead of there being some sort of balance between the two), then the polarity between such views are as different as night is from day - and those polarized views are also reflected by the leaders and the society living under such a calendar.

At various times through the history of Christianity there?s been attempts to eradicate those proponents of the ?left?. And when the Roman Church wrested control of the west, this crusade against Sin (the Moon, ?Lord of Wisdom?) was exposed once again.

It?s actions eradicated astrology from university (eg. Bologna) and divided it into two distinct groups ? interpretative and science (having cut out the middle, ie. ?sanctity?, claiming ownership over all that was sacred). These two divisions were strictly controlled and further subdivided as time progressed, which distances them even further from their origins, but it does safeguarded against offending the Church?s interpretation and stance on the doctrine of the Sun (Son).

Anything relating to the Sun was fine (so long as it too conformed and reinforced the Church?s solar interpretation), but those who also embraced the Moon (Sin) ? which held sway over the rhythm of life and the waters of life, is the closest ?planet? to earth as well as the fastest moving translator of ?light?, then they were in for trouble ? eg. the prohibition of judicial astrology (reliant upon the Moon) etc as well those who?s calendrical cycle and practices were synchronized to the Moon.

The Age of Christianity (the ?sword?, where the ?words? were out of order - where ?s? obscured the truth of the ?word? ) was predicted to run for 1000 years. Christian rule took full force and effect from about 10th century - 1000 years takes us to the 20th century. Some say we?ve entered the Age of Aquarius ? the quality of the time of Aquarius is one where the Sun, and the doctrine of the Sun, is in it?s detriment ? reflected by the disillusionment that?s taken place and general complaints of ?the church? being out of step with the public.

So in view of the Church?s position on the Moon, of course astrology ? in particular judicial astrology which is reliant upon the Moon (Sin) ? is still prohibited by the Roman Church. It has attempted to reconcile with science, but only the science of the Sun.

?The word ?truth? keeps getting brought up, but where we admit we don't know it, we should be a bit hesitant.?

I agree. Opinions are one thing. But to assert them as definitive positions while claiming lack of evidence and then ignore or dismiss evidence provided as irrelevant when it?s been offered for consideration with regard to a specific assertion, is quite another.
?Large? or ?few? etc are not facts, they?re general opinions ? formulated on what? It?s a reference to quantities, what were the numbers?

We?ve gone from:

- Punishing astrologers in general terms (ie. ?at no time was there a serious push to punish astrologers or destroy it?)

This assertion disproven. Astrologers were punished and the Roman Church did attempt to destroy it ? specific prohibitions levied against practices of astrology, astrological books/treatises banned and burned (burning is destruction). The evidence has been provided, which includes evidence of the bannings and prohibitions, and also of them being enacted - however it now appears that because it was an unanticipated contradiction it?s irrelevant.

- to narrowing (or broadening?) the criteria for punishment to astrological beliefs;

Astrological beliefs? Conflict of beliefs concerning world views. Beliefs founded upon the study of astrology. Astrology involving viewing the world which naturally results in developing someone?s world view.

- to now punishing astrologers for ?being an astrologer?.

This involves first defining what it was to ?be? an astrologer (not by today?s standards, but by those operating then) and what was involved in ?doing? astrology. If you?re prohibited from ?doing? your astrology, can you still ?be? an astrologer? Do you still call yourself an astrologer?


Re: Cardan, yes I?ve read that piece amongst others ? and Cardan was an astrologer who was punished. If he wasn?t an astrologer he wouldn?t have been in the position to draw up Christ?s chart etc and the Church?s position against astrology wouldn?t have been enacted under the coverall charge of heresy (or atheism, or impiety). Heresy also = Apostosy also = Naturalism also = Rationalism also = Sorcery also = Astrology ? in particular judicial astrology, but also medical astrology.

?I think he would want to scream in frustration at the thought it was all just attributed to his astrology.?

Who?s attributing it all to astrology? But then again, if we?re talking in the context of astrological beliefs then we?re also talking about beliefs/world views formulated upon studying astrology ? did his astrology inform his beliefs as to the mortality of the soul etc? Was he conscious of what he was doing?

Was the book sufficient to have him pursued by the prosecution and thrown into prison? I see you?ve mentioned house arrest, sources vary on this ranging from 80+ days in prison to just prison mentioned in the Preface of 146 Considerations translated by Coley, edited by Lilly.

Slap on the wrist? The Pope at the time of Cardan?s accusation and imprisonment had also been a head of the Inquisition, its reported Cardan was released only after influential cardinals interceded on his behalf ? and only upon his agreeing not to publish any further books. He was deprived of his professorship and teaching, removed to Rome where it?s reported that same Pope (Pius V) who released him, rejected him.

He was prohibited from writing any further books, being a professor and teaching ? was he able to do his astrology and go back to being the astrologer he was? It?s reported that it was the next Pope, Gregory XIII whom he received a pension from in return for acting as his physician.

The book obviously wasn?t sufficient for his incarceration ? Christ?s horoscope he?d published ? the one that he?d made available to the public 16 years before the accusation (varying reports of the accusation being atheism, impiety, heresy arising from his astrology and superstitions).

The horoscope being in relation to the doctrine of the Sun (Son) ? birth of Jesus or birth of Christ ? it coincides with time of year for appointing (anointing) of Roman consuls (so it's possible this was the time of the Roman's anointing Christ as saviour). In addition, such a horoscope reveals the man, the mortality of the soul, and illuminates ?original sin? (Moon). It also potentially publicly revealed priestly calendrical calculations which the priesthood traditionally kept private, away from the masses. Risky territory.

Quite some time had elapsed between publishing the horoscope (1554) and his being charged (1570) ? considered in the charge is also that Pope?s stance on astrology.

Cardan is one example of the threat against astrology being put into practice ? he wasn?t able to return to his public practice following his incarceration.

Who else do we have?

- The astrologer thrown in jail for predicting Urban VII?s death (from Sue)
- Lorrain imprisoned under threat of death (again from Sue - except it would appear from the ensuing commentary which follows that after someone?s released from jail and accorded some sort of glory, this eradicates the fact he was accused, pursued, prosecuted and imprisoned in the first place)
- Aguila?s ex-communication
- Cecco d'Ascoli?s burning at the stake in 1327 (the one who was pursued for heresy on his commentary on Sacrobosco?s Sphere and burned for being convicted a second time for his defending astrologers - but apparently it wasn?t to do with his astrology, or his astrological world-view. It?s suggested there were political reasons for why he was burned that were not to do with his astrology ? I?ve asked for these reasons but they haven?t been forthcoming.)
- Giordano Bruno?s burning at the stake in 1600 for his Copernicanism, theology and refusal to recant (the one who apparently doesn?t rate as an astrologer),
- Galileo Galilei (his Copernican writings etc ? but then according to the view articulated I?m thinking Copernicus would be considered unrelated to astrology too ? he too feeling the threat of the Church and delaying publication.)
- Nostradamus
- Kepler
- Marsilio Ficino
- Pico (who did a 180)
- Petrus d?Apono

? and remember, we were initially talking about being ?punished? ? which then slipped across to being ?killed? which then evolved into ?persecuted? (which includes being harassed, the threat/fear of being harrassed and/or displaced etc) and/or accused and/or charged and/or incarcerated.

If astrologers were persecuted, punished, accused, charged, displaced, incarcerated or killed because of the prevailing rule and doctrine, then this negatively impacts the total number of astrologers as well as the depth and breadth of the teachings available. Ezra was displaced and censored his writings because of the threat. For the one?s listed above, their astrology was directly involved ? and in line with Inquisitorial questions, so was their social standing.

?we have to be careful that the views aren?t getting so polarized?

For views to be polarized, someone?s position needs to be clear, that position based upon known facts. But if the facts are unknown, or ignored, then how can a view be polarized ? it?s unclear.

What I?ve simply asked for is let?s first have the facts ? some specific and properly researched numbers on astrologers, which includes a total number, in context with the times ? before entering the world of general opinions.