The Marginalization Of Astrology:
Early Science Introduction
and Medicine 22 (2017) 405-409 405
www.brill.com/esm
The Marginalization of Astrology: Introduction
Rienk Vermij
University of Oklahoma
[email protected]
Hiro Hirai
Radboud University, Nijmegen
[email protected]
Astrology was an integral part of university teaching in the Middle Ages. The
discipline of astronomia comprehended not only the calculation of planetary
orbits, but also the casting of horoscopes, the calculation of houses and as-
pects, the character of the various planets, and the like. Although the astro-
nomical and astrological parts were separate and had their own textbooks,
both domains were taught in the same body of education. However, starting in
the seventeenth-century, universities gradually no longer considered the
teaching of astrological techniques as their task. Astronomy developed further
without any link to astrological pursuits.
Something similar happened in the field of medicine. Medieval medicine
and surgery had strong astrological ties, as is evident in the famous theory of
‘critical days’ of health and illness. The origin of a disease was often attributed,
among other things, to the celestial constellation, and many cures had an as-
trological component as well. Most notably, bloodletting was performed in
consideration of the astrological calendar. In the eighteenth century, however,
leading physicians and surgeons generally no longer appealed to celestial cau-
sality. Their theories and practices barely referred to the power of the stars.
What is true of medicine is so of many other fields as well. According to the
traditional Aristotelian theory, generation and decay in the terrestrial world
were caused by the influence of the heavens. Many physical and chemical
* Rienk Vermij, Department of the History of Science, College of Arts and Science, Oklahoma
University, Physical Sciences 625, 601 Elm, Room 625, Norman, OK 73019-3106, USA; Hiro Hirai,
Center for the History of Philosophy and Science, Faculty FTR, Radboud University, PO Box
9103, 6500 HD Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Early
© Sciencebrill
koninklijke and nv,
Medicine 22 (2017)
leiden, 2017 | doi405-409
10.1163/15733823-02256P01
406 Vermij And Hirai
processes were thus explained with reference to celestial causality. In par-
ticular, weather prognostications were intimately connected to the casting of
horoscopes. The new physics of the seventeenth century, however, abandoned
such explanations.
These intellectual developments went hand in hand with those in the social
sphere. At the same time that professors, physicians and philosophers lost
interest in astrology, it lost credit outside academia as well. In the sixteenth
century, princes had ‘astronomers’ at their courts with the express task of giv-
ing astrological advice. In the next century, courts were still swarming with all
kinds of practitioners, but astrologers were gradually disappearing. The scien-
tific societies, founded in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, were
generally critical of astrology. Individual members might still be interested, but
the societies as a whole preferred not to be associated with it. Although the
impact of astrology remained considerable in many layers of society, public
authorities, either the academic institutions and their members or the politi-
cal powers, preferred to take a distance from it.
We propose to call this move the ‘marginalization of astrology.’ By this term,
we address the weakening position of astrology as part of officially recognized
science and as a tool of public governance, rather than a single set of ideas or
practices which were declining, disappearing or transforming into other forms.
Astrology, in whatever shape or form, was relegated to the margins, that is, to
the realm of private opinion and popular culture. Moreover, the term ‘margin-
alization’ does not imply a mechanism, neither an active pushing to the mar-
gins by elites or others, nor some kind of autonomous process. It points out the
shift while leaving open how it came about. It does not state a theory but poses
a question.
Whatever its cause, the marginalization of astrology came down to an im-
portant reordering of established knowledge, and must be regarded as a cru-
cial step in the history of science. However, the topic has drawn only cursory
attention from historians. Many textbooks in the history of science hardly even
mention the marginalization of astrology, let alone discuss it in its own right.
Although the history of astrology has become a blossoming field of research in
recent decades, its researchers still have to fight against the prejudice that their
subject is a mere superstition or chimaera and, therefore, unworthy of serious
consideration. Indeed, until recently, the Isis Current Bibliography continued
to classify astrology among the ‘pseudo-sciences.’ It is therefore understand-
able that historians of astrology have been preoccupied more with rehabili
tating their field than with considering how it came to be classified a ‘pseudo-
science.’
Early Science and Medicine 22 (2017) 405-409
The Marginalization Of Astrology: Introduction 407
The older, positivist historiography often assumed that the rise of early
modern science was the decisive factor in the downfall of ‘superstition.’ They
took it as self-evident that the new methods and theories of nature made a
field like astrology obsolete. However, it has long been acknowledged that the
marginalization of astrology did not really follow from any specific discovery.
There were debates on the veracity of the art, but the basic arguments against
astrology had been known since antiquity. The rise of the new sciences in the
early modern period contributed little in this respect.
Somewhat more plausible is the hypothesis that it was the emergence of a
new world view that discredited astrology: once natural philosophers em-
braced the mechanical vision of the world, the idea that everything was caused
by celestial influences became untenable; as a consequence, the casting of
horoscopes lost its legitimation and had to be abandoned. A closer look at the
material, however, makes this explanation problematic as well. In some cases
at least, the casting of horoscopes fell into disrespect before the theory of ce-
lestial influences was abandoned in university education, or even among phil-
osophical reformers. This makes it untenable that the downfall of the
traditional Aristotelian world view was the sole factor behind the marginaliza-
tion of astrology. It may be more fruitful to regard the issue as a constitutive
element of the new world view, rather than a mere consequence.
Of course, the marginalization of astrology is not a unique phenomenon.
Many practices, widely performed during the Middle Ages, or even regarded as
respectable intellectual endeavors, were gradually disqualified as ‘supersti-
tious’ by seventeenth- and eighteenth-century intellectuals, among them al-
chemy, magic, physiognomy, the interpretation of portents and omens, etc. It
is possible to consider that they shared some common ground, even though
each of them experienced a distinct sequence and dynamics of marginaliza-
tion.
These complex factors lead us to believe that the marginalization of astrol-
ogy cannot be summarized in some general, sweeping statements. Before ask-
ing why astrology was abandoned, we first of all have to analyze how this
happened – when, where, in what fields, and among whom (scholars, intellec-
tuals or other groups). Such facts are still largely wanting. To get a better pic-
ture of the real historical phenomenon, it is also necessary to determine what
was exactly meant by ‘astrology,’ and what were the different fields in which
astrological concepts were or were not practiced. This special issue of Early
Science and Medicine aims to be a starting-point for further research on this
intriguing episode in history.
The papers presented here were originally delivered at the international
conference “The Marginalization of Astrology in Early Modern Science and
Early Science and Medicine 22 (2017) 405-409
408 Vermij And Hirai
Culture,” held at Utrecht University in March 2015. To our knowledge, this was
the first time that a scholarly meeting explicitly addressed the theme. The
conference was generously supported by the Descartes Center of Utrecht
University, the Center for the History of Philosophy and Science at Radboud
University Nijmegen, and the Louise Thijssen-Schoute Foundation. We also
had the support of the Dutch Society for Scientific Research into Astrology. The
event saw a considerable success, which demonstrated that the time is ripe to
put the question of marginalization on the historical agenda. Some of the par-
ticipants followed up later in the same year with a special panel on the theme
at the annual meeting of the History of Science Society in San Francisco.
Not all of the speakers at our conference were able to contribute a paper to
this special issue. Since research on the question is still in its early stages, a
comprehensive survey would be premature in any case. Nonetheless, the issue
offers some detailed information, both on various national contexts and on
specific topics. The discussion of various regional contexts demonstrates that
the marginalization was a complex process. Factors that earlier authors have
adduced to explain the marginalization of astrology, like changing world views
and prohibitions by the Church, do turn up, but often in unexpected ways.
In a contribution that will only be published in ESM vol. 23 (2018), Darrel
Rutkin emphasizes that we cannot fully grasp the changes within astrological
practice and theory if we do not have a clear idea of its place and function in
medieval learning. This helps us to identify important innovations, like those
by Ficino, and also to recognize continuity where there seems to be a break,
e.g. in some ideas of Pico, Copernicus, or Kepler. The process of marginaliza-
tion becomes especially apparent in the development of disciplinary patterns,
university curricula, and the content of textbooks.
For Portugal, Luís Miguel Carolino notices in his contribution to this fascicle
that, whereas astrology was increasingly looked upon with suspicion in society
at large in the later seventeenth century, it was still taught at the elite Jesuit
college of San Antão in the early eighteenth century, in spite of the official de-
nunciations by the Church and leading Jesuits elsewhere. The growing skepti-
cism can be connected to the emergence of a new political order wherein
prognostications could play no role, whereas Carolino sees the persistent
teaching of astrology by the Jesuits as a result of their deliberate commitment
to the Aristotelian world view.
Tayra Lanuza discusses the university of Valencia. Astrology was taught at
Valencia throughout the seventeenth century, including forms which, strictly
speaking, would be subject to prohibition from the Church. The abandonment
of astrological teachings in the eighteenth century has often been attributed to
the so-called novatores, who wanted to bring university training more up-to-
Early Science and Medicine 22 (2017) 405-409
The Marginalization Of Astrology: Introduction 409
date by introducing new scientific theories. Chronologically, this seems to
work, but on a personal level, as Lanuza points out, these novatores were not
really hostile to astrology or actively opposing it. Generally speaking, they did
not attach great value to the discipline.
At the Scottish universities, too, which are discussed by Jane Ridder-Patrick,
astrology fell from grace rather suddenly at the end of the seventeenth century.
Unlike in Valencia, however, in Scotland this appears to have been the result of
an active campaign, waged by leading scholars like David Gregory and Herbert
Kennedy. Their hostility towards astrology resulted first of all from their new
natural philosophical insights, and was then enhanced by their desire to dis-
tance themselves from the growing army of ‘common prognosticators.’
A different approach is taken by Robert Hatch for the case of three promi-
nent seventeenth-century French astronomers: Jean-Baptist Morin, author
of the massive Astrologia Gallica, who rejected the Copernican system ex-
actly because of his commitment to astrology; Ismael Boulliau, who defended
heliocentricity as well as being an active astrologer; and Pierre Gassendi, a
Copernican and a critic of astrology. Initially these three men were friends, but
eventually Gassendi and Boulliau turned against Morin. In a detailed analysis
of their letters, Hatch shows how the debates on astrology and those on the
system of the world became intertwined, with the effect of completely discred-
iting astrology.
These articles represent only the first steps of our ongoing project. We hope
that they inspire other scholars to delve deeper into the questions.
Early Science and Medicine 22 (2017) 405-409
