Chapter 9. Pierre d'Ailly and Newton Again
1. Some 1400 years later than Origen, another Christian of rank, wrestled with astrology in much the same way as Origen (see Chapter 8). This was Pierre d'Ailly, who lived from 1350 or 1351 to 1420. D'Ailly rose to be a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church during the time of the Schism, and the period in which there were two (at one point three) Popes, at Rome and Avignon, 1378 through 1414. D'Ailly's devotion to astrology has been investigated by Laura Ackerman Smoller in her work, History, Prophecy and the Stars (1994). In her introduction, Smoller observes that people who have studied the roles of astrology and astronomy in medieval times have been concerned mostly with the prevailing attitudes of people toward such practices and beliefs, and mostly the attitudes of theologians, rather than with practice of astrology. "While their studies nicely illuminate the Catholic church's response to astrology, they say little about the opinions of persons who actually consulted the stars." (p. 5) Smoller observes that d'Ailly's conversion to astrology late in life, and his extensive writings on the subject, offers an opportunity to study why and also how a person might become involved with astrology, and how one might go about such an involvement. "From d'Ailly's example, then," she says, "astrology emerges as an integral part of the rational view of the world in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The belief that the heavenly bodies had some fort of influence on the earth below was just as pervasive as the notion that God had a plan for the world's destiny. ... D'Ailly saw astrology not as a magical art by which he could manipulate the future course of the world but rather as a rational science by which he could discern the broad patterns of earthly events. The great numbers of people who used astrology in medicine, or making their business decisions, and for political advice must have believved , also, that they were turning to science for knowledge." (p. 7) In passing, I note Smoller's comments on the nature of d'Ailly's writing: ""Many of his works were little more than collages, composed of bits and pieces of other writers' prose. Through all his borrowings, however, d'Ailly generally managed to convey his own opinion, which was sometimes quite different from that of his source. ... On the whole, d'Ailly was a compiler and digester of others' thought. His later readership suggests that there was a vast need for this type of writing." (p. 10) The present work may be said to have been compiled in the same spirit, although I am not sanguine enough to believe that there is, or will be, a vast need for the present work. I do believe, though, that while enduring originality is precious, commentary also serves purposes of value.
2. In his later life, Pierre d'Ailly was much concerned with defending astrology/astronomy from charges that it was inconsistent with Christianity. As a basis, he took the attitude endorsed long before by Isidore of Seville (c. 560-636) that one can distinguish between natural astrology and superstitious astrology, and that it is the former which is consistent with Christianity, while the latter is not. Smoller reports that d'Ailly in his Vigintiloquium or Concordantia astronomie cum theologia (Concordance of astrology with theology; 1414) listed these components of superstitious or false astrology: "1. The belief that all future events precede by fatal necessity from the stars; 2. The mingling of superstitious magic arts with astrology; 3. The placing of free will and matters solely under divine or supernatural control within astrology's power." (p. 37) Smoller notes that 2. is apparently directed against the practice of engraving stones with astrological images. We have seen that 1. and 3. were also rejected by Origen, and indeed this had been the central objection of Augustine to astrology. On the other hand, we have also seen that at least up to the Hellenistic era, the Babylonian astrologers did not take astrological omens to be irreversibly deterministic. One of the functions of priests was to counteract unfavorable omens by means of suitable rituals. In his attempts to reconcile free will and God's omnipotence with astrological influences, d'Ailly wrote a number of treatises. To take an example, in one late treatise, the Concordantia astronomie cum hystorica narratione (Concordance of astrology with historical narration; 1414), he asserted "God arranged 'to work naturally with causes, except where a miraculous operation intervenes.' thus astrological causality would apply to all earthly events save miracles." (Smoller, p. 38) In another treatise of 1414, the Apologetica defensio astronomice veritatis (Apologetic defense of astrological truth; contained in his Tractatus de imagine mundi), d'Ailly speculates on the role of the astral influences on the Virgin Mary as to the development of Christ in utero. Smoller says: "D'Ailly began with the cautious observation that the Christian faith did not compel one to exclude any stellar influence in Mary's birth, 'just as it does not compel one to say that the sun did not warm her.' ... By reserving for God a supernatural causality beyond that of the stars, d'Ailly placed astrology among the undeniable laws of nature and gave it a scope reaching as far as the human aspects of Christ." (p. 38)
3. In Chapter 4 of her book, Smoller has an analysis of how Pierre d'Ailly used astrology to aid in establishing a chronology consistent with and explanatory of that in the Bible. An important principle he used for trying to establish the date of the Creation of the world, the starting point of Biblical chronology, as well as for subsequent events he took to be of importance, was the fixing of the times of conjunctions of Saturn and Jupiter. These are described by Smoller as follows (p. 16, 20-23) "The seven planets all traveled along the path of the zodiac, and the twelve signs which made up that band were deemed to have their own characteristics. In one division of the zodiac, astrologers distributed the signs among four triplicities (triplicitates, also sometimes translated as trigons). The signs of each triplicity all shared the characteristics of one of the four elements (fire, earth, air, and water). The signs were assigned successively to one of the four triplicities, so that a planet in its path through the zodiac would pass first through a fiery sign, then through an earthy sign, then through an airy sign, and finally through a watery sign. There were three such series in any trip around the zodiac. The fiery triplicity consisted of the signs Aries, Leo, and Sagittarius. It was under the rule of the sun by day and Jupiter by night. The earthly triplicity contained Taurus, Virgo, and Capricorn, under the rulership of Venus and the moon. Gemini, Libra, and Aquarius made up the airy triplicity, under Saturn and Mercury. Finally, the watery triplicity comprised Cancer, Scorpio, and Pisces, with Mars ruling both day and night. [Thus the progression counterclockwise through the zodiac, taking into account the alternation of the kinds of elements, can be represented on the circumference of a circle as Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Pisces, and back to Aries again.] ... As did his astrological sources, d'Ailly gave the greatest consideration to those conjunctions of the two superior [outermost] planets, Saturn and Jupiter. Their exalted positions and slow motions meant that their conjunctions were of more universal and enduring significance than those of the other planets. Astrologers classified these conjunctions according to the signs and triplicities in which they occurred. Saturn completes its course through the zodiac in roughly 30 years, and Jupiter takes around twelve years to make the same circuit. Hence, the time between any two conjunctions of Saturn and Jupiter will be approximately twenty years, during which time Saturn will have traveled a little more than two-thirds of the way through the zodiac. Thus, in the astrologers' customary example, if the first conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter occurs in Aries, the second will be in Sagittarius, the third in Leo, and the fourth in Aries again. But, because the two planets do not complete their course through the zodiac in exactly thirty or twelve years, they do not return to the same precise point in Aries for their fourth conjunction. Rather, they are joined some 2º25' from the point of the initial conjunction, to take Albumasar's figyre. Hence a series of conjunctions of Saturn and Jupiter will show a gradual progression like that in figure 3. Eventually, a conjunction will happen in Taurus,, the neighboring sign to Aries. Then the succession will begin again in another set of three signs. [Albumasar, also transliterated Abu-Ma'shar, was an Arabian astrologer of the 9th century A.D.] In all, d'Ailly delineated four types of Saturn-Jupiter conjunctions: the conjunctio maxima [greatest conjunction, occurring after four changes of triplicity, so the starting point is repeated, customarily taken to be the initial position of Saturn in Aries] (every 960 years), the conjunctio maior [greater conjunction, occurring with each change of triplicity] (every 240 years), the conjunctio magna [great conjunction, occurring with each change of zodiac sign in each triplicity] (every 60 years), and the conjunctio minor [lesser conjunction, occurring with each conjunction within a single zodiac sign] (every 20 years). D'Ailly located such conjunctions throughout history and related them to the growth of new kingdoms and the rise of new religions. He used astrology, then, as a coherent principle by which to explain and observe the course of the world's fate."
4. This brings to mind work of Isaac Newton which I discussed in Chapter 7 of the present work. I repeat here Sections 44-47 of that chapter:
44. In Newton's Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the
Apocalypse of St. John, one
of his last works, published in 1733, a few years after his death, Newton
says: "For understanding the
Prophecies, we are, in the first place, to acquaint ourselves with the
figurative language of the Prophets. This
language is taken from the analogy between the world natural, and an empire or
kingdom considered as a world politic. Accordingly,
the whole world natural consisting of heaven and earth, signifies the whole
world politic, consisting of thrones and people, or so much of it as is
considered in the Prophecy: and the things in that world signify the analogous
things in this. For the heavens,
and the things therein, signify thrones and dignities, and those who enjoy
them; and the earth, with things thereon, the inferior people; and the lowest
parts of the earth, called Hades or Hell, the lowest or most miserable
part of them ....."
45. "In the heavens, the Sun and Moon are, by interpreters of
dreams, put for the persons of Kings and Queens; but in sacred Prophecy, which
regards not single persons, the Sun is put for the whole species and race of
Kings, in the kingdom or kingdoms of the world politic, shining with regal
power and glory; the Moon for the body of the common people, considered as the
King's wife; the Stars for subordinate Princes and great men, or for Bishops
and Rulers of the people of God, when the sun is Christ; light for the glory,
truth, and knowledge, wherewith great and good men shine and illuminate
others; darkness for obscurity of condition, and for error, blindness and
ignorance; darkning, smiting, or setting of the Sun, Moon, and Stars, for the
ceasing of a kingdom, or for the desolation thereof, proportional to the
darkness; darkning the Sun, turning the Moon into blood, and falling of the
Stars, for the same; new Moons, for the return of a dispersed people into a
body politic or ecclesiastic." (Observations
upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John (1733), p. 16-23.)
After this, Newton gives interpretations of fire in various forms,
various movements of clouds, winds, thunder, lighting, water in various forms,
geological formations, animals, vegetables and plants, and so on.
46. This passage, in which Newton describes how he reads Biblical
prophecies, puts light on his reference (cited above) to Chaldeans as
"the most learned astronomers of their time", and his complaint
(also cited above) that certain ancient Greeks and priests had corrupted
previously known correct astronomy by declaring that the stars
"move in their courses in the heavens by the force of their souls"
and were deemed to be "heavenly deities", and that "gentile
Astrology and Theology were introduced by cunning Priests to promote the study
of stars and the growth of the priesthood and at length spread through the
world." Newton speaks of the
correspondences between natural objects and processes, on the one hand,
and political entities and activities, on the other, as being a matter
of figurative language, based on analogy between the two worlds.
Yet he believes in the accuracy and indeed inevitability of the
predictions made by the Biblical prophets.
He says: "And the
giving ear to the Prophets is a fundamental character of the true Church..... The authority of the Prophets is divine, and comprehends the
sum of religion... Their writings
contain the covenant between God and his people, with instructions for keeping
this covenant..... And no power
on earth is authorized to alter this covenant."
Of Daniel in particular, he says:
"The predictions of things to come relate to the state of the
Church in all ages; and amongst the old Prophets, Daniel is most
distinct in order of time, and easiest to be understood: and therefore in
those things which relate to the last times, he must be made the key to the
rest." (Newton, ibid., p.
14-15.)
47. Thus according to Newton's description, Biblical prophecy can give
results of the kind the Chaldeans expected from their omen astrology
and other methods of prediction they used, before the invention of personal
astrology with its horoscopes and houses.
In Newton's view, as stated in the first part of the Observations
upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John, Biblical prophecy furnishes "in
figurative language" strictly determined predictions of political matters
based on the interpretation of natural processes involving celestial and
terrestrial natural objects. To
be sure, he doesn't admit the divinity of such objects.
The accuracy of the predictions is presumably guaranteed by the one God
alone, who uses the natural objects "figuratively" (whatever that
might mean) in order to communicate this foreknowledge.
Newton's views on this question therefore resemble those of Calvin, but
differ distinctly from those of Thomas Aquinas (to take just two examples).
A widespread judgment today (as discussed earlier) is that the
Chaldeans did attribute divinity to celestial objects.
Newton seems to imply (although I don't know of a place where he says
so outright) that the Chaldeans did not do so, and that such beliefs
were introduced later by certain Greeks, to the detriment of true astronomy. Of course, Newton knew nothing of the many Babylonian
writings which have been recovered after his time.
5. These passages by Newton and my assessment may be compared with a statement by Smoller, speaking of d'Ailly's use of astrology (p. 122): "Why astrology? ... The answer lies, it seems, in d'Ailly's concordance of astrology and theology -- that is, first, in his insistence that astrology be considered a 'natural theology' and, second, in his implication, by the use he made of the stars, that astrology was also a valid science, useful because it lay outside of the realm of prophecy and revelation. That is, he established astral causality to be an essential component of the divine plan, one entirely in keeping with the central feature of his theology, the dialectic of God's absolute and ordained power. And yet, he relied upon astrology to interpret the apocalypse [as in the book of Revelations] precisely because it was nontheological. It offered him evidence drawn from sources other than prophecy and revelation, which, as he argued, could be contradictory, problematic, and even deceptive." D'Ailly was especially concerned in trying to reconcile and combine Christian doctrines with astrological ones to reject that idea of complete astral determinism or fatalism, and the accompanying idea of the non-existence of human free will, other than as a kind of illusion. It strikes me now that what Newton may have had in mind when he spoke of corruption of astral prediction by ancient Greeks was the attribution to them of an introduction of the idea or principle of complete determinism to purely astral influences, including in all human affairs. While he would have known nothing of what is said on the clay tablets recovered in Mesopotamia since his time, he have known something about the non-fatalistic elements of Babylonian omen astrology from classical sources, or even possibly that he interpreted Biblical passages in this way.
6. In her Chapter 5, Smoller discusses d'Ailly's concern for the advent of the apocalypse, as predicted in the Revelations of St. John. She says (p. 85): "With the outbreak of the Great Schism in 1378, Pierre d'Ailly and many of his contemporaries assumed that the apocalypse was at hand. They based this dismal conclusion both on their reading of Scripture and on a long medieval tradition of speculation about the end of time." This may be compared with the statement made by Newton: "The predictions of things to come relate to the state of the Church in all ages: and amongst the old Prophets, Daniel is most distinct in order of time, and easiest to be understood: and therefore in those things which relate to the last times, he must be made the key to the rest." (loc. cit., p. 15). Smoller says (p. 86): "Scripture was by far the most important source of information about the apocalypse for d'Ailly and his contemporaries. Passage in Daniel and Revelation spelled out, albeit in enigmatic form, God's plan for the world's end. Commentaries of these two books were key vehicles for eschatological speculation in the Middle Ages." Of course, Newton is not considered to have lived during the time of the European Middle Ages. Newton says in the section of this work devoted to Revelations (p. 250-251): "'Tis therefore a part of this Prophecy, that it should not be understood before the last age of the world; and therefore it makes for the credit of the Prophecy, that it is not yet understood. But if the last age, the age of opening these things, be now approaching, as by the great successes of late Interpreters it seems to be, we have more encouragement than ever to look into these things. In the general preaching of the Gospel be approaching, it is to use and our posterity that those words mainly belong: In the time of the end the wise shall understand, but none of the wicked shall understand. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this Prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein. The folly of Interpreters has been, to foretel times and things by this Prophecy, as if God designed to make them prophets. By this rashness they have not only exposed themselves, but brought the Prophecy into contempt. The design of God was much otherwise. He gave this and the Prophecies of the Old Testament, not to gratify men's curiosities by enabling them to foreknow things, but that after they were fulfilled they might be interpreted by the event, and his own Providence, not the Interpreters, be then manifested thereby to the world. For the event of things predicted many ages before, will then be a convincing argument that the world is governed by providence."
7. D'Ailly was much concerned with uses of astronomy/astrology in establishing a chronology of the world, consonant with Scripture, and with matching astronomical phenomena interpreted astrologically with crucial historical events. Newton spent much effort on a revision of chronology, based on astronomical phenomena on the one hand, and classical authors and Scripture on the other. This, too, involved matching astronomical phenomena with crucial historical events. In the case of Newton, however, there is an absence of discussion of traditional influences of the sort considered by astrologers. On the other hand, there is an absence, so far as I have been able to determine, of refutation of or scorn for astrology as it was practiced in his own time, or earlier. Newton's major work on chronology, published posthumously in 1728, was The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended. In this work, there is a chapter called "Of the Empires of the Babylonians and Medes" in which Newton states (p. 328): "The Babylonians were extreamly addicted to Sorcery, Inchantments, astrology and Divinations, Isa. xlvii. 9, 12, 13. Dab. ii. 2, & v. 11. and to the worship of Idols, Jer. l. 2, 40. and to feasting, wine and women." In the two works of Newton being considered here, this is the only passage I have noted in which Newton uses the word astrology. As far as I can determine, Newton never presented a refutation of astrology as practiced in his time. He was on the whole silent about astrology, though it was quite prominent in the England of his time.
8. Newton's work as a chronographer has been studied in detail, along with criticisms of it made in Newton's time, by Frank E. Manuel in his book Isaac Newton, Historian (1963). Manuel observes (p. 65, 68): "The astronomical proofs of Newton's revision of chronology center upon the determination of three ancient dates, among which the precise timing of the Argonautic expedition is the crucial one. It occupied Newton's interest for at least the last thirty or forty years of his life. The other astronomical proofs concerned the year of King Amenophis' [of Egypt] death and the period when Hesiod flourished. ... The astronomical dating of the Argonautic expedition was founded upon the insight that an accurately measured precession of the equinoxes could serve as the key to scientific chronology. ... to apply the idea of the precession to chronology with Newton's daring and persistence was revolutionary. The style of the man -- adapting scientific data that are already known to a new field -- is the same in the chronology as in the physics. Newton had a way of staking all upon a single idea."
9. Christian chronography goes back to early Christian times. This topic has been treated by William Adler in his Time Immemorial: Archaic History and its Sources in Christian Chronography from Julius Africanus to George Syncellus (1989). Such chronography had an elaborate development during the European Middle Ages, and we see from Smoller's study of d'Ailly's work that it was a lively field during the Renaissance. Indeed, there is some life in the field up to the present-day, although the field has grown old, and is not as active as it once was. What may be striking in placing Isaac Newton in this tradition is that he lived in the 17th and early 18th centuries, during the height of the period often said by historians to contain the Scientific Revolution. In Newton's work, one can see him engaged not in a Revolution but in an Evolution as far as a transition from the astronomy/astrology which had been prevalent up to his time to the separation of the fields of astronomy and astrology as we see them today. An examination of the work of central and peripheral figures who brought about the so-called Scientific Revolution in Europe might well reveal that one could better speak of an evolution during this period -- perhaps an instance of cultural punctuated evolution, in which a big change occurred in a relatively short time. Thus, if one wants to talk about paradigm shifts in the manner of Thomas Kuhn, one might be persuaded to think of them as occurring gradually rather than in some abrupt discontinuous manner, and as not leading to what Kuhn called incommensurability, but rather to kinds of re-interpretation in which the new retains something of the old.