Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

Book Two — the heavens and the stars

That Judicial Astrology is refuted and convicted by Philosophy—first, indeed, on this ground, that astrologers of this kind are utterly unskilled in celestial matters. CHAPTER TWO

LatineEnglish

That Judicial Astrology is refuted and convicted by Philosophy—first, indeed, on this ground, that astrologers of this kind are utterly unskilled in celestial matters. CHAPTER TWO.1

Astrologiam iudiciariam a Philosophia redargui et convinci, primo quidem ea ratione, quod istiusmodi Astrologi Caelestium rerum sint imperitissimi. CAPUT SECUNDUM.

DIVINATIONEM Astrologicam futilem esse nulloque nixam fundamento Philosophus quidem hunc ad modum argumentabitur: Astrologi nec certo sciunt omnes astrorum vires, defluxus et effectus, nec, si eas res scirent, satis id foret ad certam rerum futurarum praesensionem: ergo praedictiones Astrologicas inanes et fallaces esse necesse est. Duo in hac argumentatione sunt posita, explicatius a nobis tractanda et confirmanda: alterum est imperitos esse Astrologos rerum caelestium; alterum vero est, ut essent illi peritissimi earum rerum, non propterea tamen posse eos futura omnia praenosse. De priori autem dicamus prius. Esse igitur Iudiciarios Astrologos syderalis doctrinae ignaros patet ex his[...]...
That astrological divination is futile and rests on no foundation, the Philosopher will argue in this manner: the Astrologers neither know for certain all the powers, influences, and effects of the stars; nor, if they knew those things, would it be enough for a certain foreseeing of future things: therefore astrological predictions must necessarily be empty and fallacious. Two things are laid down in this argumentation, to be treated and confirmed by us more fully: the one is, that the Astrologers are unskilled in celestial matters; the other is, that even were they most skilled in those matters, they still could not on that account foreknow all future things. But let us speak of the former first. That the Judiciary Astrologers, then, are ignorant of the science of the stars, is plain from these[...]...2
...his quae subiiciam. Principio, valde arduum et operosum est etiam quae de caelo videntur minus difficilia magisque nobis obvia perfecte cognoscere: veluti quae sit caeli natura, magnitudo, numerus orbium, et inter eos ordo et differentia dignitatis, varietas motuum, denique astrorum numerus, eorumque inter se in magnitudine, luce, potestate et effectu comparatio. Atque huius difficultatis clarissimum facit indicium tanta opinionum varietas quantam esse his de rebus inter maximos Philosophos cernimus. Aristoteles certe Philosophorum omnium facile Princeps ingenue fatetur se multarum rerum caelestium non exquisitam scientiam, sed opinabilem et coniecturalem tantum notitiam tenere, et quia manifestis certisque rationibus destituatur, cogi se non raro probabilibus duntaxat argumentis et coniecturis uti. Videre haec licet apud ipsum Aristotelem in 2 libro de Caelo, textu 17, 34, 60 et 61. Hoc si est, qui credet Astrologis (quos solis luce clarius est nulla re comparandos esse maximis illis Philosophis) quod est in caelo abstrusissimum et iudicio summorum Philosophorum mortalibus incomprehensibile (veritatem dico rerum omnium futurarum) esse liquido cognitam explorateque perceptam? Deinde, rogemus istos Astrologos ut faciliores quasdam quaestiones de caelo nobis enodent: percunctemur ex ipsis an caelum sit natura quaedam simplex an composita ex materia et forma; utrum talis sit materia caeli qualis est rerum omnium sublunarium an omnino diversa; sit ne caelum animatum an inanimum; num sua vi et a se moveatur an extrinsecus ab Angelo; unde potissimum in caelis aestimari et iudicari debeat dignitatis eorum praestantia; quid causae sit cur non omnes orbes uno motu circumagantur, sed alii uno tantum, alii pluribus, alii vero paucioribus; aperiant nobis quam habeant propriam vim et potentiam singulae stellae in elementa, metalla, stirpes atque animantes. Haec, inquam, et alia horum similia sciscitemur ex istis Astrologis: profecto reperiemus ipsos doctrinae harum rerum plane rudes et prorsus expertes. Qui fit igitur credibile planiora haec et apertiora ignorantibus mortalium intelligentiae remotissima et occultissima esse comperta et explorata?
...from these things which I shall set down. First, it is very arduous and laborious to know perfectly even those things about the heaven which seem less difficult and more obvious to us: such as what is the nature of the heaven, its magnitude, the number of the orbs, and among them the order and difference of dignity, the variety of motions, and finally the number of the stars and their comparison among themselves in magnitude, light, power, and effect. And a most clear indication of this difficulty is made by the great variety of opinions which we see to be on these matters among the greatest Philosophers. Aristotle, certainly the easy Prince of all Philosophers, frankly confesses that of many celestial things he holds not an exact knowledge, but only an opinion-based and conjectural acquaintance, and that, because he is destitute of manifest and certain reasons, he is not seldom compelled to use only probable arguments and conjectures. These things may be seen in Aristotle himself, in the second book On the Heaven, texts 17, 34, 60, and 61. If this is so, who will believe that the Astrologers (who, it is clearer than the light of the sun, are in no way to be compared with those greatest Philosophers) have clearly known and ascertained that which is the most abstruse thing in the heaven, and—by the judgment of the greatest Philosophers—incomprehensible to mortals (I mean the truth of all future things)? Next, let us ask these Astrologers to untangle for us some of the easier questions about the heaven: let us inquire of them whether the heaven is a certain simple nature, or composed of matter and form; whether the matter of the heaven is such as is the matter of all sublunary things, or wholly different; whether the heaven is animate or inanimate; whether it is moved by its own force and of itself, or from without by an Angel; from what especially the excellence of their dignity in the heavens ought to be estimated and judged; what the cause is why all the orbs are not turned about by one motion, but some by one only, some by more, some by fewer; let them disclose to us what proper force and power the several stars have over the elements, metals, plants, and living things. These things, I say, and others like them let us ask of these Astrologers: we shall surely find them plainly rude and utterly inexperienced in the doctrine of these matters. How then is it credible that things the remotest and most hidden from the understanding of mortals have been ascertained and explored by those ignorant of these plainer and more open things?3
Postea, doceant nos isti defluxus et effectus qui nunc ex variis astris dimanant ad diversas et dissitas mundi regiones (sic enim fortasse credemus illis futuros syderum effectus praenuntiantibus): quis enim nescit proclivius et propensius esse praesentia nosse quam futura, praesertim mutabilia et quae varie possunt contingere, ob idque incerta? Exponant item nobis occultas et proprietates et vires quas habent res sublunares, quas miramur magis quam intelligimus in multis lapidibus, herbis et animalibus: haec enim, cum proxima sint atque nobis coniuncta et cunctis pene sensibus nostris subiecta, et quae quotidianis experimentis pervestigari et explorari possunt, planiorem intelligentiam et faciliorem habent explicatum; cognitio vero rerum Caelestium maximi laboris et difficultatis est, cum tam longe distet a nobis caelum, nec alio[...]...
Next, let these men teach us the influences and effects which now flow forth from the various stars to the diverse and distant regions of the world (for so perhaps we shall believe them when they foretell the future effects of the heavenly bodies): for who does not know that it is easier and more within reach to know present things than future—especially mutable things, and those that can come to pass in various ways, and are therefore uncertain? Let them likewise expound to us the hidden properties and forces which sublunary things have, which we admire rather than understand in many stones, herbs, and animals: for these, since they are near and joined to us and subject to almost all our senses, and can be investigated and explored by daily experiments, have a plainer understanding and an easier explanation; but the knowledge of Celestial things is of the greatest labor and difficulty, since the heaven is so far distant from us, nor by any other[...]4
...[al]io quam unico oculorum sensu mortalibus pateat: quem tamen saepe falli contingit propter tantam intervalli longinquitatem, vel summam vertiginis caeli velocitatem, vel pravam affectionem Medii aut visus, vel propter vitium astrolabii, tabularum et instrumentorum astronomicorum. Atque hoc etiam apud sacras litteras in cap. 9 lib. Sapientiae testatum legimus. Corpus, inquit, quod corrumpitur aggravat animam, et terrena inhabitatio deprimit sensum multa cogitantem. Et difficile aestimamus quae in terra sunt, et quae in prospectu sunt invenimus cum labore; quae autem in caelis sunt quis investigabit? Sensum autem tuum quis sciet, nisi tu dederis sapientiam, et miseris Spiritum sanctum tuum de altissimis? Extremum autem huius sententiae omnino redarguit Astrologos, qui humana omnia eventa, quorum multa ex secretissimo Dei consilio et voluntate pendent, divinare se posse profitentur.
...than by the single sense of the eyes does the heaven lie open to mortals: which sense, however, often happens to be deceived, on account of the great length of the interval, or the supreme swiftness of the heaven's whirling, or a faulty disposition of the Medium or of the sight, or on account of a defect of the astrolabe, of the tables, and of the astronomical instruments. And this too we read attested in the sacred writings, in chapter 9 of the book of Wisdom. The body, it says, which is corrupted weighs down the soul, and the earthly habitation presses down the mind that musers on many things. And with difficulty do we estimate the things that are on earth, and the things that are in our sight we find with labor; but the things that are in the heavens, who shall search out? And who shall know thy thought, unless thou give wisdom, and send thy Holy Spirit from on high? And the end of this saying wholly refutes the Astrologers, who profess that they can divine all human events—many of which depend on the most secret counsel and will of God.5
PRAETEREA, iactant Astrologi habere se innumerabilium annorum observationes rerum eventis comprobatas, e quibus ars ipsorum collecta et confecta sit: nam cum in omni praeteriti temporis spatio pene innumerabiles res eodem modo evenirent iisdem signis antegressis, ars est effecta eadem saepe animadvertendo atque notando; quare Chaldaeos ferunt quadringenta septuaginta millia annorum monumentis huiusmodi observationum Astrologicarum comprehensa habuisse. Verum, hoc quam sit commentitium et improbabile vel ex eo liquet quod Astrologi non potuerunt eiusmodi observationes et experientias—non dico millies ut ipsi iactitant, sed ne ter quidem bisve—colligere et comparare potuerunt: nam caeli facies et omnium signorum caelestium positura quae semel fuit, eadem omnino vel nunquam, vel non nisi post immensa annorum spatia, redire potest; quippe octavus orbis in quo sunt inerrantes stellae non ante sex et triginta annorum millia circuitum suum absolvit. Quin doctissimi quidam Mathematici optimis rationibus probarunt motus caeli esse inter se incommensurabiles, ob idque eandem caeli faciem eundemque stellarum positum saepius evenire non posse.
BESIDES, the Astrologers boast that they have observations of innumerable years, confirmed by the events of things, from which their art was collected and completed: for since, in all the space of past time, almost innumerable things came to pass in the same way, the same signs having gone before, their art was effected by often noting and marking these; wherefore they say the Chaldeans had four hundred seventy thousand years comprehended in the records of astrological observations of this kind. But how fictitious and improbable this is, is clear even from this, that the Astrologers could not have gathered and compared observations and experiences of this kind—I do not say a thousand times, as they themselves boast, but not even twice or thrice: for the face of the heaven, and the position of all the celestial signs, which once was, can return wholly the same either never, or only after immense spaces of years; since the eighth orb, in which are the fixed stars, does not complete its circuit before thirty-six thousand years. Nay, certain most learned Mathematicians have proved by the best reasons that the motions of the heaven are incommensurable among themselves, and on that account the same face of the heaven and the same position of the stars cannot recur more than once.6
HANC rationem Phauorinus Philosophus apud Gell. lib. 14 c. 1 paulo enucleatius, certe luculentius et elegantius tractat his verbis:
This reasoning Favorinus the Philosopher, in Aulus Gellius, book 14, chapter 1, treats a little more distinctly—certainly more lucidly and elegantly—in these words:7

If the observation of the Chaldeans began to be made in this way—that it was noted in what posture, what form, and what position of the stars anyone was born; then thereafter, from the beginning of his life, his fortune and character and disposition, and the circumstances of his affairs and business, and at last even the end of his life, were observed, and all these, as they had come to pass, were committed to writing; and afterward, in long courses of time, when those same stars should be in the same place and the same posture, the same things were judged to be about to befall others also who had been born at that same time—if, he says, the observation began to be made in this way, and from that observation a certain discipline has been composed, it can by no means proceed: for let them say in how many years, or rather in how many ages, this cycle of observation could have been completed. For it was agreed among the Astrologers, he said, that those stars which they called wandering—which were said to be the determiners of the fates of all things—return all together to the same place with the same posture only after an infinite, well-nigh innumerable, number of years, whence they set out[...]8

Si Chaldaeorum isto modo coepta fieri observatio est, ut animadverteretur quo habitu, qua forma, quaque positura stellarum aliquis nasceretur; tum deinceps ab ineunte vita fortuna eius et mores et ingenium, et circumstantia rerum negotiorumque, et ad postremum finis etiam vitae spectaretur, eaque omnia, ut usu venerant, litteris mandarentur; ac postea longis temporibus cum ipsa illa eodem in loco eodemque habitu forent, eadem ceteris quoque eventura existimaretur qui eodem illo tempore nati fuissent. Si isto, inquit, modo observari coeptum est, et ex eaque observatione composita quaedam disciplina est, nullo id pacto potest procedere: dicant enim quot tandem annis, vel potius quot saeculis orbis hic observationis perfici quiverit. Constare quippe inter Astrologos dicebat, stellas istas quas erraticas dicerent quae esse omnium rerum fatales dicerentur, infinito, prope et innumerabili numero annorum ad eundem locum cum eodem habitu simul omnes, unde profecta[sunt]...

...they set out, so that neither any continuous tenor of observation, nor any memory, nor any written records, could have endured for so great an age. Thus Favorinus.9

...[profecta] sunt, regredi, ut neque ullus observationis tenor, neque memoria ulla, neque effigies litterarum tanto aevo potuerint edurare. Sic Phauorinus.

Ad haec, licet Astrologi cognoscere possent singulares vires et defluxus cuiuslibet astri separatim, tamen quam vim habeant sydera cum defluxus diversorum astrorum una coëunt et permiscentur, vel in caelo vel in aëre vel in terra, vel etiam cum causis sublunaribus eorumque actionibus, ab ipsis nequaquam sciri potest. Audiat lector Origenem, cuius ex Commentariis super Genesim hanc Eusebius extremo lib. 6 de Praeparatione Evang. citat sententiam:
Besides, although the Astrologers could know the individual forces and influences of each star separately, yet what force the heavenly bodies have when the influences of diverse stars come together and are mingled—whether in the heaven, or in the air, or in the earth, or even with the sublunary causes and their actions—can by no means be known by them. Let the reader hear Origen, this opinion of whom, from his Commentaries on Genesis, Eusebius cites at the end of book 6 of the Preparation for the Gospel:10

But the things, he says, which they assert to come about by the commixture, composition, and tempering of diverse aspects, they will assuredly grant cannot in any way be known. For how will you perceive by how much the harm of a malign aspect is diminished on account of the aspect of a benign star? and whether the malign one takes away what is granted by the benign, because it has looked upon its place, or changes it, or whether some mixture arises thence, who shall perceive? all of which, if anyone look at them more deeply, he will easily believe cannot be thoroughly perceived by human wit. Whence, if anyone make trial of these things, he will see the casters of nativities err in more cases than they attain the truth. Wherefore Isaiah too, as if these things were impossible to all, says to the daughter of the Chaldeans who most of all profess these arts, Let the Astrologers stand and save thee; let the augurs of heaven announce to thee what shall come to pass. For by these words we are taught that even the most diligent Chaldeans cannot foretell what God wills to assign to each nation. Thus far Origen.11

Quae autem, inquit, commistione, compositione ac temperie diversorum aspectuum fieri asserunt, profecto concedent nullo modo sciri posse. Quomodo enim quantum diminuatur de laesione maligni aspectus propter aspectum benigni syderis percipies? et utrum auferat malignus quod a benigno conceditur, quoniam locum eius aspexerit, aut mutet, aut mixtura quaedam inde fiat, quis percipiet? quae omnia si quis altius inspiciat, facile credet non posse ista humano ingenio penitus percipi. Unde si quis harum rerum periculum fecerit, videbit in pluribus errare quam veritatem consequi Genethliacos. Quamobrem Esaias etiam, quasi haec omnibus impossibilia sint, ad filiam Chaldaeorum qui maxime ista profitentur ait, Adsint et salvam te faciant Astrologi, caeli Augures annuntient tibi quid eventurum sit. His enim verbis docemur vel diligentissimos in hac re Chaldaeos non posse praedicere quae velit unicuique genti Deus attribuere. Hactenus Origenes.

His accedit multas stellas quae vel non clare cernuntur, vel etiam nullatenus cernuntur; earum vero quae cernuntur paucas sibi esse cognitas, permultas vero necdum exploratas fatentur Astrologi. Qua ratione igitur ex paucis astris quorum vires norunt tam confidenter praenunciant futura, cum per aliorum syderum quae nesciunt influxus notorum sibi syderum effectus aut impediri aut variari possint? nisi forte astrorum quae latent ipsos nullas esse vires nullosque defluxus impudenter et absurde mentiantur. Certe constat inter Astrologos numerari in octavo caelo mille praeterque viginti duas stellas, quarum cum quaelibet maior sit terra, necesse est ingentem esse earum vim et potentiam: huiusmodi stellarum vel nullam vel perexiguam notitiam habent Astrologi, quippe cum ars eorum iudiciaria fere constet ex planetarum observationibus, in quibus tota propemodum versatur et consumitur. Vidit hoc, qua erat perspicacia ingenii, Seneca, et in lib. 2 Natural. quaestionum cap. 32 eleganter exposuit:
To these things is added that there are many stars which either are not clearly seen, or are not seen at all; and of those that are seen, the Astrologers confess that few are known to them, but very many are not yet explored. By what reasoning, then, do they so confidently foretell the future from the few stars whose forces they know, when, through the influxes of the other stars which they do not know, the effects of the stars known to them might be hindered or altered?—unless perchance they impudently and absurdly lie that the stars which are hidden from them have no forces and no influences. It is certainly agreed that among the Astrologers there are reckoned in the eighth heaven one thousand and twenty-two stars, each of which, since it is larger than the earth, must have a vast force and power: of such stars the Astrologers have either no knowledge or very little, since their judicial art consists almost entirely of the observations of the planets, in which it is engaged and consumed well-nigh wholly. Seneca saw this, with the perspicacity of his genius, and in book 2 of the Natural Questions, chapter 32, elegantly set it forth:12

What else is it, he says, that strikes error into the experts in nativities, than that they assign us to a few stars, when all the things that are above us claim a part of us for themselves? The lower ones perhaps direct their force more nearly upon us; and those which, being more frequently moved, look upon us in one way and the other animals in another; but those also which are either unmoved, or, by reason of a velocity equal to the whole world, are like to the unmoved, are not outside the right and dominion over us. Thus Seneca.13

Quid est aliud, inquit, quod errorem incutiat peritis natalium, quam quod paucis nos syderibus assignant, cum omnia quae supra nos sunt partem sibi nostri vindicent? Submissiora forsitan in nos propius vim suam dirigunt, et ea quae frequentius mota aliter nos, aliter cetera animalia prospiciunt; ceterum, et illa quae aut immota sunt aut propter velocitatem universo mundo parem immotis similia, non extra ius dominiumque nostri sunt. Haec Seneca.

SUPERIORIBUS annis vidimus stellam novam ante illud tempus nunquam in caelo visam, et iudicio Astrologorum in eodem loco ubi stel[lae fixae]...
In recent years we have seen a new star, never before that time seen in the heaven, and (by the judgment of the Astrologers) placed in the very region where the fix[ed stars]...14
...[stel]lae fixae lucent positam: haec cum ad aliquod tempus conspicua fuisset, repente tota ex aspectu nostro discessit et prorsus evanuit. Hanc stellam necesse est vel in caelo esse generatam et postea corruptam (idemque in aliis saepius evenire, longis tamen temporum intervallis, verisimile est), vel esse supra septem planetas alia sydera errantia quae proprios quidem meatus sed nobis tamen ignotos habeant, vel denique quas nos in octavo orbe stellas inerrantes et infixas putamus, eas quoque proprios circuitus et motus agere: de quo addubitasse olim Hypparchum, nobilissimum in Astrologia virum, locuples auctor et testis est Plinius in capite 25 libri secundi. Hipparchus, inquit, nunquam satis laudatus, novam stellam et aliam in aevo suo genitam deprehendit; eiusque motu qua die fulsit ad dubitationem est adductus, anne hoc saepius fieret, moverenturque et ea quas putamus affixas.
...the fixed stars shine: which star, when it had been visible for some time, suddenly departed wholly from our sight and utterly vanished. This star must either have been generated in the heaven and afterward corrupted (and it is likely that the same happens more often in other cases, but at long intervals of time); or there are, above the seven planets, other wandering stars which have indeed their own courses, but to us unknown; or, finally, that those which we think to be fixed and inserted stars in the eighth orb, these too perform their own circuits and motions: of which Hipparchus, a most noble man in Astrology, once doubted, as Pliny is a rich author and witness in chapter 25 of the second book. Hipparchus, he says, never sufficiently praised, detected a new star, and another generated in his own age; and, moved by its motion on the day on which it shone, he was led to doubt whether this happened more often, and whether those also which we think fixed were moved.15
Quid quod permagni ad artem suam referre censent Astrologi convenientiam et discrepantiam quae est inter duos Zodiacos, alterum octavi alterum noni caeli, exploratam habere? quae tamen ipsis nota esse non potest: quippe cum nonum caelum omni stella luceque careat, nec aliud de ipso quam motus, isque ex motu octavi caeli, deprehendi possit. Latet etiam Astrologos quemadmodum isti duo Zodiaci se habuerint in exordio mundi, quod tempus ab origine mundi ad hanc diem exactum certo teneri nequeat: nam ut annorum eius temporis ratio aliqua iniri et numerus colligi possit, dierum tamen et horarum non potest, quorum tamen subtilis et certa computatio isti doctrinae Astrologicae opus est.
What of this, that the Astrologers reckon it of very great importance to their art to have explored the agreement and discrepancy which there is between the two Zodiacs—the one of the eighth, the other of the ninth heaven? which, however, cannot be known to them: since the ninth heaven lacks all star and light, nor can anything of it be detected but its motion, and that from the motion of the eighth heaven. It is also hidden from the Astrologers how those two Zodiacs stood at the beginning of the world, because the time elapsed from the origin of the world to this day cannot be certainly held: for although some reckoning of the years of that time can be entered upon and a number gathered, yet of the days and hours it cannot—of which, nevertheless, a subtle and certain computation is needful to that astrological doctrine.16
IAM vero vix potest sine errore ullo notari et cognosci positus astrorum qui est in eo momento quo quisque nascitur. Etenim difficillimum est vel punctum temporis in quo quispiam oritur, vel in eo ipso puncto aspectum syderum omnium qui tunc viget observare: saepe namque caeli et stellarum aspectum nubila et crassorum vaporum interpositus vel adimunt nobis vel interturbant et infuscant; et, quod caput est, rapidissima caeli vertigo facit ut constellatio prius transvolet quam a nobis proprie annotetur, quippe per singula fere momenta alia et alia caeli facies et identidem diversa astrorum positura existit. Profitentur isti Astrologi se cuiusvis hominis eventa omnia praenunciare posse, dummodo sibi ortus eius certum tempus pernotescat: at eiusmodi tempus subtiliter et proprie, ita nimirum ut opus esset Astrologo, fere nescitur. Nam ut dicatur, exempli causa, Petrum esse natum vigesimo ab hinc anno, die Septembris ultimo, hora noctis decima vel ineunte vel media vel iam exeunte: at momentum illud, vel potius minimum illud tempus quo Petrus alvo matris fusus et in lucem editus est, nec obstetrix nec parentes seu cognati subtilissime annotatum et perspectum habent; qua tamen temporis illius subtilissima observatione et cognitione ad divinandum eget Astrologus.
Now indeed, the position of the stars which is at the moment in which each one is born can scarcely be noted and known without any error. For it is most difficult to observe either the point of time in which someone is born, or, in that very point, the aspect of all the stars which is then in force: for often the interposition of clouds and of thick vapors either takes away from us the aspect of the heaven and the stars, or disturbs and darkens it; and—what is the chief thing—the most rapid whirling of the heaven makes the constellation fly past before it is properly noted by us, since at almost every single moment a different face of the heaven and a different position of the stars exists. These Astrologers profess that they can foretell all the events of anyone's life, provided the certain time of his birth become known to them: but such time, subtly and properly—just as would be needful to the Astrologer—is generally unknown. For though it be said, for example, that Peter was born twenty years ago, on the last day of September, at the tenth hour of the night, whether beginning or middle or already ending: yet that moment, or rather that least span of time, in which Peter was poured forth from his mother's womb and brought forth into the light, neither the midwife nor the parents or kinsfolk have most exactly noted and observed; and yet of that most subtle observation and knowledge of that time the Astrologer has need for his divining.17
Non possum facere ut adscribere hoc loco praetermittam verba Basilii, quibus ipsa haec ratio quam nos strictim attigimus latius ab eo explicatur et acrius urgetur. Sic enim ille homilia 6 super Genesim scriptum reliquit:
I cannot bring myself to omit setting down in this place the words of Basil, by which this very argument, which we have touched briefly, is more fully explained by him and more keenly pressed. For thus he left it written in his sixth homily on Genesis:18

The inventors of the genethliac art, when over a long space of time they had perceived that very many configurations escaped their own science, contracted the measures of time into a very narrow compass, so that at each smallest and sudden instant (such as that of which the Apostle speaks, In a moment of time, in the twinkling of an eye) there is the greatest difference between one nativity and another. So that he indeed who is born in this moment shall be a King of cities and prince of peoples, most wealthy, most powerful; but he who is born at the moment of the following time shall be some poor man, or a begging mountebank, or a juggler, shifting from door to door for the sake of getting his daily food. Wherefore, that orb which is called the zodiac being divided into twelve parts—since in the space of thirty days the sun passes through the twelfth part of its globe, which they call the fixed part—they cut those twelve parts each into thirty portions; then, those several portions being divided into sixty minutes, they divided each of these minutes again into another sixty in a like manner. Granting, then, the bringing-forth of those who are brought into the light, let us see, I beseech you, whether these Authors can keep up for themselves this most exact division of time. For as soon as the little one is born, the midwife examines whether it is male or female; then she awaits the infant's cry, the sure sign of the life of him who is newly born. How many of the sixties of minutes do you suppose have passed in this time? The midwife then tells the Chaldean of the birth that has occurred: how many of the smallest moments do you suppose have run by meanwhile, while the midwife is speaking?—especially if by chance the Chaldean happens to be present not in the women's chamber, but in the hall or porch of the house, setting down the time and the hour. And since he who is to determine the time and hour diligently must use instruments for exploring the hours, whether they be for day or night: how many of the minutes (in this time too, I ask) does the examination let fly past and slip away? For it must needs be ascertained, by that star by which the time and hour are to be explored, not only in what twelfth part it is, but also how near it is to the twelfth portion of the part, and in what sixtieth of the minutes (into which each of those first sixtieths is subdivided). And yet this so slender and subtle discovery of time, which they cannot reach, they nevertheless necessarily say must be made for each of the wandering stars, so that it may at last be ascertained and explored what disposition or relation they bore to the stars fixed in the heaven, and what figure they had among themselves, when the offspring was brought into the light. Since these things are so, if it is impossible for anyone to reach that time most exactly, and a variation of even the briefest time makes one go utterly astray over the whole course: surely they seem to deserve no slight derision—both those who have given themselves to the study of this art (which, it is agreed, is nowhere in the reason of things), and those who gaping hang intent upon their lips, just as if those men could know all the things that are to befall them. Thus far are the things which Basil in that place disputes against the Astrologers.19

Genethliacae artis inventores, cum in temporis amplo spatio complures figuras suam ipsorum scientiam fugere percepissent, in angustum admodum temporis contraxere mensuras, ut minutissimo quoque et subitaneo articulo (quale est quod Apostolus dicit, In momento temporis, in ictu oculi) plurimum differentiae sit inter nativitatem et nativitatem. Ut is quidem qui hoc in momento genitus est, futurus sit Rex civitatum populorumque princeps, locupletissimus, praepotens; is autem qui natus est temporis sequentis momento, pauper quidam sit futurus, aut mendicus circulator, vel praestigiator, ex ostiis ostia permutans quotidiani consequendi causa victus. Quamobrem eo orbe qui signifer appellatur duodecim in partes diviso, cum in triginta dierum spatio partem sol eius globi transeat duodecimam quam inerrantem appellant, triginta in portiones singulas illas duodecim partes secuerunt; tum singulis portionibus illis in sexaginta minuta divisis, minuta haec singula rursum in alia sexaginta modo simili divisere. Posito igitur enixu eorum qui in lucem eduntur, videamus, obsecro, si hanc exactissimam temporis divisionem Auctores hi sibi valeant conservare. Nam simul atque editus pusio est, mas an femella sit obstetrix explorat; tum vagitum expectat infantis, nimirum indicium vitae eius qui natus recens est. Quot hoc tempore vis sexagesima praeterisse minuta? Dicit obstetrix deinde Chaldaeo partum qui editus est: quot minutissima momenta vis interea dum obstetrix loquitur praetercurrisse? praesertim si forte fortuna fuerit non in conclavi mulierum Chaldaeus ille praesens, sed in aedium atrio aut vestibulo, tempus horamque reponens. Et cum eum qui definiturus est diligenter tempus ac horam, exploratoria nimirum horarum percipere oporteat instrumenta, sive diurna sint sive nocturna: quot minutorum (hoc quoque tempore quaeso) praetervolat praeteritque examen? Compertum enim ea esse stella qua tempus horaque sit exploranda, non solum quanta in parte sit duodecima, sed etiam quam iuxta duodecimam portionem partis, in quotoque minuto sexagesima eorum, in qua subdivisa sunt singula sexagesima illa prima, necesse est. Atque hanc tamen adeo tenuem subtilemque temporis inventionem, quamquam attingere nequeunt, singulis in stellis erratibus faciendam esse necessario dicunt, ut qualem ad caelum adfixas stellas ipsa dispositionem habitudinemve haberent, qualisque ipsarum esset inter sese figura cum in lucem ederetur foetus, compertum sit tandem ac exploratum. Quae cum ita sint, si fieri non potest ut tempus illud exactissime quisquam attingat, variationeque vel brevissimi temporis fit ut tota via penitus aberretur: deridendi profecto non mediocriter esse videntur, tam ii qui studio huius indulserunt artis (quam in ratione rerum nusquam esse constat) quam illi qui hiantes ab illorum ore pendent intenti, perinde quasi omnia illi scire possint quae ipsis sunt eventura. Hactenus sunt quae Basilius eo loco adversus Astrologos disputat.

Translator’s notes

  1. The second chapter of the anti-astrology disputation. ↩
  2. The philosopher's argument: astrology is futile because the astrologers neither know all the stars' powers and effects, nor (even if they did) could foreknow all futures—so their predictions are empty and fallacious. Two points to prove: (1) the astrologers are ignorant of celestial matters; (2) even if expert, they could not foreknow all futures. He treats the first first. Sentence continues onto the next page (catchword ‘his’; signature H 3). ↩
  3. It is very hard to know perfectly even the easier celestial things; the great variety of philosophers' opinions proves it. Aristotle, first of philosophers, confesses he holds only conjectural knowledge of much in the heavens (De Caelo 2, texts 17, 34, 60, 61). How then can the astrologers—far inferior—have grasped the most abstruse thing, the truth of all future events? Easier questions (is heaven simple or composite? animate? self-moved or moved by an Angel?) expose their ignorance. ↩
  4. Let the astrologers first explain the present influences of the stars (then we might believe them about future effects)—for present things are easier to know than future, mutable, contingent things. Let them explain the occult properties of stones, herbs, and animals, which (being near and subject to our senses) are far easier than celestial things, so distant. Sentence continues onto the next page (catchword ‘alio’). ↩
  5. Heaven is open to mortals only by sight—often deceived by distance, the heaven's dizzying speed, a faulty medium or eye, or flaws in the astrolabe and tables. Wisdom 9:15–17 (‘the corruptible body weighs down the soul... who shall search out the things in heaven?... unless thou send thy Holy Spirit’) refutes the astrologers, who claim to divine events depending on God's most secret will. ↩
  6. Marginal gloss: "Redarguitur antiquitas syderalium observationum quam iactant Astrologi." The astrologers boast of observations over countless years (the Chaldeans claimed 470,000 years), but could not gather even two or three such records, since the same celestial configuration recurs only after immense ages (the eighth orb's circuit = 36,000 years), and the heavens' motions are (mathematicians proved) incommensurable—so the same face of heaven can never recur. ↩
  7. Marginal gloss: "Phauorinus contra Astrologos." Favorinus the philosopher (in Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae 14.1) treats this reasoning more lucidly: ↩
  8. Favorinus, quoted in Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae 14.1. The block quote spans printed pp. 247–248. Continues onto the next page (catchword ‘profecta’). ↩
  9. Conclusion of Favorinus's argument (in Gellius 14.1): the wandering stars return to the same place and aspect only after an almost infinite number of years—so no continuous record, memory, or document could last so long. ↩
  10. Even if the astrologers knew each star's force separately, they could never know the combined force when diverse stars' influences mingle (in heaven, air, earth, or with sublunary causes). Origen's opinion, quoted by Eusebius (Praep. ev. 6) from his Genesis commentaries: ↩
  11. Marginal gloss: "Isaia 47." Origen (in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 6): the astrologers must concede that the combined effect of diverse aspects cannot be known (how much a benign star lessens a malign aspect's harm, etc.); so whoever tests it finds the nativity-casters err more than they hit the truth. Isaiah 47:13 (‘Let the Astrologers stand and save thee...’) shows even the most diligent Chaldeans cannot foretell what God assigns each nation. ↩
  12. Many stars are seen dimly or not at all; the astrologers admit they know few and many remain unexplored. How then do they predict from the few they know, when the unknown stars' influxes could hinder or alter the known ones'? There are 1,022 stars in the eighth heaven, each larger than the earth and of vast power, yet the astrologers know little of them (their judicial art rests almost wholly on the planets). Seneca (Nat. quaest. 2.32): ↩
  13. Seneca, Naturales quaestiones 2.32: astrologers err by assigning us to a few stars, when all the heavenly bodies above us claim a share of us—not only the lower and faster ones, but even the fixed stars are not outside their dominion over us. ↩
  14. Marginal gloss: "De nova stella quae superioribus annis in caelo visa est." Pererius's eyewitness reference to a new star (the supernova of 1572, ‘Tycho's star,’ in Cassiopeia) seen among the fixed stars. Sentence continues onto the next page (catchword ‘lae fixae’). ↩
  15. Marginal gloss: "Duplex Zodiacus apud Astrologos." The new star implies either a star generated and corrupted in heaven, or wandering stars beyond the seven planets, or that the ‘fixed’ stars have their own motions—about which Hipparchus once doubted (Pliny, NH 2.25: ‘Hipparchus, never sufficiently praised, detected a new star... and was led to doubt whether even those we think fixed were moved’). ↩
  16. The astrologers think it crucial to know the agreement/discrepancy of the two Zodiacs (of the eighth and ninth heaven), yet cannot, since the ninth heaven is starless (only its motion, derived from the eighth's, is detectable). Nor can they know how the two stood at the world's beginning, since the exact time from creation is unknown—the years may be reckoned, but not the days and hours, which their art requires. ↩
  17. Marginal gloss: "Quam difficile sit aspectum syderum qui in ortu cuiusque hominis viget annotare." The star-position at the moment of birth can scarcely be known without error: the exact instant is hard to observe (clouds and the heaven's rapid whirling let the constellation fly past). The astrologers claim to predict all if the exact birth-time is known—but it is not: ‘Peter born twenty years ago, last day of September, tenth hour of night’—yet the precise instant of birth neither midwife nor parents noted, though the astrologer needs exactly that. Continues onto the next page (catchword ‘NON’; signature I). ↩
  18. Marginal gloss: "B. Basilii argumentatio contra Astrologos." Pererius introduces a long quotation from Basil of Caesarea, Homily 6 of the Hexaemeron (On Genesis), which presses the argument about the unobservable moment of birth. ↩
  19. Marginal gloss: "1 Cor. 15" (the ‘In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye’ allusion = 1 Cor 15:52). Basil, Hexaemeron Homily 6: a sustained ridicule of the casters of nativities (Genethliaci). They subdivide the zodiac into 12 signs, each into 30 portions, each into 60 minutes, each minute into 60 seconds—yet at a real birth the midwife's checking the sex, awaiting the cry, and telling the (possibly distant) Chaldean let countless instants slip past unobserved. Since the exact moment can never be caught and the slightest error wrecks the whole reckoning, both the practitioners and their gaping clients deserve derision. (Catchword ‘Etiam’ leads to the next page.) ↩