Tag: astrology

Exploring personal cosmologies: a qualitative investigation into cosmogony, astrology, and perceptions of the universe

by Christopher Layser

This qualitative investigation into contemporary cosmology utilized an online questionnaire and semi-structured participant interviews with a targeted group of twenty respondents in the American Northeast as its primary methodology in exploring factors contributing to the development of personal cosmologies. Cultural factors such as religious and secular education plus the influence family, friends and society- whether positive or negative- proved paramount in the formation of worldviews. Informants with varying religious, scientific, and philosophical engagement to the subject matter applied their respective methodologies in conveying beliefs as to the origin of the cosmos, ranging from creation narratives to emerging theories based upon observational astrophysics. The question of astrology and its application were posed, and the topics of cosmophobia and cosmophilia were introduced in order to explore the target group’s general perception of the Universe and their opinion of humankind’s place within it.

Introduction

The aim of this research is to explore the personal cosmologies of a small group of participants in the American Northeast using qualitative methods of data gathering. Through semi-structured interviews and questionnaire data, this investigation into deeply held beliefs and the comparative cosmologies of the informants will attempt to reveal important insight as to how and perhaps why individuals perceive the cosmos in the ways in which they do.  Themes explored in this project include the factors contributing to the development of these personal cosmologies, narratives concerning the origin of the cosmos, beliefs surrounding the application of astrology, perceptions as to the nature of the universe and the importance of humankind’s place within it. 

In modern discourse the term cosmology has come to describe two very distinct yet related disciplines. The first finds its home in astrophysics and is defined by Norris S. Hetherington as ‘the science, theory or study of the universe as an orderly system and the laws that govern it; in particular, a branch of astronomy that deals with the structure and evolution of the universe.’[1] The second finds its home in the humanities. Nicholas Campion considers this second use of the term as a ‘meaning system’ which ‘deals with mythic narratives, ways of seeing the sky, and the manner in which human beings locate themselves in space and time’.[2]  Yet John North demonstrates how theses disciplines converge when he notes that ‘throughout the long history of theorizing about the universe…there have always been considerations of simplicity, harmony, and aesthetics, often masquerading under the name philosophy, and often directed by strongly held religious beliefs’ and thus ‘we cannot discount the place of the human psyche in modern cosmology.’[3]. Freya Mathews contends that these ‘cosmologies are not of course pulled out of the air to suit the convenience of the communities to which they are attached…they are conditioned by many and various historical, environmental, technological, psychological and social factors.’[4] This rationale can serve to focus the discussion of cosmology down to a very personal level, whereby the choices and beliefs to which one adheres begin to develop into one’s own personal cosmology.

Methodology

The target group of this research does not define any particular cohesive community other than it represents a sample of friends, family, co-workers, and acquaintances of the researcher, with additional individuals invited to participate based upon their professional engagement with the subject matter. The participants reside in various locales of the American Northeast- including parts of Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and Maryland. They ranged from thirty-one to seventy-six years of age with seventy percent identifying as male and thirty percent as female.[5] My own position in field could be defined as varying degrees of insider status: I am a white male; my age is nearly the mean of the target group; my religious affiliation is Christian and I am closely acquainted with much of the target group.

All participants were asked to engage in an online Google Forms questionnaire. The questionnaire introduction addressed ethical considerations informing participants that all data would be collected anonymously, remaining so until its destruction after the completion of this project. Twenty individuals completed the survey, although not all respondents answered all questions. Eltica de Jager Meezenbroek and colleagues suggest that ‘a questionnaire that transcends specific beliefs is a prerequisite for quantifying the importance of spirituality among people who adhere to a religion or none at all.’[6] Furthermore, Judith Bell writes that a well-designed questionnaire ‘will give you the information that you need, will be acceptable to respondents, and will give no problems during the analysis and interpretation phase.’[7] This questionnaire attempted work within these guidelines, posing carefully crafted questions intent on exploring beliefs concerning the origin and the nature of the cosmos.  

In addition, five informants, chosen for their professional or religious engagement with the subject matter, were asked to participate in semi-structured interviews to gain deeper insight not attainable from a questionnaire. These five informants are referenced in this paper as the astronomer, the astrologer, the pastor, the Buddhist, and the psychologist. The interviews were conducted in person, with one exception, and were recorded with the explicit consent of the interviewee for later transcription. Monique Hennick, Inge Hutter, and Ajay Bailey suggest using interviews as a methodology aids in seeking ‘information on individual, personal experiences from people about a specific issue or topic’[8]. 

Influences on the Development of Personal Cosmologies


In the past, cosmology has ‘been closely intertwined with religious belief,’ explains Ernan McMullin, and ‘only within the last half-century or so has a specialized science of cosmology developed that makes no mention of God.’[9]  In this study, when asked if they believed in God, twelve respondents answered yes.[10] When asked if they hold similar religious beliefs to one or both of their parents, eleven answered yes.[11] Nine identify as Protestant/Evangelical Christians.[12] It can be surmised from analysis of this data that many respondents adhere to a belief in God that had been conditioned from a familial ‘Christian’ culture in their formative years. The breakdown of religious affiliation can be seen in the chart in figure 1. 

Figure 1: Question number four results- Religious affiliation of the target group revealing the largest breakdown as Protestant/Evangelical Christian, Buddhist, or Agnostic. Chart obtained from Google Forms, 2017

All interviewees revealed that at an early age they were raised in a religious environment, taught a creation narrative, and were heavily influenced by a particular family member. For the pastor, a fascination with the sky was introduced by his mother, while his ‘traditional Christian’ upbringing greatly influenced his worldview and eventual vocation.[13] The astrologer confided 

the one person who shaped [my own personal cosmology] would have been my great uncle…an avid lover of physics, and avid student of the Bible and also a practicing astrologer … a lot of things that ended up sticking to the wall were based upon my relationship with [him].[14]

These early Christian teachings developed into deeply held worldviews for the pastor and the astrologer. From similar beginnings, the other informant’s personal cosmologies developed along vastly different trajectories. The astronomer, while raised with ‘pretty strict religious influences’, now approaches everything from a purely scientific outlook without adopting a ‘specific set of beliefs.’[15] The Buddhist relates that his personal spiritual journey started with a loss of faith in the Judeo-Christian tradition based upon observed hypocritical behaviours of a grandparent, which set off a long investigation into all things esoteric. ‘From Shamanism, I went to Daoism’, he recalls ‘and from Daoism I went to Buddhism, and that’s where I stayed.’[16] He recalls a college friend who ‘was a devout Buddhist who also had grown up in the Christian faith’ who ‘helped [him] along… like a mentor.’[17]  The psychologist’s path led from a similar rejection of an early Catholic upbringing- likened to a rejection of Greek myths- in favour of the cosmology taught to her in the public-school system. Yet as an adult, she found that, psychologically, she ‘had spiritual feelings and wanted something to do with them, and began searching for a spiritual home’.[18] She acknowledges ‘this notion that most faiths have a creation story’ and wants to ‘combine this with what [she] thought to be true about science’.[19] These informants’ revelations help illustrate the varied environmental, technological, psychological and social influences that Mathews claims are so influential to the development of personal cosmologies.[20] Furthermore, this study demonstrates that from similar starting points with similar influencing forces applied, individuals’ personal cosmological views can develop along completely independent and varying trajectories.

The question of cosmogony

‘How was the universe created?’ Karen Fox asks; ‘how does it work…how unique is… mankind…with questions this big, one almost has to rely on answers from…three disciplines- religion, philosophy, and science- each of which uses a fantastically different method to find an explanation.’[21] These are questions, not only of cosmology, but of cosmogony – a term that Hetherington defines as the subject, study, or theories of the creation or origin of the universe.[22]  Both the questionnaire and the semi-structured interview prompted participants to describe their own belief as to how the cosmos came into being. Engaging the interview informants substantiated Fox’ claim about addressing the question of cosmogony- for the religious, scientific and philosophical methodologies adopted by the pastor, the astronomer and the Buddhist respectively, are indeed quite different and ultimately contribute to the development of quite different personal cosmologies.

Nearly half of the respondents self-identified as Protestant/Evangelical Christians, most of whom believe the cosmos was- in the words of one respondent- ‘created and set into motion by a sovereign and holy God’, with variations on that theme implying causality between the edict “let there be light” and the Big Bang.[23] Campion points out ‘Christian cosmogony is broadly… inherited from the Jewish book of Genesis, and the creation in seven days’, though acknowledges the ‘division between those who prefer to take this account metaphorically and those who believe it literally.’[24] Although the questionnaire responses were insufficient to elucidate any real division between a metaphorical or literal adherence to the text, the implications of the pastor seems to indicate that any such differences are incidental when compared to the central theme. He finds the Genesis account- stripped of the particulars such as the ‘length of a day’ which cause such contention, to ‘a pre-existing God that create[d] the universe’- makes sense to him.[25]In fact, even 

some of what modern scientists would suggest [as a] possible means of … the existence of the universe… speaks in some way to the reality of a pre-existing supreme being that decided to make what he made.[26]

His religious methodology is an adherence to the creation narrative in scripture. However, as Romero D’Souza explains, ‘the Bible was not intended to be a treatise on cosmology as much as the story of God’s dealings with human beings.’[27]

Confronted with the question of cosmogony, the astronomer explains the scientific methodology used to theorize about the origin of the universe- that by observing how fast distant galaxies appear to be receding from us, cosmologists can deduce that the universe is in fact expanding. 

If you take that back to the beginning, where it all came from one point, which is the big bang…does anybody know? Is there any evidence what happened at that one instant in time? Absolutely not.[28]

Using observational astronomy, cosmologists can see into the past yet ‘can’t see back beyond a few hundred thousand years after that supposed event. ‘So, was there a big universe that had collapsed and then [had been] reborn?’ the astronomer asks… ‘we don’t know.’  But he contends that the data gathered by studying cosmic microwave background radiation and particle physics of the early universe is starting to paint a cohesive picture. ‘I think we’re on to something’ he ventures. ‘but there [are] just some things that we might never be able to figure out.’[29]

The Buddhist, on the other hand, answers simply that ‘the cosmos is, and the start of it is not an essential question I seek to answer.’[30] The methodology he chooses to illustrate this philosophy is the paraphrasing of a Buddhist parable- that of The Poison Arrow. He poses a scenario wherein he is shot by a poison arrow but postpones treatment until all of his questions are answered – ‘Who shot it? Who made it? Where was the poison found? What venom did it come from? Why did the person shoot it?’ etc.[31] The precious time lost in pursuit of these inconsequential facts proves fatal. ‘Where we came from isn’t really all that important to me’ he answers, ‘it’s more [about] what do I do now that I know I’m here.’[32] The pastor, astronomer, and Buddhist informants each approach the question of cosmogony using methodologies from their respective disciplines- religion, science and philosophy. Their finding, unsurprisingly, range from a doctrinal surety to the testable hypothesis to musings on the metaphysical relevance of such beginnings. 

The question of astrology

Respondents were posed with a hypothetical question: ‘if someone asked you if you believe in astrology, how would you respond?’[33] The Buddhist replies with little more than he does ‘not really ascribe to [astrology] as [being] much of a science’, a sentiment in line with Campion’s findings that ‘Buddhist texts have little to say about astrology but can be slightly antagonistic to it, partly because it…can be seen as a distraction from the simplicity of cosmic truth and the purity of the path to enlightenment.’[34]Likewise, the psychologist is ‘vaguely aware that some complexity exits’ in its application apart from newspaper horoscopes, but remains sceptical of its validity.[35] The astronomer notes that

we can calculate the exact location of Mars and Venus and Saturn in the sky… exactly where these planets were … a hundred thousand years ago, and… where they’re going to be… a hundred thousand years from now. If the positions of planets in the sky has any effect on my life, or anybody’s life, I see that as being highly coincidental… you would really have to stretch the butterfly-effect idea to make me believe something as…calculatable as that would affect my life.[36]

Similarly, Bart Bok and colleagues contend since the distances of these planets from earth have been calculated, it can be seen ‘how infinitesimally small are the gravitational and other effects produced by the distant planets’ and that ‘it is simply a mistake to imagine that these forces… can in any way shape our futures.’[37]

Most respondents who identify as Protestant/Evangelical Christians answered the question on a belief  in astrology with a single word- ‘No’.[38]  Campion points out ‘that Christianity has always struggled with astrology’, with those of a pro-astrology position ‘obliged to negotiate’ anti-astrology passages in the Old Testament, such as the prophet Isaiah’s challenge to Babylon- ‘Let your astrologers come forward, those stargazers who make predictions month by month, let them save you from what is coming upon you’.[39]  On the other hand, he suggests ‘scriptural support for the divine nature of celestial omens’ may ‘fatally undercut’ an anti-astrology position.[40] For instance, the Genesis account relates that the Creator fashioned ‘the lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night’ and indicated these stars be used ‘for signs and for seasons, and for days and years’.[41] Although divergent opinions are reflected in the questionnaire data, the pastor points out that ‘looking at the historical aspect of the Christian bible you can’t miss the fact that there is astronomical or astrological stuff going on…there’s just no getting around that… when we talk about Christian eschatology…there’re signs in the Heavens, signs in the skies.’[42]  Likewise, the astrologer argues that 

the patterns in the heavens no more direct our circumstances or how we respond to them than a clock causes the sun to rise or set…time is time, and in that regard, I see the creator, God, as the master Timekeeper.[43]

She adheres to the belief that  ‘astrology is humans’ method of noticing and studying [the] timing of the perfectly created patterns in the heavens’ and that God ‘has given us free will, but that he controls the timing of everything.’[44]  Though in general most respondents did not offer even a casual endorsement of astrological belief, the most sympathetic respondents were, in fact, those of a religious leaning.

The nature of the universe and our place within it

Questionnaire respondents were asked how often they took time to watch the night sky and how important the sky was in their daily lives.[45]  In general, the respondents did spend significant time admiring the heavens and felt that was important, as shown figure 2. 

Figure 2: Histograms representing the answers to questions 14 and 15, showing how regularly the target group spent time sky-watching and how important the sky was in their daily lives. Charts obtained from Google Forms, 2017

The psychologist tries ‘to look and notice the moon each day… to know where it is in its cycle.[46]  She feels very effected by sunlight, and reports feeling ‘oppression when we have a grey sky.’[47] The astronomer agrees that 

‘from just a purely aesthetic point of view the sky is extremely important, but from the point of view of my profession…I’m an observational astronomer [and] we have a telescope here on campus that we’ve used to… discover some exoplanets… magnetic fields around other stars; I’ve used interactive binary stars… with mass transferring from one to the other as natural laboratories for studying the effects of stellar evolution.’[48]

Several questions were posed concerning the respondents’ view of the nature of the universe. The questionnaire provided a definition of cosmophobia as ‘the unreasoning fear of the cosmos’.[49] This term was coined by David Morrison to explain feelings connected to apocalyptic beliefs such as the infamous Maya 2012 or other doomsday prophesies.[50] Participants were asked if they had ever experienced feelings of this kind, to which five out of nineteen respondents answered in the affirmative.[51]  Campion explains that for cosmophobes, the cosmos is ‘essentially threatening, and something to be escaped…or dominated.’[52] This sentiment is also exemplified by Blaise Pascal’s admission that ‘the eternal silence of these infinite spaces’ frightened him’.[53]  Conversely, the respondents were provided the Urban Dictionary’s definition of cosmophilia as the ‘overwhelming awe someone feels at the universe…not just how pretty it is, but the incredibly complex processes that made it what it is today.’[54] When asked whether they ever experienced feelings of this kind, seventeen respondents reported they had.[55] Campion, again, points out that cosmophiles are those ‘who believe that the cosmos is essentially good.’[56] It should be no surprise then to find when asked whether they believed that the universe was essentially benign or hostile in nature, the respondents answered overwhelmingly that they felt it was benign or neither (neutral), as shown in figure 3. Mathews explains that ‘a flouring community is likely to evolve a bright, self-affirming cosmology and a languishing community is likely to see the world in darker shades.’[57] If this assessment is correct, it can be argued this target group belongs to a flourishing culture, as the majority do not seem to believe that the universe is out to get them.

Figure 3: Histogram demonstrating that most respondents believe that the universe in neutral to benign in nature. Chart obtained from Google Forms, 2017

Additionally, questionnaire participants were asked what they believe is humankind’s place in the universe.’ Answers from the twenty respondents ranged from one extreme- humankind being ‘the center’ of the universe where ‘as God’s highest creation, we are to glorify Him’- to the other, with humankind ‘occupying a very small portion’ of the cosmos and being ‘completely insignificant’.[58]It would appear from this data that one’s personal cosmology is generally optimistic if the individual adheres to a religious worldview, whereas a purely scientific cosmology yields a more pessimistic worldview. Nancy Ellen Abrams and Joel Primack offer that 

A living cosmology for 21st-century culture will emerge when the scientific nature of the universe becomes enlightening for human beings. This will not happen easily. The result of centuries of separation between science and religion is that each is suspicious of the other infringing on its turf…But a cosmology that does not account for human beings or enlighten us about the role we may play in the universe will never satisfy the demand for a functional cosmology that religions have been trying to satisfy for millennia.[59]

It is for this reason that Mathews warns that ‘a culture deprived of any symbolic representation of the universe and of its own relation to it will be a culture of non-plussed, unmotivated individuals, set down inescapably in a world which makes no sense to them’.[60] Fortunately, that does not seem to be the case here, as one respondent suggests it is humankind’s place ‘to improve the state of things around them and leave things better…than when they arrived’, although the psychologist voices concern that ‘we unfortunately have evolved to be capable of doing great damage in the universe and lack a common ethical system to restrain us.[61]Many respondents felt some form of action was required of humankind.

Conclusion

In summary, this qualitative study utilized an online questionnaire and participant interviews to a targeted group of twenty individuals in the American Northeast to investigate the concept of personal cosmologies. One aim of this research was to explore factors that contribute to the development of personal cosmologies, and within this target group religious adherence, secular education, and the mentoring of family and friends proved to be the most influential forces, each weighted differently depending upon the individual.  Based upon their own worldview, individual informants applied various religious, scientific, and philosophical methodologies in conveying their beliefs as to the origin of the cosmos, which ranged from divine creation narratives to the Big Bang theory, to attempts at reconciling the two. When considering the validity of astrological influences on the lives of humans, opinions were split between sharp scepticism and a belief that the heavens are encoded with insights from a divine Creator. Topics of cosmophobia and cosmophilia were explored, and it was found that the target group believed the universe to be generally a more benign to neutral environment than hostile, which according to Mathews, may be indicative of a flourishing culture. Finally, opinions concerning humankind’s place in the universe seemed to be divided along lines of religious belief, suggesting that a cosmology which accounts for human beings is ultimately more optimistic than one that does not. This point compliments Campion’s line of reasoning, that if individuals are indeed formed in God’s image, they then serve as a reflection of ‘the creative force from which the cosmos is engendered.’[62] Such reflections, a Christian cosmology suggests, could not be devoid of meaning.

Bibliography

Abrams, Nancy Ellen, and Joel R. Primack, ‘Cosmology and 21st-Century Culture’, Science, New Series, Vol. 293, No. 5536 (2001).

Archaeological Study Bible, New International Version, (Grand Rapids: The Zondervan Corporation, 2005)

Bell, J., Doing your Research Project, (Buckingham: Open University Press, 2002)

Bok, Bart J., Lawrence E. Jerome, and Paul Kurtz ‘Objections to Astrology: A Statement by 186 Leading Scientists’, The Humanist, September/October 1975, <http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/AstroSkc2.htm>, accessed April 24, 2017

Campion, Nicholas, Astrology and Cosmology in the World’s Religions, (New York and London: New York University Press, 2012).

Cosmophobia, < http://www.cosmophobia.org/>, accessed April 23, 2017

D’Souza, Romero, Christian Cosmology: A Manual of Philosophy and Theology, (New Delhi:Christian World Imprint, 2014).

Fox, Karen C., The Big Bang Theory: What it Is, where it Came From, and Why It Works, (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002)

Hennick, Monique, Inge Hutter, and Ajay Bailey, Qualitative Research Methods, (London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi, and Singapore: Sage Publications, Ltd, 2011).

The Holy Bible, Authorized King James Version, ed. By C.I. Scofield. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967)

Mathews, Freya, The Ecological Self, (London: Routledge, 1991).

McMullin, Ernan, ‘Religion and Cosmology’, In Encyclopedia of Cosmology: Historical, Philosophical, and Scientific Foundations of Modern Cosmology, ed. Norriss S. Hetherington, (New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1993).

Meezenbroek, Eltica de Jager, Bert Garssen, Machteld van den Berg, Dirk van Dierendonck, Adriaan Visser and Wilmar B. Schaufeli, ‘Measuring Spirituality as a Universal Human Experience: A Review of Spirituality Questionnaires’, Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 51, No. 2 (2012).

North, John, Cosmos: An Illustrated History of Astronomy and Cosmology, (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2008).

Pascal, Blaise, Pensées, trans. W. F. Trotter, (Chicago, London, Toronto, and Geneva: Encylcopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952) Section III: 206.

Urban Dictionary entry for Cosmophile, <http://www.urbandictionary.com/ define.php?defid=5784384&term=Cosmophile>, accessed April 23, 2017

[1] Norriss S. Hetherington, entry for ‘Cosmology’, In Encyclopedia of Cosmology: Historical, Philosophical, and Scientific Foundations of Modern Cosmology, ed. Norriss S. Hetherington, (New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1993), p.116

[2] Nicholas Campion, Astrology and Cosmology in the World’s Religions, (New York and London: New York University Press, 2012), pp.1-2

[3] John North, Cosmos: An Illustrated History of Astronomy and Cosmology, (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2008), p. 739.

[4] Freya Mathews, The Ecological Self (London: Routledge, 1991), p. 13

[5] Google Forms Questionnaire, questions number 1 and 2

[6] Eltica de Jager Meezenbroek, Bert Garssen, Machteld van den Berg, Dirk van Dierendonck, Adriaan Visser and Wilmar B. Schaufeli, ‘Measuring Spirituality as a Universal Human Experience: A Review of Spirituality Questionnaires’, Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 51, No. 2 (2012), p. 336.

[7] Bell, J., Doing your Research Project, (Buckingham: Open University Press, 2002) p.157

[8] Hennick, Monique, Inge Hutter, and Ajay Bailey, Qualitative Research Methods, (London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi, and Singapore: Sage Publications, Ltd, 2011) pp.109

[9] Ernan McMullin, ‘Religion and Cosmology’, In Encyclopedia of Cosmology: Historical, Philosophical, and Scientific Foundations of Modern Cosmology, ed. Norriss S. Hetherington, (New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1993), p. 579

[10] Google Forms Questionnaire, question number 7

[11] Google Forms Questionnaire, question number 19

[12] Google Forms Questionnaire, question number 3

[13] Interview with the pastor informant, question 1, April 10, 2017

[14] Interview with the astrologer informant, question 1, April 12, 2017

[15] Interview with the astronomer informant, question 1, April 17, 2017

[16] Interview with the Buddhist informant, question 1, April 19, 2017

[17] Interview with the Buddhist informant, question 1, April 19, 2017

[18] Interview with the psychologist informant, question 1, April 14, 2017

[19] Interview with the psychologist informant, question 2, April 14, 2017

[20] Mathews, The Ecological Self, p. 13

[21] Karen C Fox, The Big Bang Theory: What it Is, where it Came From, and Why It Works, (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002), p.2

[22] Hetherington, Encyclopedia of Cosmology, p.115

[23] Google Forms Questionnaire, question number 4

[24] Campion, Astrology and Cosmology in the World’s Religions, p.164

[25] Interview with the pastor informant, question 2, April 10, 2017

[26] Interview with the pastor informant, question 2, April 10, 2017

[27] Romero D’Souza, Christian Cosmology: A Manual of Philosophy and Theology, (New Delhi: Christian World Imprint, 2014), p.110

[28] Interview with the astronomer informant, question 2, April 17, 2017

[29] Interview with the astronomer informant, question 2, April 17, 2017

[30] Google Forms Questionnaire, question number 4

[31] Interview with the Buddhist informant, question 2, April 19, 2017

[32] Interview with the Buddhist informant, question 2, April 19, 2017

[33] Google Forms Questionnaire, question number 16

[34] Interview with the Buddhist informant, question 3, April 19, 2017, and Campion, Astrology and Cosmology in the World’s Religions, p.121

[35] Interview with the psychologist informant, question 3, April 14, 2017

[36] Interview with the astronomer informant, question 3, April 17, 2017

[37] Bart J. Bok, Lawrence E. Jerome, and Paul Kurtz ‘Objections to Astrology: A Statement by 186 Leading Scientists’, The Humanist, September/October 1975, <http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/AstroSkc2.htm>, accessed April 24, 2017

[38] Google Forms Questionnaire, question number 16

[39] Campion, Astrology and Cosmology in the World’s Religions, p.171, and Archaeological Study Bible, New International Version, (Grand Rapids: The Zondervan Corporation, 2005), Isaiah 47:13

[40] Campion, Astrology and Cosmology in the World’s Religions, p.171

[41] The Holy Bible, Authorized King James Version, ed. By C.I. Scofield. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), Genesis 1:14

[42] Interview with the pastor informant, question 3, April 10, 2017

[43] Interview with the astrologer informant, question 3, April 12, 2017

[44] Google Forms Questionnaire, question number 16

[45] Google Forms Questionnaire, questions 14 and 15

[46] Interview with the psychologist informant, question 4, April 14, 2017

[47] Interview with the psychologist informant, question 4, April 14, 2017

[48] Interview with the astronomer informant, question 4, April 17, 2017

[49] Cosmophobia, < http://www.cosmophobia.org/>, accessed April 23, 2017

[50] Cosmophobia, < http://www.cosmophobia.org/>, accessed April 23, 2017

[51] Google Forms Questionnaire, question number 17

[52] Campion, Astrology and Cosmology in the World’s Religions, p.5

[53] Blaise Pascal, Pensées, trans. W. F. Trotter, (Chicago, London, Toronto, and Geneva: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1952) Section III: 206.

[54] Urban dictionary entry for Cosmophile, <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?defid=5784384&term=Cosmophile>, Accessed April 23, 2017

[55] Google Forms Questionnaire, question number 18

[56] Campion, Astrology and Cosmology in the World’s Religions, p.5

[57] Mathews, The Ecological Self, p.13

[58] Google Forms Questionnaire, four responses from question number 8

[59] Nancy Ellen Abrams and Joel R. Primack, ‘Cosmology and 21st-Century Culture’, Science, New Series, Vol. 293, No. 5536 (2001), p.1770

[60] Mathews, The Ecological Self, p. 13

[61] Google Forms Questionnaire, two responses from question number 8

[62] Campion, Astrology and Cosmology in the World’s Religions, p.6

How important occult texts treat the Moon: a review

by Selina White

By comparing and contrasting three astrological primary sources, namely Plutarch’s Concerning the Face Which Appears in the Orb of the Moon (De facie quae in orbe lunae apparet), Blavatsky’s The Secret Doctrine, the Synthesis of Science, Religion and Philosophy, and Agrippa’s Three Books of Occult Philosophy (‘De occulta philosophia libri III), this paper explores the treatment of the Moon by the authors of these primary sources. Some common themes that emerge in this exploration of the treatment of the Moon in these three primary sources are the scientific and alternative investigation of the Moon, the role of the Moon in the myths of ancient and modern cultures, and the mysterious, dark, or negative aspect and influence of the Moon. The result is that the authors of all three primary sources treat the Moon as an object of importance worthy of exploration.

Introduction

This essay will compare and contrast the treatment of the Moon in three primary sources and through the lens of three core themes, namely; 1.) Science and the Laws of Nature; 2.) Myth and the Moon; and, 3.) The Dark Side of the Moon. The first primary source is Concerning the Face Which Appears in the Orb of the Moon (De facie quae in orbe lunae apparet). It was writtenby Plutarch (Plutarchus) (ca. 45–120 CE) who was born at Chaeronea in Boeotia in central Greece and became a scholar of Platonic philosophy at Athens. It was written in ca. 100 CEand appears in Plutarch’s larger treatise entitled Moraliawhich contains a collection of essays and speeches on various subject matters which influenced later European Renaissance and Enlightenment philosophy. It was originally written in Greek and then Latin and translated into English by Harold Cherniss and W. C. Helmbold and published by Loeb Classical Library as Moralia Vol. XII in 1957. This is the edition I will be referring to for the purposes of this essay.[1]

The second primary source is The Secret Doctrine, the Synthesis of Science, Religion and Philosophy. It was written by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (Helena Petrovna von Hahn) (1831-1891 CE) who was born in the then Russian Empire (now Ukraine) and who became a well-known 19th– 20thcentury occultist, medium, author and founder of the esoteric organisation, the Theosophical Society, in 1875. It was written in English in 1888 and was originally composed of two volumes; the first volume entitled Cosmogenesis, the second volume entitled Anthropogenesis. It is an example of ‘revealed’ literature which contained a synthesis of Eastern and Western philosophical and spiritual thought and resulted in reviving interest in esoteric and occult study in modern times. The edition that I will be using for this essay is the Theosophical University Press Online Edition which contains both volumes.[2]

The third and final primary source is Three Books of Occult Philosophy(‘De occulta philosophia libri III). It is a composite collection of three books written by Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim (1486-1535 CE) between 1509-1510. Book I is entitled Natural Magic, Book II Celestial Magicand Book III Ceremonial Magic. Agrippa was a Renaissance scholar influenced by Hermetic and Neoplatonic philosophy and his Three Books of Occult Philosophybecame an invaluable source of Western ritual and astrological magic. All three volumes were printed together for the first time in Cologne in 1533. They were originally written in Latin and were translated into English by one J.F. and were published by Gregory Moule in London in 1651.The translation that I am using for the purposes of this essay is that of Joseph H. Patterson made in 2000 from the transcription of the Moule version, and which is available as a digital edition.[3]It is to be noted that a Book IV entitled ‘Of Magical Ceremonies’ was later discovered and attributed to Agrippa, although its provenance remains spurious. I have therefore confined my analysis to the original three books for the purpose of this essay. 

Science and the Laws of Nature

A common theme appearing in these three primary texts is the authors’ treatment of the Moon from a scientific standpoint as a natural phenomenon requiring investigation. Plutarch’s De faciebegins by stating that standard scientific theories and scholarship do not answer or explain what the figure visible on the face on the Moon is and so ‘when the ordinary and reputable and customary accounts are not persuasive, it is necessary to try those that are more out of the way […]’[4]. Therefore, the Moon in this regard is viewed by Plutarch as a kind of scientific anomaly that requires alternative investigation. Various alternative theories for the existence of the apparent face on the Moon are then discussed in the text, including ideas of optical effects, geometry, mirrored reflections, and layers of shadow, air, fire, water creating shapes.[5]However, a more concrete understanding of the Moon is given later on in the text when scientific details are discussed regarding the motion of the Earth ‘revolving along the ecliptic and at the same time […] rotating about its own axis’ and the fact that ‘the earth is a great deal large than the moon’, as well as in-depth reference to transits and lunar and solar eclipses and how they occur.[6]This shows, according to scholars such as Karamanolis,that, in De facie, ‘Plutarch shows quite some interest in the explanation of natural phenomena […]’[7]. 

Agrippa similarly emphasises an exploration of nature and the natural world in his Three Books of Occult Philosophy, to the extent of dedicating the whole of Book I of this treatise to natural magic, which according to Yates, ‘teaches how to arrange substances in accordance with the occult sympathies between them, so as to effect operations in natural magic.’[8]Agrippa acknowledges the influence of the Moon on Earth as well as there being a line of communication between the two based on their close connection in space.[9] The Moon also features in Agrippa’s discussion of the number seven where he outlines the natural process of the changing phases of the moon based upon four sets of seven days.[10]This is as scientific or technical as Agrippa gets in his treatment of the Moon. For the most part of the remaining coverage of the Moon by him, he refers to it in the context of natural laws, sympathies and correspondences, which is very much illustrative of the Hermetic and Neoplatonic influences present in his work through his referencing of numerous Hermetic and Neoplatonic scholars throughout the text. Yates puts it very aptly in stating that Agrippa’s aim is to provide ‘the technical procedures for acquiring the more powerful and “wonder-working” philosophy, […] a philosophy ostensibly Neoplatonic but including a magical Hermetic-Cabalist core.’[11]In this regard, he establishes “enmities” and “friendships” between the Moon and each of the other plants[12]which can be employed in magic and astrology, as well as listing a number of creatures and features of the natural world, such as plants, trees, stones, animals, and indeed certain humans, which are lunar in nature.[13]Despite the strong use of symbolic connections and natural laws as opposed to hard science, Agrippa incorporates an intellectual and scholarly methodology in his treatment of the Moon and other planets, leading Yates to describe Three Books of Occult Philosophyas ‘a matter-of-fact text-book’.[14]

Blavatsky in The Secret Doctrinealso approaches the Moon from an alternative scientific standpoint, similar to Plutarch’s “alternative theories” approach inDe facie. Blavatsky considers that the Moon is the Earth’s satellite only in its function of physically revolving around the Earth. However, ‘in every other respect it is the Earth which is the satellite of the Moon […]. Startling as the statement may seem it is not without confirmation from scientific knowledge. It is evidenced by the tides, by the cyclic changes in many forms of disease which coincide with the lunar phases; it can be traced in the growth of plants, and is very marked in the phenomena of human gestation and conception.’ She also states that ‘[…] so far as Science knows, the Earth’s action on the Moon is confined to the physical attraction, which causes her to circle in her orbit.’[15]It appears therefore that Blavatsky considers herself to have debunked the standard scientific view of the relationship between the Moon and Earth and instead treats the Moon as being the dominant player in the relationship between it and the Earth, the Moon being a kind of magnetic force that exerts a constant influence on the Earth, akin to a mother exerting authority over its child. However, William Quan Judge, a contemporary theosophist of Blavatsky, seems to take a more positive attitude towards the role of science and its exploration and understanding of the Moon, where he says that ‘[m]odern and ancient science alike unite in watching the night’s great light as she performs her journey round us.’[16]On balance, all three texts do acknowledge the scientific nature of investigation required of the Moon, however, for the most part, it appears that the authors’ believe that scientific laws do not fully explain the true nature of the Moon.

Myth and the Moon

Another shared feature of each of the three primary texts is their treatment of the Moon’s role in the context of myth. In Plutarch’s De facie, the role of myth is central to the title and overall theme of the text, namely an explanation for the apparent visibility of a man-like figure in the moon. This myth of “a man in the moon” has saturated the imagination of many cultures since time immemorial. According to Brunner, ‘[…] there is not one moon but many, each particular to a different culture.’[17]Each culture therefore interprets what the moon is to them and it follows that ‘[o]nly a small step [is] required for stories to evolve from these images.’[18]The interconnection between the Moon and the development of myth is even evident in the name for the study of the moon, “selenology”, which comes from the name the Greek goddess of the Moon, Selene, a prominent figure in Greek mythology.[19]

The influence of myth is evident in De faciein the discussion on humanity’s fear that the Moon is unsupported in the sky and is liable to fall, whereas the Earth is supported by ‘Atlas, [who] stands, staying on his back the prop of earth […]’ or alternatively that the Earth is supported by ‘steel-shod pillars’[20]. However, probably the greatest influence of myth in De faciein the context of the Moon is in what Karamanolis calls ‘the eschatological myths […] [which] integrate cosmological, psychological, and ethical considerations’, particularly ‘the role of the moon in the world and its role in the life of souls […].[21]Plutarch describes the Moon’s mythical role as being a storehouse and conveyer of souls from one world to the next.’[22]Hamilton also alludes to the express references to myth in Plutarch’s text which relate to the nature of the soul and argues that such references are influenced by the story of Atlantis in Plato’s Timeus.[23]

Agrippa describes a number of images of the Moon which can be created for particular magical petitions.[24]These images make use of mythological symbolism taken from ancient cultures, such as dragon and serpent symbolism. A specific image of the head and tail of the Dragon of the Moon is illustrated where Agrippa states that the Egyptians and Phoenicans ‘do extol this creature [the image of a serpent] above all others, and say it is a divine creature and hath a divine nature […].’[25]He also presents the Moon’s mythological association with the sacred feminine by outlining that the Moon is associated with numerous mythological goddesses.[26]

Blavatsky in The Secret Doctrineis also a strong advocate for the power of myth over science in the context of the Moon. She states that ‘[f]rom the archaic aeons and the later times of the witches of Thessaly, down to some of the present tantrikas of Bengal, her [the Moon’s] nature and properties were known to every Occultist, but have remained a closed book for physicists.’[27]She appears to be implying here that science has not been able to break through the threshold of mythical knowledge that exists in relation to the Moon. She also espouses the power of religion in culture over that of science where she says ‘[t]he importance of the Moon and its influence on the Earth were recognized in every ancient religion […] and have been remarked by many observers of psychical and physical phenomena.’[28]It may be argued here that she considers the Moon as having more of a connection to occultists and those studying myth and occult science than to exoteric scientists, and that the former category are more able to penetrate the myths and mysteries of the Moon to attain a true understanding of it. Overall, all three texts provide a strong and positive approach towards the Moon’s role in myth.

The Dark Side of the Moon

Finally, all three texts directly express the theme of the Moon being of a mysterious, even insidious nature. In common with his earlier inference of the Moon being a kind of scientific mutation requiring alternative investigation, Plutarch’s De faciegoes on to negatively describe the Moon as: ‘[…] misshapen, ugly, and a disgrace to the noble title, if it is true that of all the host in heaven she alone goes about in need of alien light […]’.[29]He also states that ‘[t]he sun imparts to the moon her brilliance [and the Moon] often has concealed and obliterated him [the Sun]’.[30]These references appear to imply that the Moon is kind of parasite attaching itself to the Sun, constantly feeding off the Sun’s light in order to emit light itself. 

Agrippa takes on a more positive handling of the Moon than Plutarch by constantly conveying the importance of the Moon in magical workings[31]and disseminating copious amounts of information and lunar correspondences for such magical working, such as figures of divine letters or characters of the Moon[32], the Moon’s positive influence over divination and dreams[33], the seal, table, divine names, intelligences and spirits of the Moon[34], names of ancient cult centres associated with Moon deity worship[35], and the angel of the Moon and angels of the twenty-eight Mansions of the Moon[36]. Agrippa lays emphasis on the importance of the Moon and urges the reader to acknowledge and respect the Moon in its role as conveyor of magical power: ‘[…] for thou shalt do nothing without the assistance of the Moon […] thou shalt take the Moon [and its patterns, aspects and conjunctions] for that I conceive must in no wise be omitted.’[37]According to Yates, ‘Agrippa’s occult philosophy is intended to be a very white magic.’[38]However, despite the corresponding lunar connections, he does acknowledge that the Moon’s influence is changeable like a fitful mistress: ‘the Moon changeth her nature according to the variety of the Signe which it is found in’.[39]He also describes that ‘[…] the Moon by vertue of the Sun is the mistress of generation, increase, or decrease’[40], which is a subtle allusion to the symbiotic relationship between these two luminaries which Plutarch regards as parasitic. There is also a reference to the more negative ‘[…] Lunatick passions which proceed from the combustion of the Moon.’[41]

Comparable to Plutarch’s consideration of the parasitic nature of the Moon towards the Sun, Blavatsky envisions a similar understanding of the Moon with regard to its relationship with and influence on the Earth. In The Secret Doctrine, the Moon is treated as a dead planet having an unhealthy influence over our living planet Earth and this is extremely evident in Blavatsky’s use of potent language in this regard: ‘The Moon is now the cold residual quantity, the shadow dragged after the new body […] doomed for long ages to be ever pursuing the Earth, to be attracted by and to attract her progeny. Constantly vampirised by her child, she revenges herself on it by soaking it through and through with the nefarious, invisible, and poisoned influence which emanates from the occult side of her nature. For she is a dead, yet a living body. The particles of her decaying corpse are full of active and destructive life, although the body which they had formed is soulless and lifeless. […].’[42]Blavatsky gives concrete albeit grim examples of this influence in the physical world in the fact that grass growth thrives on the graves of the dead and that ‘the moon is the friend of the sorcerers and the foe of the unwary’[43]. C.W. Leadbeater, a contemporary theosophist of Blavatsky, equally approaches the Moon in an abysmal manner, stating that ‘it is a “dead end,” a place where only refuse gathers, and it is a kind of a dust-heap or waste-paper-basket to the system – a kind of astral cesspool into which are thrown decaying fragments of various sorts, such as the lost personality which has torn itself away from the ego […].’[44]Overall, Plutarch’s parasitic view of the Moon and Blavatsky’s treatment of the Moon as an insidious, blood-sucking being conjures up a far from alluring, admirable and magical image of the Moon that we see in Agrippa’sThree Books of Occult Philosophy.

Conclusion

Taking everything into consideration, it is evident that all three texts regard the Moon as an object of significance. Concerning science and natural laws, all three texts acknowledge the role of science in investigating the Moon. However, for the most part, all three authors convey the need for any investigation of the Moon to go beyond ordinary scientific methodologies, advocating for the Moon to be explored magically through natural laws and occult studies. Regarding the role of myth, all three texts positively convey the role of the Moon in the myths of different cultures, both ancient and modern. Finally, all three texts acknowledge to varying degrees the Moon’s negative side and influence, Agrippa at the lesser end of that scale in flagging only the Moon’s changeable, “lunatic” nature but Plutarch and Blavatsky at the upper end of that scale imparting the parasitic, vampiric and insidious nature of the Moon. 

Bibliography:

Agrippa, Heinrich Cornelius, Three Books of Occult Philosophy, trans. by Joseph H. Patterson, 2000: http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa1.htm  

Blavatsky, Helena Petrovna, The Secret Doctrine, the Synthesis of Science, Religion and Philosophy, (Pasadena, CA: Theosophical University Press, 2014): http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd-hp.htm

Brunner, Bernd, Moon: A Brief History, (Yale: Yale University Press, 2010).

Hamilton, W., ‘The Myth in Plutarch’s De Facie (940F-945D)’, The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Jan.,1934), pp. 24-30.

Judge, William Quan, ‘Moon’s Mystery and Fate’, William Q. Judge Theosophical Articles, Vol. I: http://www.blavatsky.net/index.php/moon-s-mystery-and-fateaccessed on 8th June, 2017.

Karamanolis, George, “Plutarch”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/plutarch/

accessed on June 10th2017.

Leadbeater, Charles Webster, The Inner Life Vol. II, (Wheaton, IL: Theosophical Press, 1942).

Plutarch, MoraliaVol. XII, trans. by Harold Cherniss and W. C. Helmbold (Harvard University: Loeb Classical Library, 1957).

Yates, Frances, The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age(Oxford and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2010).

[1]Plutarch, MoraliaVol. XII, trans. by Harold Cherniss and W. C. Helmbold (Harvard University: Loeb Classical Library, 1957).

[2]Helena Petrovna, Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine,the Synthesis of Science, Religion and Philosophy, (Pasadena, CA: Theosophical University Press, 2014): http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd-hp.htm, accessed on 5thJune 2017.

[3]Heinrich Cornelius, Agrippa, Three Books of Occult Philosophy, trans. by Joseph H. Patterson, 2000: http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa1.htm accessed on 5thJune 2017.

[4]Plutarch,Moralia, Line 920C, p. 35.

[5]Plutarch,Moralia, Line 920C – 923, pp. 35-55.

[6]Plutarch,Moralia, Line 923 p.55-59.

[7]George, Karamanolis, “Plutarch”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/plutarch/accessed on 10thJune 2017.

[8]Frances,Yates, The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age(Oxford and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2010),p. 53.

[9]Agrippa, ‘Chapter (viii) How the Elements are in the Heavens, in Stars, in Divels [devils], in Angels, and lastly in God himself’, Book I Natural Magic, Three Books of Occult Philosophy:http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa1.htm#chap8 accessed 5thJune 2017.

[10]Agrippa, ‘Chapter (x) Of the Number Seaven’, and the Scale thereof, Book II Celestial Magic,Three Books of Occult Philosophy: http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa2.htm#chap10 accessed 5thJune 2017.

[11]Yates, The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age, p. 55.

[12]Agrippa, ‘Chapter (xvii) How by enmity and friendship the vertues of things are to be tryed, and found out’,

 Book I Natural Magic, Three Books of Occult Philosophy: http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa1.htm#chap17accessed 5thJune 2017.

[13]Agrippa, ‘Chapter (xxiv) What things are Lunary, or under the power of the Moon’, Book I Natural Magic, Three Books of Occult Philosophy: http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp1b.htm#chap24accessed 5thJune 2017.

[14]Yates,The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age,p.55.

[15]Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, Vol. I, p. 180.

[16]William Quan Judge, ‘Moon’s Mystery and Fate’, William Q. Judge Theosophical Articles, Vol. I: http://www.blavatsky.net/index.php/moon-s-mystery-and-fate  accessed on 8thJune, 2017.

[17]Bernd, Brunner, Moon: A Brief History, (Yale: Yale University Press, 2010), p. 25.

[18]Brunner, Moon: A Brief History, p. 27.

[19]Brunner, Moon: A Brief History, p. 32.

[20]Plutarch, Moralia, Line 923C p. 59.

[21]George, Karamanolis, “Plutarch”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/plutarch/

accessed on 10thJune 2017.

[22]Plutarch, Moralia, Line 943 p. 207-209.

[23]W., Hamilton, ‘The Myth in Plutarch’s De Facie (940F-945D)’, The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Jan.,1934), pp. 24-30. 

[24]Agrippa, ‘Chapter (xliv) Of the Images of the Moon’, Book II Celestial Magic, Three Books of OccultPhilosophy: http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp2c.htm#chap44accessed on 5thJune 2017.

[25]Agrippa, ‘Chapter (xlv) Of the Images of the head and tayle of the Dragon of the Moon’, Book IICelestial Magic, Three Books of OccultPhilosophy:http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp2c.htm#chap45accessed on 5thJune 2017.

[26]Agrippa, ‘Chapter (lix) Of the seven governors of the world, the Planets, and of their various names serving to Magicall speeches’, Book IICelestial Magic, Three Books of OccultPhilosophy:http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp2d.htm#chap59accessed on 5thJune 2017.

[27]Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, Volume I, p. 156.

[28]Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, Vol. I, p. 180.

[29]Plutarch, Moralia, Line 929, p.99-101.

[30]Plutarch, Moralia, Line 929, p.99-101.

[31]Agrippa, ‘Chapter (xxx) When Planets are of most powerful influence’, Book IICelestial Magic, Three Books of OccultPhilosophy:http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp2c.htm#chap30accessed on 5thJune 2017.

[32]Agrippa, ‘Chapter (xxxiii) Of the Seals, and Characters of Naturall things’, Book INatural Magic, Three Books of OccultPhilosophy:http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp1b.htm#chap33accessed on 5thJune 2017.

[33]Agrippa, ‘Chapter (lix) Of Divination by Dreams’, Book INatural Magic,Three Books of OccultPhilosophy: http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp1c.htm#chap59accessed on 5thJune 2017.

[34]Agrippa, ‘Chapter (xxii) Of the tables of the Planets, their vertues, forms, and what Divine names, Intelligencies, and Spirits are set over them’, Book IICelestial Magic, Three Books of OccultPhilosophy:http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp2b.htm#chap22 accessed on 5thJune 2017.

[35]Agrippa, ‘Chapter (xiv) Of the Gods of the gentiles, and souls of the Celestiall bodies, and what places were consecrated in times past, and to what Deities’, Book III Ceremonial Magic, Three Books of OccultPhilosophy: http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa3.htm#chap14accessed on 5thJune 2017.

[36]Agrippa, ‘Chapter (xxiv) Of the names of Spirits, and their various imposition; and of the Spirits that are set over the Stars, Signs, Corners of the Heaven, and the Elements’, Book IIICeremonial Magic, Three Books of OccultPhilosophy: http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp3b.htm#chap24accessed on 5thJune 2017.

[37]Agrippa, ‘Chapter (xxix)  Of the Observation of Celestials, necessary in every Magical Work’, Book IICelestial Magic, Three Books of OccultPhilosophy: http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp2c.htm#chap29accessed on 5thJune 2017.

[38]Yates, The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age, p. 55.

[39]Agrippa, ‘Chapter (xvii) How by enmity and friendship the vertues of things are to be tryed, and found out’,

Book I Natural Magic, Three Books of Occult Philosophy: http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agrippa1.htm#chap17accessed on 5thJune 2017.

[40]Agrippa, ‘Chapter (xxxii) Of the Sun, and Moon, and their Magicall considerations’, Book IICelestial Magic,Three Books of OccultPhilosophy: http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp2c.htm#chap32accessed on 5thJune 2017.

[41]Agrippa, ‘Chapter (xli) Of the Images of the Sun’, Book IICelestial Magic, Three Books of OccultPhilosophy:http://www.esotericarchives.com/agrippa/agripp2c.htm#chap41accessed on 5thJune 2017.

[42]Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine,Volume I, p. 156.

[43]Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, Volume I, p. 156.

[44]Charles Webster Leadbeater, The Inner Life Vol. II, (Wheaton, IL: Theosophical Press, 1942), p. 184.

Saturn as a Malefic Planet: A Research Note

Stavroula Konstantopoulou 

This research note compares and contrasts the treatment of Saturn as a malefic planet according to three original source documents. The first source is the second-century Tetrabiblos or Quadripartitum,the four-book treatise on astrology composed by Claudius Ptolemy and originally written in Greek (ca. 100-178 CE).[1]Though the Tetrabiblosis now known as a systematic treatise on astrology, Ptolemy actually uses the word ‘astronomy’: the two words then had no separate meaning.[2]The second source, De vita libri tres (Three Books on Life) by the Florentine philosopher Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499), was first published in Latin in 1489 and discusses a variety of topics relating to on medical, psychological, astrological and magical issues.[3]Ficino also offered his readers advice on how to be a man of letters (as he was) and still maintain good health.[4]The third source is Saturn. A New Look at an Old Devil, a seminal work in modern psychological astrology by Liz Greene, published in 1976.[5]Greene examined the traditionally so-called ‘malefic’ influence of the planet Saturn through signs, houses, aspects and synastry from a psychological point of view. Greene’s analysis dismissed Saturn’s traditional description as malefic and, relying on a psychological perspective, she re-defined the planet’s role as a tool for self-realisation and self-actualisation. This research note will analyse these sources from the viewpoints of Saturn’s influence as a malefic or transformational planet, and from the different cosmological contexts that shaped understanding of Saturnian qualities. 

One of the most fundamental distinctions in Western astrology, which originated in Mesopotamia, holds that there are two categories of planets — ‘good’ and ‘bad’ classified in the sources as ‘benefic’ and ‘malefic’, that is, causing good and evil fortune respectively.[6]Western astrology’s view — both traditional and modern — of Saturn is an amalgam of a variety of characteristics. Inherited from the earlier Mesopotamian tradition. what prevails is Saturn’s association symbolically with restriction, harshness and discipline.[7]The Tetrabiblospresented some of the earliest negative perceptions of the planet’s astrological characteristics. Ptolemy called Saturn malefic, deadly and the bringer of evil: ‘if it happen’, he wrote, ‘that Saturn be in fixed signs, and in quartile or opposition to the Sun, and contrary in condition, he will produce death by suffocation, occasioned either by multitudes of people, or by hanging or strangulation… if in Virgo or Pisces, or watery signs, and configurated with the Moon, he will operate death by means of water, by drowning and suffocation’.[8]

Conversely, Ficino’s De Vitapromoted a more positive and constructive attitude towards Saturn’s influence: ‘if some were to accuse Saturn and Mars of being harmful by nature, I would not believe it … When the power of Saturn is cautiously taken, it is useful …’[9]Ficino seemed to have great respect for Saturn, which may be related to its prominent place in his own personal horoscope.[10]In a letter addressed to his friend Giovanni Cavalcanti, he commented that ‘Saturn seems to have impressed the seal of melancholy on me at the beginning’.[11]His understanding of Saturn sought to counter the planet’s constrictive connotations — the ‘tyranny of Saturn’ as he called it — by encouraging the reader to create harmony and balance in all spheres of life.[12]Similarly, Greene acknowledging that the majority of astrological textbooks about Saturn coincided ‘with hindrances and the frustration of the even flow of material and emotional comfort in life,’ was oriented towards a more psychological reading of the planet; in her words ‘it is the inner meaning which here concerns us’.[13]For example, in discussing the placement of Saturn in the sign of Leo, Greene suggested that the planet’s challenges had to be recognised and seriously accepted in order for the individual to increase their self-awareness: ‘Saturn is awkward in the Sun’s sign, and the challenge offered to the person with this placement is a difficult one for he needs to find his inner centre and identify with that rather than the trappings with which he usually surrounds himself’.[14]

Taking into account their diverse cultural backgrounds, while all three source documents connected Saturn to adverse connotations, they varied in their assessments of the planet’s impact and experience, a variation which may be related to their broader cosmological context. Within the Tetrabiblosone may see Aristotle’s pivotal impact on Ptolemy’s cosmology, in which the mechanism behind astrology was conceptualised as working through some naturalistic rationale, and the celestial influence from the stars and planets was removed from all divine and mythological causes. As Ptolemy wrote: ‘We apprehend the aspects of the movements of sun, moon, and stars in relation to each other and to the earth, as they occur from time to time; the second is that in which by means of the natural character of these aspects themselves we investigate the changes which they bring about in that which they surround’.[15]Following the Aristotelean line of thought to set up the framework for the astrological mechanics, Ptolemy argued that the principles of physics and geometry defined the favourable and unfavourable nature of planets. Thus according to the planets’ natural qualities and their angular relationships towards the ecliptic, Ptolemy claimed that ‘Saturn’s quality was chiefly to cool and, moderately, to dry, probably because he is furthest removed both from the Sun’s heat and the moist exhalations about the earth’.[16]One may observe that the format of Greene’s Saturnfollowed the Ptolemaic tradition in a sense of an astrological textbook of delineations, presenting Saturn’s placement in the signs and houses and in aspect to other planets. However, as Robert Hand noted in his introduction to the 2011 edition of the book, this conventional way of organising the material moved passed the traditional forms of astrology that held there were ‘good’ and ‘bad’ planets, and maintained that ‘the level of consciousness with which one approaches one’s own life is not fixed or determined by whatever the birth chart signifies’.[17]

Similarly, but contrary to the Ptolemaic tradition that upheld a natural process of causation, Ficino objected to the mechanistic rationale in Aristotelean causality and embraced, as he exclaimed, ‘Plato’s style [which] is more like that of a divine oracle than any human eloquence’.[18]At the beginning of Book I, Ficino stated that ‘Hippocrates promises health of body, Socrates, of soul,’ meaning that his exposition of causality did not exclude the spiritual presence in the natural world.[19]Ficino understood and perceived astrology’s purpose not in the sphere of prognostication but as a means to harmonise one’s physical and spiritual living with the heavenly order. His aetiological treatment on the influence of the stars was based on the idea of correspondences (sympatheia), which, as Suzanne Bobzien wrote, held that ‘in some sense everything in the universe emits some physical influence on everything else,’ where every single thing in the cosmos was linked into a set of intricate horizontal and vertical correspondences.[20]The reader of De vita was then encouraged ‘to investigate which star promised what good to the individual at his nativity’ and then to participate actively in the relationship between the natural and the divine worlds ‘by an application of our spirit to the spirit of the cosmos’ in order to achieve balance.[21]

was then encouraged ‘to investigate which star promised what good to the individual at his nativity’ and then to participate actively in the relationship between the natural and the divine worlds ‘by an application of our spirit to the spirit of the cosmos’ in order to achieve balance.[21]

Ficino’s concern about the influence of the body on the soul was epitomised in his treatment of the astrological significance of the melancholic humour, particularly in its relation to the planet Saturn.[22]Profoundly influenced by the fact that Saturn had a prominent place in his birth chart, Ficino offered a series of remedies to counterbalance the malefic effects of the planet upon one’s horoscope, such as wearing specific garments and amulets, listening and playing to music, using appropriate herbs and scents and altering behavioural habits.[23]Unlike Ptolemy, Ficino perceived that the experience of astrological Saturn was not confined in the workings of a deterministic universe but on the corresponding level of the individual’s ability to minimise in theirs mind, body and soul the effects of what was thought to be a challenging astrological placement. It was from this notion that Ficino re-visioned the role of planets as they all had gifts to offer, including the so-called malefics for which he cautioned his readers to ‘be sure then that you do not neglect the power of Saturn’.[24]

Nicholas Campion raised an important distinction in that Aristotelean naturalism provided the cosmological framework for Ptolemy’s astrological rationale, but at the same time appealed to Plato’s worldview of manipulating the natural world by harmonising with celestial influences.[25]According to Campion, Ptolemy indeed brought into his work Saturn’s traits from the Babylonian astrological tradition, ‘but gave them a naturalistic justification which meant he hoped that it was difficult to challenge them’.[26]

As a final note, Saturn’s astrological malefic manifestations found in the Ptolemaic tradition are part of astrology’s history and can offer a constructive insight into rationalisations in modern Western astrology. All three source documents exhibited that the perception of Saturn remained in its core intact, for in the course of the historical scholarship of astrology the planet seemed to call for the same attention and effort from the individual to constructively maximise its astrological influence. For instance, with regard to Saturn’s early interpretations Erin Sullivan took a contemporary psychological point of view and suggested that ‘they were valid perceptions of Saturn at that time, and to a certain degree remain entirely functional at a symbolic level’.[27]From this viewpoint when Saturn in the fixed signs Taurus, Leo, Scorpio, Aquarius) makes hard aspects (such as square and opposition) to the Sun, physical suffocation is better understood as ‘suffocation of one’s will, vitality and essential Self, originating in feelings of inadequacy or oppression’.[28]At one level, by exploring the different Saturnian dimensions of experience, Ptolemy, Ficino and Greene all revealed the developments in the technicalities of practicing astrology through the centuries; yet at another level these passages can contribute to a profound understanding for the historical scholarship in astrology. 

Introducing the 2011 edition of Liz Greene’s Saturn, Robert Hand presented a short history of the ideological framework of the notion of benefic and malefic planets that dominated the astrological literature until the twentieth century, and he explored how other ancient and contemporary authors before Greene had voiced similar objections about the deterministic views on astrology and the planets’ classifications as auspicious or not.[29]Out of this range of meanings and functions ascribed to Saturn one can observe that modern Western astrology survives through a continuity rather than diversification in its technical language, and this continuity is based primarily on the shared philosophical, cultural and cosmological patterns of belief that shaped the astrological milieu. It is within this framework that one can understand why for Ptolemy, Ficino and Greene astrology, in Campion’s words, ‘remained managerial and participatory … but the locus of participation had changed’ for each.[30]In the Ptolemaic tradition the focus was the natural universe, in Ficino’s world the struggle between the body and the soul, and for Greene psychological factors.

To conclude, having considered the treatment of the planet Saturn in Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos, Marcilio Ficino’s De vita libri tres and Liz Greene’s Saturn,a key conclusion is that, aside from methodological and ideological points of convergence and divergence, the notion that it can provide an insightful framework for appreciation and understanding of humanity’s relationship and discourse with the sky links to classical, Renaissance and modern texts with remarkable continuity.

Bibliography 

Primary Sources

Marsilio Ficino, Three Books on Life, ed. by Carol V. Kaske and John R. Clark (Binghamton, NY: Medieval and Renaissance Texts   Clark (Binghamton, NY: Medieval and Renaissance Texts  and Studies and the Renaissance Society of America, 1989).

Claudius Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos(trans. F.E Robbins; Cambridge, Mass. and    London: Harvard University Press, 1940). 

Secondary Sources

Bobzien Susanne, Determinism and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy(Oxford:         Clarendon Press, [1998] 2005). 

Brennan Chris, Hellenistic Astrology: The Study of Fate and Fortune(Amor         Fati Publications , 2017).

Burton Robert,  The Anatomy of Melancholy, ed. by John B. Bamborough et  al., 6 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989–2000).

Campion Nicholas, A History of Astrology. Volume I: The Ancient and Classical Worlds (London: Continuum Books, 2008).

Campion Nicholas, A History of Astrology. Volume  II. The Medieval and   Modern Worlds(London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2009).

Clydesdale Ruth, ‘‘Jupiter tames Saturn’: Astrology in Ficino’s Epistolae’’ in Laus Platonici Philosophi: Marsilio Ficino and his Influence,  ed. by Stephen Clucas, Peter J. Forshaw and Valery Rees  (Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History, 198. Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2011), pp. 117-132.

Greene Liz, Saturn. A New Look at an Old Devil(York Beach, ME: Samuel Weiser, 1976).

Klibansky Raymond, Panofsky Erwin and Saxl Fritz, Saturn and Melancholy: Studies in the History of Natural Philosophy, Religion, and Art  (London: Nelson, 1964).

Rochberg-Halton Francesca, ‘Benefic and Malefic Planets in Babylonian  Astrology,’ in A Scientific Humanist: Studies in Memory of  Abraham Sachs, ed. by Erle Leichty, Pamela Gerardi, Abraham Sachs and Maria de J. Ellis (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988), pp. 319-324.nRadden Jennifer (ed.),  The Nature of Melancholy: From Aristotle to Kristeva(Oxford University Press, 2000).

Riley Mark, ‘Science and Tradition in the Tetrabiblos,’ Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society132.1 (1988), pp. 67-84.

Erin Sullivan, Saturn in transit: boundaries of mind, body, and soul(York Beach, ME: Samuel Weiser, 2000).

Voss Angela, ‘The Astrology of Marsilio Ficino: Divination or Science?’,  Culture and Cosmos4.2 (2000), pp. 29-46.

[1]Claudius Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, trans. F.E Robbins (Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 1940), pp. x-xi

[2]Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, pp. x-xi.

[3]Marsilio Ficino, Three Books on Life, ed. by Carol V. Kaske and John R. Clark (Binghamton, NY: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies and the Renaissance Society of America, 1989), p. 4 ff. De Vitaconsists of three books: Book I entitled De litteratorum veletudine curanda(On Caring for the Health of Learned People), Book II entitled De vita longa(On Long Life) and Book III De vita tum valida tum longa coelitus comparanda(On Obtaining a Life both Healthy and Long from the Heavens).

[4]Marsilio Ficino, Three Books on Life.

[5]Liz Greene, Saturn. A New Look at an Old Devil(York Beach, ME: Samuel Weiser, 1976).

[6]Rochberg-Halton, Francesca, ‘Benefics and Malefics in Babylonian Astrology’, in E. Leichty et al., eds., A Scientific Humanist: Studies in Memory of Abraham Sachs(Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 9, Philadelphia, Pa, 1988):pp. 323-328.

[7]Francesca Rochberg-Halton, ‘Benefic and Malefic Planets in Babylonian Astrology,’ in A Scientific Humanist: Studies in Memory of Abraham Sachs, ed. by Erle Leichty, Pamela Gerardi, Abraham Sachs and Maria de J. Ellis (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988): pp. 319-324. See also Robert Hand, ‘Introduction’ in Greene, Saturn, pp. 3-8; 

[8]Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, Book IV.9.

[9]Ficino, De Vita, Book III.2.60ff

[10]Ruth Clydesdale, ‘‘Jupiter tames Saturn’: Astrology in Ficino’s Epistolae’’ in Laus Platonici Philosophi: Marsilio Ficino and his Influence, ed. by Stephen Clucas, Peter J. Forshaw and Valery Rees (Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History, 198. Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2011), pp. 123-126.

[11]Cited in Ficino,De Vita, p.20.

[12]Nicholas Campion, A History of Western Astrology, . Volume II.The (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2009), pp. 91-92.

[13]Greene, Saturn, p. 15.

[14]Greene, Saturn, p. 83 and Hand, ‘Introduction’, pp. 3-8.

[15]Ptolemy Tetrabiblos, Book I.1.1; For Aristotle and Ptolemy see Nicholas Campion, A History of Astrology, Volume I(London: Continuum Books, 2008), pp. 209-211 and Mark Riley, ‘Science and Tradition in the Tetrabiblos,’ Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society132.1 (1988), pp. 67-84.

[16]Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, I.4.

[17]Greene, Saturn, p. 8.

[18]Angela Voss, ‘The Astrology of Marsilio Ficino: Divination or Science?’, Culture and Cosmos4.2 (2000), pp 29-45 (p. 33), citing Marsilio Ficino, Opera omnia (Basle, 1576), p. 1129; Campion, History II, pp. 89-90.

[19]Marsilio Ficino, De Vita, Book I.1.19-20.

[20]Kaske, CaroleC. and Clark, John R., ‘Introduction’, in Marsilio Ficino, Three Books on Life, ed. Kaske, CaroleC. and Clark, John R. (1989), Ficino, Three Books on Life, Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, Binghamton: State University of New York at Binghamton, pp. 3-90, 

Susanne Bobzien, Determinism and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy(Oxford: Clarendon Press, [1998] 2005), p. 169. (quote); Campion,History II, p. 91.

[21]Ficino, De Vita, Book III.2.82-92.

[22]Jennifer Radden (ed.), The Nature of Melancholy: From Aristotle to Kristeva(Oxford University Press, 2000): pp. 87-88. On the notion of melancholy, see Robert Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholy, ed. by John B. Bamborough et al., 6 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989–2000) and its relation to Saturn, see Raymond Klibansky, Erwin Panofsky and Fritz Saxl, Saturn and Melancholy: Studies in the History of Natural Philosophy, Religion, and Art (London: Nelson, 1964).

[23]Ficino, De Vita, Book III.2.63-66.

[24]Ficino, De Vita, Book III.12.59-60.

[25]Campion , History I, pp. 210-211

[26]Campion, History I, p. 211.

[27]Erin Sullivan, Saturn in transit: boundaries of mind, body, and soul(York Beach, ME: Samuel Weiser, 2000), p. 17.

[28]Sullivan, Saturn in transit, pp. 17-18.

[29]In Greene, Saturn, Hand, ‘Introduction’, pp. 3-6.

[30]Campion, History I, pp. 211-213.