Magic and the Early Tarot
12. Astrology
Astrology is a vast topic with hundreds of treatises produced during the period preceding the invention of the Tarot in 15th century Italy. It is facetious to think that the entire field can be handled in a single chapter. As a result it will only be possible to deal with a few aspects of astrology here.
Let us begin by placing Astrology into the religious and intellectual context within which the Tarot originated. By the 15th century, things had changed radically from the attitudes of the early Church. The early church Fathers such as Athanius, Cyril, Arnobius, Gregory the Great, Basil, and Augustine (Evans 1922) viewed astrology as the province of the pagan priests and they were highly critical. Of course, because of the Neoplatonism inherent in these early writers, they acknowledged that the heavens influenced human life (Flint 1991). The sun provided warmth and life, the moon determined tides and menstrual cycles. The heavens provided a basis for the liturgical calendar and navigation. Still they condemned the use of astrology for divination.
However, divination by astrology could not be totally dismissed without disallowing the Magi that saw the star announcing the birth of Christ. Astrology had deep roots in early Jewish writings (Dobin 1977) and commonly appears in the Old Testament as well. So a clear distinction had to be made to condemn some aspects of astrology while saving others.
The distinction developed by Augustine was between divination and prophesy. God, by a special gift, could communicate prophesies that were revealed through the heavenly bodies. However, humans could not presume to usurp or compel this special gift nor could they read the mind of God. Therefore, prophesy was saved while divination was condemned.
Although it never became extinct in Europe, astrology largely faded into the background as a result of patristic disapproval and the destruction of pagan temples and priesthoods. It was almost never aggressively repressed, apparently because it was considered rather tame stuff compared to demonology and necromancy (Flint 1991). Astrology reentered the intellectual dialogue with the translation of Arabic manuscripts in the 11th and 12th centuries (Kiekhefer 1989). Neoplatonic astrology and cosmology had strongly influenced these Islamic writers (Burckhardt 1950) and astrology was presented as a natural science rather than magic or superstition (Flint 1991). From this period we find astrology being discussed in the context of mathematics, navigation, and medical science as well as divination (Faivre 1995).
Between the 12th and the 16th century, Astrology was widely studied, discussed and debated (Allen 1973). The debates were lively and sometimes came down firmly against astrology. Thus, the astrological works of Firminus de Bellavalle were condemned by the theology faculty at Paris. In one instance, Cecco d’Ascoli, court astrologer at Florence was condemned by the Inquisition and burned (Thorndike 1923). A serious attack was also launched against the astrological library of Simon de Phares and he was condemned as a diviner even though only 11 of the 200 books in his library were deemed dangerous. One 14th century bishop, Nicolas Oresme, offered an elegant mathematical argument showing that precise predictions are not possible because the proportionality of planetary movements would not be precisely known (Thorndike 1934). The imprecision, of course, was due to the false assumption that the planets revolved around the earth. Even this critic allowed that imprecise or general conditions such as a predisposition to plague could be predicted from observed phenomena such as planetary conjunctions.
Viewed in context, these condemnations can be seen as isolated and radical reactions in a Europe that was largely neutral or favorable to astrology. Among the authors who were generally favorable toward astrology we can list Raymond Lull (Thorndike 1923), John of Saxony and his teacher John de Lineriis, John of Eschenden, John de Murs, Jehan Charles, Charles d’Orgemont, Nicolle des Plains, John de Fundis, Giorgio Anselmi, Nicholas of Hungary, Nicholas Comes, Ambrogio Varese da Rosate, the inquisitor Franciscus Florentinus, Marsilio Ficino, and Nicolas of Cusa (Thorndike 1934).
It is something of a surprise to discover that prominent theologians such as Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas held a favorable view of astrology (Thorndike 1934). Duns Scotus maintained that natural sciences, such as astrology and alchemy, were legitimate diciplines. The stars and planets act on the elements and can influence weather and produce medical cures. Even bird songs and animal movements were sufficiently influenced by the heavens to serve as auguries. Thus, both the Thomist and Scotist schools of theology tended to approve of astrology and, through them, many members of the Franciscan and Dominican orders.
Other theologians, such as Giovanni Nanni of Viterbo and the Curate of Ziessele, argued that astrology and theology were completely compatible. Cardinal Pierre d’Ailly (c1350-c1420), professor of theology at University of Paris wrote works on astrology that defend its orthodoxy and compatibility with theology. Jean Gerson (1363-1429), chancellor at Paris and leader of the Council of Constance wrote that if trained astrologers of sober and honest life give advice founded in true philosophy they should not be ignored. And certainly if the astrologer and medical doctor agreed then one would foolish not to follow their advice (Thorndike 1934). At the extreme end of the spectrum, Gregory Crispin, philosopher at Toulouse, had strong words for "the stupid detractors of astrology" maintaining that it was one of the liberal arts and taught in all Christian universities (Thorndike 1934).
An important factor in the general acceptance of astrology was the patronage of powerful courts. Charles V was an enthusiastic supporter and both Charles VI and Richard II had court astrologers. Lorenzo de’Medici introduced a course in astrology at the University of Pisa taught by Dominican theologian Pagagnotti. Wenceslaus, Holy Roman Emperor (1378-1499), was devoted to astrology. The Viscounti dukes employed many astrologers. Pope Pius II (~1437) thought astrology should be studied by all rulers (Thorndike 1934).
The court astrologers would use astrology to predict the weather and favorable times for sailing. They would predict times favorable for battle and civil actions. Many astrologers believed that planetary conjunctions set the conditions for the black plague. Dozens of texts were written to princes and popes on the comets of 1456, 1468, and 1472. Most, such as William de Bechis of Florence, believed that comets were not the direct causes of events but signs placed there by God to be interpreted by human reason (Thorndike 1934). In most courts the astrologers were revered and placed on the same plane with prophets, patriarchs and sibyls as recipients of divine influence and forecasters of the future.
Many intellectuals of the period were not unequivocal supporters nor detractors of astrology. For many, such as John of Liven, astronomy and astrology had a legitimate place but he saw most divination as uneducated superstition. Henry of Hesse and Nicholas Eymeric argued against divination but accepted that the heavens influenced life and therefore accepted astrological medicine. Andalo di Negro of Genoa, author of "Introduction to Judgments of Astrology", argued that the heavens only set general conditions, such as favorable times for administering medicines, but could not determine events, such as whether the medicine would necessarily effect a cure. Firminus de Bellavalle (1345) argues that theologians cannot afford to ignore the heavens. If one did not make precise measurements and get the calendar correct, the eclipse of the sun at Christ’s crucifixion would be seen as a natural event rather than a miracle. An excellent example of the vacillating attitudes toward astrology is offered by Pico della Mirandola. Initially he was strongly in favor of astrology and a number of his 900 theses show this influence. However, by the end of the 15th century, Pico published 12 books of disputations against astrology (Thorndike 1934).
A summary of attitudes toward astrology would conclude that some aspects were acceptable and some not. Nobody argued against divinely inspired prophesy expressed through the heavenly bodies. Nobody argued against the heavens influencing tides, seasons, and menstrual cycles. Everyone agreed that knowledge of the heavens was essential to navigation and setting the liturgical calendar. At the same time, everyone argued against untrained diviners as deceptive, superstitious and fraudulent. When the faculty of theology at Paris condemned astrology in 1494, it was very specific about the branches of astrology it condemned, e.g., nativities and astrological images (Thorndike 1934).
The imagery was condemned as potentially demonic and idolatrous. The primary reason for damning nativities was that it seemed to contradict the principle of free will. But the secondary reason is rather more interesting. In the prevailing Neoplatonic cosmology, the spheres of the planets lay closest to the earth. Since they were material and changed positions relative to each other, they were able to influence the material aspects of life, such as disease, occupation, and marriage. The stars were much further from earth in the Sphere of Unmoving Stars. The stars were spiritual rather than material and only influenced the upper atmosphere, i.e., the element of air. Therefore, the stars determined seasons and could be used to predict weather but the constellations overhead at one’s birth could have little influence on one’s material life and attitudes.
With the exception of Cecco d’Ascoli and the library of Simon de Phares, little or no effort was made by the Church to suppress astrology. The greatest scholar of medieval magic, Lynn Thorndike, points to the example of Michael Scot, an outspoken astrologer of the 13th century who openly defied Church sanctions. Thorndike (1923, p311) concludes that "The career of Michael Scot affords an especially good illustration of how little likelihood there was of anyone’s being persecuted by the medieval church for belief in or practice of astrology."
One of the controversial aspects of astrology involved the use of image magic in medicine. This aspect deserves special attention as it relates this chapter to material in earlier chapters. In addition, later Tarot interpreters laid considerable emphasis on the astrological references in the Tarot images.
From the 12th century onward, astrology found important applications in medical practice. Astrology was part of the curriculum of every major medical college. Astrology was considered essential to determining the proper time to apply medications and bleeding. These aspects of astrology were universally accepted as part of the new science taken from the Arabic manuscripts. Among the authors who became famous in their day for their astronomical medicine we can list: Mattheus Silvaticus (1317), Thadeus of Parma (1318), Simon Bredon, Nicholas of Lynn, Gerard du Bois, Geoffrey of Meaux, Maino de Maineri, Prosdocimo de’ Beldomandi, Gentile da Foligno (1345), Henry Andrea of Gislingen, Rogier de Saint Symon, Petrus de Iovenetis of Bologna, Jacobus Angelus (1426), and Jean Ganivet (1431) (Thorndike 1934). Since these authors were often professors at Church supported universities and physicians to kings, dukes, and popes there seems little basis to the occultist argument that astrology was unequivocally condemned and persecuted by the Church.
In addition to simply using astrology to determine appropriate timing for medical procedures, many of the most famous physicians incorporated astrological image magic into their practice. These include Arnald of Villanova (late 13th-early 14th century), Peter of Albano (14th century), and Guy de Chauliac, physician to the popes at Avignon (Thorndike 1923, 1934).
The basis for astrological image magic is already familiar from previous chapters. In a strict Neoplatonic hierarchy, natural objects have occult properties that cannot be sensed physically. For example, the color, hardness and shape of a gem may cause it to be linked to a planetary power (Evans 1922). Use of the gem would then form a natural channel that would draw the supernatural power into the curative process. Most commonly, a wax image representing a planetary power was adorned with appropriate cloth, colors and gems to effect the opening of the magical channel of influence.
Although the use of astrological imagery was often criticized, it appears that the practitioners themselves saw it as natural process and wholly compatible with their Christianity. In fact one author, Antonius de Monte Ulmi (late 14th century), directs the patient to have the wax image blessed by a priest before it is used (Thorndike 1934).
To conclude our consideration of astrological image magic, we must consider the extent to which this form of magic might have been incorporated into the design of the 15th century Tarot symbols. That there is some influence is unquestionable since there are symbols representing Star, Moon, and Sun (though they are in the order of increasing enlightenment, rather than the prevalent cosmological order). But are the other planetary symbols there as well? In "Iconology of the Early Tarot" we have presented evidence that some of the early cards would be recognized as planetary deities, e.g., Chariot as Mars and Hermit as Saturn. Whether all of the planets are represented in a way that would have recognized in the 15th century is debatable and remains an open question.
Similarly, we may ask if the zodiacal signs are represented in the Tarot. The later occultist interpreters certainly thought so, though they seldom agreed on which was which. The question cannot be answered with a definitive yes or no. However, I believe there is historical evidence that argues against the presence of the zodiacal signs. First, as explained above, the Neoplatonic cosmology prevalent at the time limited material influence to the material planets and limited stellar influences to spirit and air. Only the uneducated placed reliance on stellar determinism at birth. Thus, a wise symbolist of the age, whether Christian, Jew, Islamic, or shaman would be unlikely to incorporate the zodiac.
A second argument is based on later, and possibly derivative, symbolic systems of the 15th century. The "Tarocchi of Mantegna" is a later Neoplatonic system of symbols that shares many of the Tarot symbols. Yet this set of symbols adds the zodiacal symbols to those it shares with the Tarot. Thus, the artist/engraver, obviously educated and immersed in the symbolism of the times, felt that zodiac was not to be found in the other images. Similarly, when the Tarot found its way to Florence, the Minchiate deck was developed. This deck contains the traditional Tarot symbols and adds the zodiac as additional cards. Thus, again, this artist/printer, familiar with the contemporary symbolism did not see the Tarot symbols as representing the zodiac.
A third argument can be made from a 16th century symbolic system, the
Nativity Calendar of Schoen. 
The image
shows the earth and elements in the center, surrounded by the seven planetary
deities, then the zodiac, and finally the 12 ages of man in the outermost
circle. It is this outermost circle that resembles the Tarot. Image 2 looks like
the artisan of the early Tarot Bagatto, 7 resembles the Lovers, 8 is Death, 9 is
the Pope, 10 is the Emperor, 11 is the Wheel of Fortune, and 12 might represent
the Hangedman. The diagram is a type of Lullian system in which the inner two
circles can be rotated and lined up so that the correct constellation and
planetary influence can be lined up with the birth of the client, represented by
the image labeled 1 in the outer circle.
Several things should be noted about this diagram. First, the Tarot images correspond to the ages of man rather than being symbols of the zodiac. Second, which zodiacal sign would correspond to a specific "age of man" Tarot symbol would depend on the birth date of the client. There would be no universal correspondence. Third, it is important to note that this is a nativity calendar of the type rejected by orthodox authorities and astrologers. As a nativity calendar, the image belongs squarely in the orally transmitted occult tradition of astrology. Yet this oral tradition, at least as seen by this astrologer, would not assign the Tarot symbols uniquely to individual zodiacal signs.
