Scientiaastrologiae: Der Diskursüber die Wissenschaftlichkeit der Astrologie und die lateinischenLehrbücher, 1470-1610. Andreas Lerch (Acta historica astronomiae, 56; AkademischeVerlagsanstalt, Leipzig, 2015). Pp. 321. € 29. ISBN 9783944913483.
Andreas Lerch’s timely bookserves two main purposes. On the one hand, it offers a basic handbook of printed Latin astrological manuals (Fachliteratur) of the Renaissance.On the other hand, itaims for a basic account of Renaissance discourse on astrology’s credibility and status as scientia. In pursuing the first aim, the author understandably imposed a number of limitations on his study: manuscript materials, medical astrology, astro-meteorology, prognostication literature, comet treatises and criticism of astrology are treated perfunctorily (pp. 18-19).Nevertheless, Lerch’s 164-page long review of astrological “prints, actors, authorities” is very helpful in systematizing information which is scattered and/or unreliably referenced elsewhere. It also offers basic interpretations of the materials discussed, which can serve as an alternativeto the more descriptive approach of Lynn Thorndike’s History of Magic and Experimental Science among future scholars seeking heuristic guidance.
Lerch’s handbook has three sections. The first traces a basic outline of the Renaissance reception of Greco-Roman, Arabic, Judaic, Byzantine, and Latin medieval astrological authorities.Within the aforementioned limitations, Lerch’s opening discussion of the Renaissance reception of Ptolemaic astrology is well-documented and reasonably complete. Particularly important are Lerch’s insightful comparisons between HalyIbnRidwan’s authoritative commentary on Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos, and that which GirolamoCardano published in 1554 (pp. 33-37), or his interest in the differences between medieval and Renaissance Latin versions of the ps.-Ptolemaic Centiloquium(pp. 40-42).In the process, Lerch drives home an important lesson: astrological discourse was both far less unified and far more parasitic on broader cultural and scientific languages than is often suggested by the scholarly literature.Also helpful is Lerch’s emphasis on the continuing importance of medieval authors like Jean Ganivet, Firmin de Bellavalle, or John of Eschenden (pp. 78 sqq.), as well as on the classic medieval defenses of astronomy by Abu Ma’shar and John of Saxony (pp. 82 sqq.).
Section 2 focuses on original Renaissance productions, and is inevitably more selective about the materials covered. Lerch guides the reader through some of the main European centers of Renaissance astrological authorship: Naples, Northern Italy, Madrid, Lyon, Wittenberg (and, to a lesser extent, Paris and Cracow).Several omissions may be pointed out (such as Jean Dupèbe’s important work on Paris; the fascinating reception of continental astrology in Renaissance England; and, more modestly, work on Louvain) but on the whole, Lerch’s choices are defensible, while his consistent interest in local astrological discourses is highly refreshing. The third and last section of Lerch’s handbook focuses on printed ephemerides, which guided astrologers through the everyday business of determining planetary positions. Inspired by historians of astronomy like Ernst Zinner, Owen Gingerich or Curtis Wilson, recent scholarship by Robert Westman and Richard Kremer has rediscovered the lowly ephemerides as an exceptionally rich resource, and Lerch’s synthesis may stimulate further research on this topic by summarizing the variety of Renaissance ephemerides.
Lerch’s reconstruction of Renaissance discourse on astrology’s credibility and status as scientiais more impressionistic,but will serve as a starting point for more extensive research on this important topic. The author takes on four topics, each of which would merit a separate volume.Lerch’s section on the theological legitimation of astrology offers the conclusion that Catholic and Protestant theologians differed but little in their attitude towards legitimate and illegitimate astrology (p. 210). One wonders about the strength of this claim in view of the fact that: (1) the claim is based on a fairly limited number of cases; (2) Lerch focuses on theological attitudes towards astrology, rather than theological appropriations of astrology (inspiration for the latter could be had from Stuart Clark’s comparative studies of Catholic and Protestant demonology); (3) Lerchdoes not offer a sustained distinction between theologians’ attitudes towards the concept of celestial influence, and towards the practice of astrology. Turning to Renaissance interpretations of astrology’s relation to, and position in, the hierarchy of the sciences, Lerch’s discussion could benefit from a stronger engagement with the work of Robert Westman, and from a deeper immersion in the literature on GirolamoCardano’s astrology. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Lerch’sconclusion remains on the safe side and tends to repeat existing narratives in the history of astrology. Nevertheless, this book handsomely reaches the first of its two stated aims, effectively displacing volumes 1 through 6 of Lynn Thorndike’s History of Magic and Experimental Science as a first stop for beginning researchers on Renaissance astrology.