From jmpfund@bgnet.bgsu.edu Sun May 6 00:01:59 2001 Received: from mxu2.u.washington.edu (mxu2.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.9]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.11.2+UW01.01/8.11.2+UW01.04) with ESMTP id f4671w0114248 for ; Sun, 6 May 2001 00:01:58 -0700 Received: from smtp02.bgsu.edu (smtp02.bgsu.edu [129.1.5.18]) by mxu2.u.washington.edu (8.11.2+UW01.01/8.11.2+UW01.04) with ESMTP id f4671wK32566 for ; Sun, 6 May 2001 00:01:58 -0700 Received: from [129.1.190.246] (tc1-246.dialup.bgsu.edu [129.1.190.246]) by smtp02.bgsu.edu (Switch-2.1.0/Switch-2.1.0) with ESMTP id f4671so23636 for ; Sun, 6 May 2001 03:01:54 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: jmpfund@mailstore.bgsu.edu (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000e01c0d589$1517efe0$82519318@Rourke.ne.mediaone.net> References: <000e01c0d589$1517efe0$82519318@Rourke.ne.mediaone.net> Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 03:02:02 -0400 To: classics@u.washington.edu From: "James M. Pfundstein" Subject: Re: astronomy, sortilege & sorcery Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1222989970==_ma============" --============_-1222989970==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Patrick T. Rourke wrote (re : _Works and Days_ 765ff) > >Luxury or not, this is lunar astrology, at a time clearly >contemporaneous with Hesiod's more practical applications. To deny >the label of astrology to this activity would be to define astrology >explicitly to exclude it. No, I don't think so. Marking certain days of the month as lucky or unlucky has to do with the calendar, and the calendar has to do with celestial objects. But May 4 marked the last day of classes for BGSU. A lucky day for me (and my students). Was astrology involved? No. Hesiod's text is numerological and dense with omens, but it is not at all astronomical (or astrological). The 7th day of the month, for instance, is sacred for the birth of Apollo: this is not astronomical. The 12th day is better than the 11th because of spiders and ants; this is not astronomical (etc.). Nowhere does Hesiod say, "Avoid the 34th of every month, for then the Moon is baleful and will smite thee." It's not lunar astrology. It's numerology (and other omen-finding) in a lunar calendar. What other calendar would one use? Calendars are by their nature astronomical. PR: >For civil purposes, or for religious purposes? I would say the distinction is void in the ancient world. It was usually a priest's (or a priestly college's) job to keep the calendar, but it was everybody's calendar. PR: >Was Greek navigational astronomy all that advanced before the >Alexandrians, or was it merely a matter of knowing that the >direction of Ursa Major was North? (this is NOT a rhetorical >question) More to the point, was Babylonian? The state of the evidence is not great. But Heath (p.23) notes a handbook of _Nautical Astronomy_, attributed to Thales by some, Phocus of Samos by others; it's supposed to have been followed by Cleostratus of Tenedos. The reason I mention Cleostratus is that he is supposed to have invented the Zodiac. (Dicks snorts derisively at this, but the author of the Pauly Wissowa article on the Zodiac, whose name escapes me, accepts that the report has a kind of validity. That Cleostratus had some role in its development, or transmission, seems to me very likely, given his home address.) And the reason that is important is: time. It's important to know, not only in what direction you're sailing, but how long you've been sailing in that direction. The sun and moon are obviously useful for this purpose, but they're not always up. The Zodiac can be used to keep track of the time in the course of a night, and of course it's always there (if only it can be seen; but if it's not visible one can make use of constellations which are known to rise or set at the same time as a Zodiacal constellation). There are some problems with this in practice, but it was clearly a developed concern of ancient astronomy as early as Eudoxus (Dicks. p. 156f), and probably earlier. The applications of this are not merely navigational, of course. PR: >Ultimately, the distinction between the proper astronomical dating >of a religious festival and "astrology" is one that I'm afraid I >can't make. The reason the astronomical dating is important is in >effect astrological. Astrological and augurical phenomena were used >to determine "lucky" and "unlucky" days, and these were then applied >to the religious calendar. That's why the long passage from Hesiod, >from which I quoted the beginning and the ending, is so important: >it shows the connection between "holy" days and astrologically (in >this case, lunar astrology) "lucky" days. The civil calendar is a >political reapplication of a religious and agricultural tool. "Astrology" if it is to mean anything must mean "divination by means of the stars." So I think you really must make the distinction you decline to make. The Hesiod passage you mention (I think this is worth repeating) uses lunar time to keep track of non-astronomic omens. >JMP: > > > Nor do I think ancient medicine trumps astronomy as a science; > > I wouldn't let an ancient physician treat one of my wife's cats. > PR: >I sure as hell wouldn't want to see a Greek or Babylonian astronomer >take the "controls" of the Arecibo telescope, either, or ask one a >question about the Virgo Supercluster, or ask one to calculate a >translunar injection. As the ancient astronomers didn't have a >usable theory of gravity, so the ancient physicians didn't have a >usable theory of disease. But within the limits of their >technology, the Greek physicians did all right. So did the ancient >astronomers. I can't accept your analogy. The technological devices you mention didn't exist in the ancient world; human bodies did. Without question ancient medicine faced challenges far greater than ancient astronomy, which is why its success was far more limited. But its success, in understanding and accounting for its subject, was unquestionably more limited. JMP("probatur... partem ac ueluti scintillas quasdam astrorum in terram desiluisse atque alieno loco haesisse" Seneca, _De Otio_ 5.5) --============_-1222989970==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Re: astronomy, sortilege & sorcery
Patrick T. Rourke wrote (re : _Works and Days_ 765ff)

Luxury or not, this is lunar astrology, at a time clearly contemporaneous with Hesiod's more practical applications. To deny the label of astrology to this activity would be to define astrology explicitly to exclude it.

No, I don't think so. Marking certain days of the month as lucky or unlucky has to do with the calendar, and the calendar has to do with celestial objects. But May 4 marked the last day of classes for BGSU. A lucky day for me (and my students). Was astrology involved? No.

Hesiod's text is numerological and dense with omens, but it is not at all astronomical (or astrological). The 7th day of the month, for instance, is sacred for the birth of Apollo: this is not astronomical. The 12th day is better than the 11th because of spiders and ants; this is not astronomical (etc.). Nowhere does Hesiod say, "Avoid the 34th of every month, for then the Moon is baleful and will smite thee." It's not lunar astrology. It's numerology (and other omen-finding) in a lunar calendar. What other calendar would one use? Calendars are by their nature astronomical.

PR:
For civil purposes, or for religious purposes?

I would say the distinction is void in the ancient world. It was usually a priest's (or a priestly college's) job to keep the calendar, but it was everybody's calendar.

PR:
Was Greek navigational astronomy all that advanced before the Alexandrians, or was it merely a matter of knowing that the direction of Ursa Major was North?  (this is NOT a rhetorical question)  More to the point, was Babylonian? 

The state of the evidence is not great. But Heath (p.23) notes a handbook of _Nautical Astronomy_, attributed to Thales by some, Phocus of Samos by others; it's supposed to have been followed by Cleostratus of Tenedos. The reason I mention Cleostratus is that he is supposed to have invented the Zodiac. (Dicks snorts derisively at this, but the author of the Pauly Wissowa article on the Zodiac, whose name escapes me, accepts that the report has a kind of validity. That Cleostratus had some role in its development, or transmission, seems to me very likely, given his home address.) And the reason that is important is: time. It's important to know, not only in what direction you're sailing, but how long you've been sailing in that direction. The sun and moon are obviously useful for this purpose, but they're not always up. The Zodiac can be used to keep track of the time in the course of a night, and of course it's always there (if only it can be seen; but if it's not visible one can make use of constellations which are known to rise or set at the same time as a Zodiacal constellation). There are some problems with this in practice, but it was clearly a developed concern of ancient astronomy as early as Eudoxus (Dicks. p. 156f), and probably earlier. The applications of this are not merely navigational, of course.

PR:
Ultimately, the distinction between the proper astronomical dating of a religious festival and "astrology" is one that I'm afraid I can't make.  The reason the astronomical dating is important is in effect astrological.  Astrological and augurical phenomena were used to determine "lucky" and "unlucky" days, and these were then applied to the religious calendar.  That's why the long passage from Hesiod, from which I quoted the beginning and the ending, is so important: it shows the connection between "holy" days and astrologically (in this case, lunar astrology) "lucky" days.  The civil calendar is a political reapplication of a religious and agricultural tool.

"Astrology" if it is to mean anything must mean "divination by means of the stars." So I think you really must make the distinction you decline to make. The Hesiod passage you mention (I think this is worth repeating) uses lunar time to keep track of non-astronomic omens.

JMP:
 
> Nor do I think ancient medicine trumps astronomy as a science;
> I wouldn't let an ancient physician treat one of my wife's cats.
 PR:
I sure as hell wouldn't want to see a Greek or Babylonian astronomer take the "controls" of the Arecibo telescope, either, or ask one a question about the Virgo Supercluster, or ask one to calculate a translunar injection.  As the ancient astronomers didn't have a usable theory of gravity, so the ancient physicians didn't have a usable theory of disease.  But within the limits of their technology, the Greek physicians did all right.  So did the ancient astronomers.

I can't accept your analogy. The technological devices you mention didn't exist in the ancient world; human bodies did. Without question ancient medicine faced challenges far greater than ancient astronomy, which is why its success was far more limited. But its success, in understanding and accounting for its subject, was unquestionably more limited.

JMP("probatur... partem ac ueluti scintillas quasdam astrorum in terram desiluisse atque alieno loco haesisse" Seneca, _De Otio_ 5.5)
--============_-1222989970==_ma============-- .