The Reformation coincided with a boom in the publication of astrological almanacs and astrology became a potent means of propagandising for differing political positions. One of the most notable Reformation astrologers was Philipp Melanchthon (1497-1560), professor of Greek at Wittenberg from 1518, where he became one of Martin Luther’s closest friends and collaborators. In 1521 he briefly found himself leader of the Reformation when Luther was confined in the Wartburg. His interest in astrology and his position at the centre of the Reformation raises important questions concerning the possible use of astrological forecasts of the Reformation’s future course. Martin Luther’s birth chart was to become a focus of debate amongst astrologers who wished to establish whether he was a new messiah or the Anti-Christ.

Social scientists have suggested several different hypotheses to account for the prevalence of belief in astrology among certain sections of the public in modern times. It has been proposed: (1) that as an elaborate and systematic belief system, astrology is attractive to people with intermediate levels of scientific knowledge
Social scientists have suggested several different hypotheses to account for the prevalence of belief in astrology among certain sections of the public in modern times. It has been proposed: (1) that as an elaborate and systematic belief system, astrology is attractive to people with intermediate levels of scientific knowledge
[the superficial knowledge hypothesis]; (2) that belief in astrology reflects a kind of ‘metaphysical unrest’ that is to be found amongst those with a religious orientation but little or no integration into the structures of organized religion, perhaps as a result of ‘social disintegration’ consequent upon the collapse of community or upon social mobility [the metaphysical unrest hypothesis]; and (3) that belief in astrology is prevalent amongst those with an ‘authoritarian character’ [authoritarian personality hypothesis]. The paper tests these hypotheses against the results of British survey data from 1988. The evidence appears to support variants of hypotheses (1) and (2), but not hypothesis (3). It is proposed that serious interest or involvement in astrology is not primarily the result of a lack of scientific knowledge or understanding; rather, it is a compensatory activity with considerable attractions to segments of the population whose social world is labile or transitional; belief in astrology may be an indicator of the disintegration of community and its concomitant uncertainties and anxieties. Paradoxical as it may appear, astrology may be part and parcel of late modernity.

Following the First World War there was an increase in the use of psychics and clairvoyants as the bereaved attempted to contact their dead relations. Sigmund Freud saw this as a dangerous development and in 1921 set out to study it. As part of this he considered the visit of one of his patients to an astrologer, placing the incident in its historical context, looking at the causes and possible consequences of the occult boom.

Michael Glykas is generally known as a learned conservative theologian who wrote a refutation of Byzantine Emperor Manuel Komnenos’ defence of astrology in the latter half of the twelfth century. However there exists substantial evidence that Michael Glykas had a dual identity as the shadowy Michael Sikidites who in his youth was known for his occult interests, suspected of political sedition against Manuel, and imprisoned and blinded as punishment for sorcery. With skill and critical astuteness, Glykas directs his refutation not so much against Manuel’s philosophical arguments as against the claims of his evidence, and thus seeks to cast doubt upon the moral and literary integrity of his Emperor in an attempt to redeem his own reputation. Within half a century of the reintroduction of astrology to the West, Glykas was the first person in many centuries to stir up all the old Christian objections against the fatalism of the stars.

From the 2nd century AD the coincidence of Passover and Easter was recognized as a problem for the Christian church by the church authorities, and in the 4th century, after Christianity became the Roman state religion, Roman authorities took steps to prevent Passover and Easter coinciding. This effort was complicated by the growing separation between the churches in Rome and Constantinople. Though from the 2nd century the majority of Jews lived in the diaspora, at least up to the 10th century the calendar was governed by a rabbinical court in Eretz Israel (the Land of Israel). Here we discuss the changes in the Jewish calendar in the 5-8th centuries AD, the middle (c. 636 AD) of which period witnessed an abrupt transition from Byzantine rule over Eretz Israel to Arab rule. In this period no serious changes were made in the basic mathematics of the Jewish calendar; the only changes had a political context. Here we discuss a single but singular feature of the Jewish calendar, the ‘Deĥiyot’ [postponements] of Rosh Hashana. Our major claim is that Deĥiyah D [postponement from Wednesday to Thursday] and Deĥiyah U [postponement from Friday to Saturday] entered the calendar c. 532 AD as an ingenious Jewish response to Emperor Justinian’s ban against the Passover feast (Nisan 14) falling on a Saturday, instituted to mend a famous calendar rift between the Roman and Alexandrian churches. Next we claim that Deĥiyah A [postponement from Sunday to Monday] became part of the calendar no earlier than when the 2nd day of the festivals Rosh Hashana [New Year] and Sukkot [Tabernacles] acquired the status of sacred day and we raise the lower historical boundary of Deĥiyah A’s introduction in the calendar up to the time of the first Gaonim [heads of talmudic academies in the Arab caliphate] (c. 658 AD). We also suggest the reasons for the timing of three other deĥiyot.

The annual total of births fell substantially in Hong Kong in the past 20 years, and the average fertility level of 0.9 births per family has now fallen below the notional replacement rate for the existing population. Nevertheless, short run periods of high birth rates have occurred, particularly in the Dragon Years of 1988 and 2000. This rise in fertility may be related to zodiacal beliefs about fertility and the presumed favourable time for births, but this needs to be investigated more systematically.

Georg Joachim Rheticus (1514-1574) was central to the development and popularization of Copernicus’ heliocentric theory. He is most well known for the first published account of the theory, the Narratio Prima in 1539, and his persuasion in obtaining Copernicus’ manuscript for publication, De Revolutionibus (1543). Rheticus’ poem ‘Concerning the Beer of Breslau and the Twelve Signs of the Zodiac’, written circa 1542, sheds light on two aspects of Rheticus’ early involvement with the heliocentric theory. The poem helps us understand the approach to astrology which would prove decisive in Rheticus’ acceptance of the heliocentric theory and offers a glimpse into Rheticus’ association with Wittenberg’s controversial group of young poets. This relationship significantly injured Rheticus’ career and the heliocentric theory in turn.

Geoffrey Dean gave an account of three tests of his Parental Tampering Hypothesis (PTH) that I had suggested to him that he conduct. He concluded (Dean 2000): “Three tests, three hits. I rest my case.” I scrutinised Dean’s procedure and found that his first test failed to support PTH (about planetary effects on desired days). He obtained the desired hit by reversing the hypothesis post hoc so as to accommmodate the new “prediction” to his result. The second test also had negative results (about a purported dependence of planetary effects on “seeing conditions” at the time of birth). Again Dean reversed his critic’s hypothesis so as to make a hit out of this failure. The third test failed no less (about combining all informative planetary effects rather than suing the dominant effect only). Dean obscured his actual finding. In sum, the three tests failed to prvide evidence for PTH. The present result is consistent with those of four earlier scrutinies. No further test is necessary to conlcude that Dean’s claim that Gauquelin effects are man-made artificact is utterly mistaken.

This paper analyzes the role of Israel Hiebner’s Mysterium Sigillorum (1651) in the astrological reform program of late seventeenth-century English astrologers. Hiebner was a professor of astronomy and mathematics at Erfurt, and the translation of his tract into English in 1698 was considered to be a landmark event among reforming and scientific astrologers such as Henry Coley and John Gadbury. In the face of astrology’s declining reputation among learned elites, Coley and Gadbury wished to cleanse their discipline of superstitious dross and illustrate it was ‘experimentally true’ via Baconian induction as well as by incorporation of discoveries in astronomy and natural philosophy. Hiebner’s insistence on accurate planetary observations in making astrological sigils, his use of maps in Hevelius’ Selenographia as guides in stamping his medical amulets, as well as his detailed and precise lists of ascendant planetary aspects thus was appealing to these astrological reformers. This paper also analyzes the role of the Mysterium Sigillorum in the ‘English Sigil War,’ a larger debate that existed among astrological physicians and natural philosophy about the role of these medals in medical healing.

The first part of this series (Wackford 2000/2001) was written as a one-off paper concerned only with the trigonometric determination of the angles in a circumpolar horoscope. As such it did not fully explore issues of upper and lower culmination, leaving instead an open question that will now be addressed. This paper continues examination of the semi-arc system (North 1986, Wackford 2002/3b), its applicatioin in the Polar regions and relationships between this method and the diurnal and seasonal cycles.