Im Bann der Sterne: Caspar Peucer, Philipp Melanchthon und andere Wittenberger Astrologen (review)

This book, Claudia Brosseder's doctoral thesis (Munich 2002), considers the theory and practice of astrology and its context in sixteenth-century Germany. Focusing on the work of Caspar Peucer (1522–1603), Brosseder highlights the complexity of astrology in its inter-relatedness to astronomy, natural philosophy, history, anthropology, hermeneutics, and, not least, theology. Rather than seeking to simplify this complexity, Brosseder seeks to portray the multifaceted nature of astrological theory and practice.

Brosseder opens with a critique of the "myth of the Melanchthon circle," acknowledging the undoubted influence of Melanchthon, but arguing that as a result of Wittenberg's prominence a net of astrologers, doctors, and mathematicians with Wittenberg connections was cast across Germany. Caspar Peucer was one of these: Melanchthon's son-in-law, a professor of medicine and rector of Wittenberg University after Melanchthon's death in 1560, he was later regarded as a crypto-Calvinist and imprisoned from 1574 until 1586; thereafter he sought refuge in Anhalt and became the duke's doctor. Peucer's work, suggests Brosseder, captures the complexity of astrology; it forms a major focus of her thesis.

The political context of astrology was the court. Astrologers advised in matters as various as preparation for tournaments, choice of bride, questions of health, concerns of economics, and timing of wars. Brosseder delineates the ambiguous position of court astronomers, whose advice had both to challenge and to please their employer. Astrologers with another post — for instance university professors — were more independent.

Astrology was not only a political tool, but a means of interpreting history. Peucer's universal history, the Chronicon Carionis, includes horoscopes of historical figures; political change is related to astronomical cycles and (with reference to Daniel) prophetic dreams are used to predict political developments. This approach was not uncommon in the sixteenth century, although Brosseder notes that it was rejected by some historians. Celestial phenomena, such as comets, convinced many that the end of the world (and thus of history) was approaching; Brosseder suggests that observers were "prepared to use eschatological anxieties as a means of interpretation" (108), without here pointing to the biblical basis of this interpretation (which she discusses later); nor does she discuss the different understandings of providence which arise in the interpretation of this phenomenon (see e.g. Charlotte Methuen, "'This comet or new star': Theology and the Interpretation of the Nova of 1572," Perspectives on Science 5 [1997], 499–515).

The primary focus of astrology was the reading of individual lives. Brosseder discusses a horoscope cast by Erasmus Reinhold, arguing convincingly that his interpretation was shaped by his life experiences and expectations. Boundaries between astrology and theological anthropology were subtle: some human attri-butes were given by God while others were influenced by the stars; the human brain was a link in the chain of causality beginning with the stars; there were important questions to be asked about free will. An astrologer needed complex technical knowledge in astronomy, medicine, and interpretation. At Wittenberg, these skills were taught in the Faculties of Arts and of Medicine, although the content of this teaching is difficult to assess.

For Peucer, as for Melanchthon, astrology was not only a practical art but a part of natural philosophy. A consideration of Peucer's detailed theoretical discussion of astrology forms the central chapter of Brosseder's book. For Peucer, astrology fits into a teleological worldview in which nature reveals the outworking of God's providence, with the stars as secondary causes. Following Copernicus, he uses optics and the nature of light to explain this influence. From Genesis he knows that stars are signs; in an attempt to find the perfect method to ensure the correct interpretation of these tekmerion physica, Peucer turns to Aristotelian theories of proof. Brosseder comments that Peucer seems never to have applied his methodological efforts to his practice of astrology. However, he does reject certain methods of reading the future...