3) The Nero Prediction, by Humphry Knipe

A couple of weeks ago Humphry Knipe got in touch to put me right about an astrological incident of the early Roman empire. He kindly sent me a copy of his novel, which concerns another Roman incident, the death of Nero and the involvement of his freedman Epaphroditus, in the context of an almost universal belief in astrology.

Knipe has done the technical research well; by use of the astrological techniques of the day he has worked out what precisely Nero and his contemporaries would have been concerned about, while making it clear (through Epaphroditus, the narrator) that he doesn't believe a word of it himself. I'm particularly interested, because of my own long-ago researches around Eleanor of Aquitaine, that Knipe believes two horoscopes provided by the second-century astrologer Vettius Valens are in fact those cast for the times of Nero's birth and death.

My knowledge of classical times, other than astrology, is sufficiently sketchy that I did not notice any errors of detail, and the scene-setting (starting in Alexandria, then mostly in and around Rome) is convincing. The characterisation of Nero and his mother Agrippina is pretty vivid. Though I was left a bit unsure about the role in events played by early Christians (Saints Peter and Mark make several personal appearances).

Anyway, if you want a bit more ancient science with your Roman fiction than you get from Lindsey Davis, Robert Graves or Suetonius, you'll find it here.

This evening I have had not one but two emails on obscure historical epsiodes, which are worth noting here.

Jeffrey Dudgeon got in touch to urge me to read his article in tonight's Belfast Telegraph about H. Montgomery Hyde, born a hundred years ago today.  Hyde was the Westminster MP for North Belfast from 1950 to 1959, when he was deselected because of his outspoken support for the decriminalisation of homosexuality, especially after the 1957 Wolfenden Report (published fifty years ago next month).  I replied pointing out that the Belfast Telegraph is in short supply on the streets of Brussels, and Jeff kindly sent me the article which is a fascinating read.  If anyone else would like to see it, I'll happily put them in touch with him.  (NB I myself was a candidate for North Belfast in 1996; I don't recall anyone asking me about this issue on the doorstep.)

Humphry Knipe got in touch about the assassination of the Roman emperor Domitian in 96 AD.  Admittedly this was largely in the hope that I would publicise his new novel about the emperor Nero (hey, it worked!) but also to put right a mistake in this essay by Michael Molnar about Domitian's death on my website.  Molnar puts Mars in the wrong sign (Taurus instead of Gemini) at the time of Domitian's assassination (mid-morning on 18 September).  I am very irritated by the facts that that i) this is indeed a crucial difference to the interpretation of the horoscope and ii) I have had both Molnar's essay and my own earlier analysis, in which I actually got the position of Mars correct, on my website for years, without myself noticing this crucial difference.  I've linked to Knipe's article and website above; judge for yourselves if you want to read his book.

Just thought you would like to know.

tnh points us to Terry Eagleton's review of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, from the London Review of Books back in October. It won't surprise you that I am on Eagleton's side of this debate; since I'm up early due to B waking us at 5.30, I have been looking through the 'net for other reactions. Marilynne Robinson did a less polemical, longer, and more intellectual takedown of Dawkins for Harper's. Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg, writing for The Times, defends Dawkins:

Terry Eagleton in the London Review of Books sneers at Dawkins for his lack of theological training. Are we to conclude that opinions on matters of philosophy or religion are only to be expressed by experts, not mere scientists or other common folk? It is like saying that only political scientists are justified in expressing views on politics. Eagleton’s judgement is particularly inappropriate; it is like saying that no one is entitled to judge the validity of astrology who cannot cast a horoscope.

Actually, that's not what Eagleton is saying; expressing opinions is fine. Everybody votes, but I would prefer to read a book on politics by someone who is professionally engaged in it rather than someone who just happens to have strong views. Most people in the world have formed their opinions on religion without reading Aquinas or even Dawkins first. But before you write a book-length essay debunking something, you should make the effort to understand it in its own terms; otherwise you run the risk of becoming polemical and cartooney, as Dawkins appears to have done (I haven't read his book or seen the TV series, and don't feel especially inclined to, based on what I've read from both supporters and opponents).

And this applies also to astrology. As it happens, I have studied astrology, and do know how to cast a horoscope; my M Phil dissertation was on a twelfth-century text by the little-known scholar Roger of Hereford. One of the best known astrologers and mathematicians of his age, he argued for a rigorous mathematical approach to the subject. As a result of my in depth research, I am even more convinced than I ever was that astrology is bunk; but also because I went to the trouble of getting into Roger's mind and trying to understand what he thought he was doing, I would like to feel that my views are better informed, maybe even more authoritative. I wrote this history of astrology for this encyclopedia many years ago, but the best analysis I have read is this book, taking it on its own terms and demonstrating its utter inconsistency.

Dawkins' failure to engage with religion and theology on similar terms is to his discredit.

Today is the 1910th anniversary of the assassination of the Roman emperor Domitian. Intrigued by the astrological features of this event, I wrote a short article about it a while back, and then found someone else had written a longer one. Not that I believe in any of it myself, but Domitian obviously did, and ended up dead as a result. (Some would argue that the real moral is that he should have stayed in bed all morning. I leave it to you to decide.)

Doesn't happen very often, but someone has contacted me about the astrology sections of my website, to teach me the error of my ways:

If you are basing your data on the Gregorian or Julian calendar, you are grossly in error. The instituted calendar in use today is based on the Roman Catholic Church's purposeful predetermined misinformation to the masses. The astrological planetary alignment at the time of the birth of Christ has already been scientifically and correctly determined, and the historical data derived from scripture and recorded documentation, also, has been determined in the timeline of historic events in conjunction with this planetary alignment.
Any attempt at determining prophetic insight should be based on the correct timeline derived from the base facts of this planetary alignment of the solar system. The progression of the heavenly configurations do not lie, and stand as historic and unalterable fact.

So that's me told. He also sent me a link to his website. Glorious.

Archived here for my reference.

( Read more... )

Your Reverse Astrology Results

Red is your most probable sign and Blue is your least probable sign. The scores are from 0 (not you at all) to 100 (dead on match).

Aries	Mar 21 to April 19	46
Taurus	April 20 to May 20	57
Gemini	May 21 to June 21	69
Cancer	June 22 to July 22	42
Leo	July 23 to Aug 22	50
Virgo	Aug 23 to Sep 22	63
Libra	Sep 23 to Oct 22	59
Scorpio	Oct 23 to Nov 21	50
Sagittarius	Nov 22 to Dec 21	65
Capricorn	Dec 22 to Jan 19	54
Aquarius	Jan 20 to Feb 18	60
Pisces	Feb 19 to Mar 20	51

According to our analysis, you are a Gemini, May 21 to June 21. But you are certainly not a Cancer, June 22 to July 22.
You claim to be a Taurus, but you are simply in error. Please consult your parents as to your actual birth date.

Very amusing. See here to try for yourself.