Astrology

References

Cite

Share

Abstract

During this century English almanacs of the early modern period have been studied from a number of different perspectives. In 1917 E. F. Bosanquet published his research on the bibliographical aspects of English almanacs, and bibliographers have since continued his pioneering work. Some forty years ago Marjorie Nicolson and F. R. Johnson used sixteenthand seventeenth-century almanacs to illustrate the rise and popularization of the 'new astronomy' in England, and Nicolson in particular emphasized the important evidence to be found in almanacs for intellectual historians of die period. More recently, Keith Thomas and other historians interested in reconstructing past mentalite's have turned to almanacs to help illuminate the shifting contours of popular culture. In Astrology and the popular press Bernard Capp brings together these various approaches in a wide-ranging study of English almanacs from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century. Like the almanacs it discusses this book covers a variety of topics, from the production and distribution of almanacs to the diversity of beliefs concerning politics, religion, history, society, and the natural world which they reveal. Of particular interest are his chapters on the almanac makers' perceptions of contemporary society and the political contents of almanacs, and his remarks on the developing conception of progress reflected in the chronologies which became a standard feature of almanacs in the seventeendi century. Less original, perhaps, are the chapters on religion, astrology, science, and medicine, where die pervasive influence of Keith Thomas's Religion and the decline of magic is most noticeable. But this is not to slight Capp; rather it testifies to the seminal nature of Thomas's work in these areas. More specific debts are also evident. In his discussion of efforts to reform astrology in the seventeenth century, Capp follows the argument of M. E. Bowden (see her 'The scientific revolution in astrology: the English reformers 1558-1686', Yale University PhD dissertation, 1974), although he differs from Bowden on the consequences of these attempts to make astrology conform to what contemporaries saw as true science, and he draws on evidence from almanacs which she did not use. Inevitably, his discussion of the popularization of science covers much the same ground as those of Nicolson and Johnson, but detailed comparison reveals Capp's more extensive familiarity with the sources as well as a number of significant differences of emphasis and interpretation. For example, it was Nicolson who first suggested that the acceptance or rejection of the Copernican theory by almanac makers could be correlated with their political allegiances, a view later repeated and given wider currency by Christopher Hill in his Intellectual origins of the English revolution. Using mid-seventeenthcentury almanacs, Capp argues convincingly that there are no direct correlations to be drawn between intellectual and political allegiances, and that religious beliefs played a far more significant role in determining reactions to Copernicanism. Moreover he takes a wider view of popularization than Nicolson, including some suggestive remarks about the role of almanacs in the spread of elementary mathematical skills, and he is more sensitive to the social boundaries dividing the audience for almanacs and hence for science.