Original scientific paper
Federicus Chrysogonus's Speculum astronomicum and Albertus Magnus's Speculum astronomiae
Mihaela Girardi-Karšulin
; Institut za filozofiju, Zagreb, Hrvatska
Abstract
Although Grisogono does not mention Albertus Magnus’s Speculum astronomiae in his Speculum astronomicum anywhere, there are obvious similarities between these two texts, which point to the fact that Albertus Magnus’s Speculum astronomiae is, whether directly or indirectly, one of Grisogono’s sources. The similarities that support this thesis are the following: Albertus Magnus holds that 1) astrology, when answering questions on the past and the present, does not claim that all derives from necessity, nor does it contradict freedom of the will; 2) when astrology gives advice on what a good course of action is in a given situation, it actually presupposes that not all derives from necessity, and that some things and events are accidental; 3)the problem that Albertus Magnus perceives in relation to astrology is its similarity with magical practices which are corrupt and unacceptable, but astrology is not magic but mathematics; 4) the answers that astrology gives to questions on the future are potentially dangerous for freedom of the will, but this is in fact a problem for theology, which solves the problem. Grisogono’s expositions of the relationship between freedom of the will and astrology are very similar to Albertus Magnus’s theses, which can hardly be sheer coincidence. However, Grisogono is not merely
an epigone since his central thesis – that astrology is the highest, a theoretical and at the same time a useful science – which indicates the Modern Era is not be found in either Albertus Magnus or any other Renaissance philosopher.
Keywords
Federicus Chrysogonus; Albertus Magnus; astrology; magic; science
Hrčak ID:
66335
URI
Publication date:
6.12.2010.
Visits: 1.498 *