Galileo's Astrology

1
There?s a very good article by Nick Kollerstrom about Galileo?s astrology amongst the last set of updates: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/galast.html

Within the article there are two links (easily missed) that lead through to more detailed graphics of Galileo?s astrological worksheets.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/galchart2.html

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/galchart.html

These reveal interesting details about Galileo?s use of dignities and his general technique.

Nick Kollerstrom is very keen to get feedback on the way Galileo worked. Some of the information is obscure to me so if you notice anything that I have missed, or can make sense of something I can?t, please let us know.

There are two points that are particularly perplexing in the Giovanni Sagredo chart. Why did Galileo apparently refer to the preceding opposition of the Sun and Moon at 16 degrees Gem/Sag when the last full Moon was at 26 Gem/Sag? This looks like a simple mistake to me but Nick wonders if something else was involved. And why has he apparently assigned 4 points of fortitude to Mercury for an exaltation connection?

Re: Galileo's Astrology

2
There are two points that are particularly perplexing in the Giovanni Sagredo chart. Why did Galileo apparently refer to the preceding opposition of the Sun and Moon at 16 degrees Gem/Sag when the last full Moon was at 26 Gem/Sag? This looks like a simple mistake to me but Nick wonders if something else was involved. And why has he apparently assigned 4 points of fortitude to Mercury for an exaltation connection?
Hi Deb,
it's obvious from Nick's excellent article that Galileo was a gifted astrologer, so the only conclusion I can draw is that the 10 degree error in the previous Full Moon is, as you say, a simple mistake of the pen.
As for the points for Mercury's exaltation, this is certainly puzzling as Mercury is quite clearly in Leo, not Virgo! However it's possible that he looked at Mercury's position on the square chart and momentarily *thought* it was in Virgo. A rather sloppy mistake to make, if that's what he did, but hey - we've all made errors of notation and slapped our foreheads afterwards. This is mere conjecture, obviously, but all I can come up with.
==
Pete

3
In the thread ?Rectification by Trutine of Hermes/Animodar? we have been talking about the Animodar method of rectification (which is explained in detail there). I?m now fairly convinced that the reason Galileo drew two charts for his own nativity ( see http://www.skyscript.co.uk/galchart.html ) is because the lower chart with 14.33 Leo rising was his original chart, based on his estimate for his time of birth, and the alternate chart was rectified by the Animodar method, which has Venus ruling the degree of his previous lunation and therefore places the same degree and minute that Venus occupies upon his ascendant. Because I don?t have much respect for the Animodar method of rectification I personally feel the original chart is a preferred chart to use for him. But what we don?t know, is whether he was just experimenting with the method or accepted it very seriously and therefore took the rectified chart as the one he referred to.

Pete, I agree with you that the copying errors are not surprising. If I had to hand-calculate and then hand-draw all my own charts I can?t imagine how many mistakes I?d have to keep correcting. Imagine if posterity judged your capabilities as an astrologer according to your notes and scribbles! In a way it?s very useful that Galileo made the mistake with the Part of Fortune in the chart he gave of his own nativity with 21.37 Leo rising, because it allows us to realise that he was copying information over from the other chart; and that strengthens the argument that the other chart was the original version.

4
Hi, in the article on this site, you can see that, written next to Sagredos' birthchart (he was Mr G's best buddy), there was the preceding Full moon given, in error alas by ten degrees. It is given as 16? Gemini - Sagittarius, while it was actually at 26 deg (on 7th June 1571). For readers who have the book 'Galileo's Astrology', that's page 160. This is surprising - we don't expect Galileo to err ten degrees for a Full Moon!

Next to his daughter Virginia's chart (not here shown, but p.152 in the book), he writes in the preceding New Moon at 16 Leo (8th August 1600, 5 days before) - and that's quite correct. I wish we could get G's 'Astrologia Nonulla' (the name for his astrol. manuscripts are called) held in Florence more publicly available.

Beside his natal chart of his other daughter Livia (18th August, 1601), he jotted down two preceding syzygies: a Full Moon at 21 Leo (14th August) then the previous New Moon at 5 Leo (29th July) and both of these are correct.

For a birthchart he did for a Mr Cesare Galli (15.12.1601) he noted two adjacent partial eclipses: the lunar eclipse just before at 17 Gemini (on 9th December, correct) then the solar eclipse just after, at 2 deg Capricorn (24th December).

I'm wondering, if these syzy-computations both before and after the birthchart were common amongst astrologers of this period, and is there any example of someone else doing this? Any comment would be welcome,
Nick k.