An overview of Raguseius’ life
Croatian philosopher, theologian, and physician Georgius Raguseius (or Raguseus; ‘Juraj Dubrovčanin’ in his native Croatian, which literally translates to ‘George from Dubrovnik’) was born in Dubrovnik during the Republic of Dubrovnik (today part of Croatia) in the second half of the 16th century. There is no information as to when he left Dubrovnik, but we know that he was schooled in Venice and Padua, receiving his doctoral degrees in philosophy (year unknown), theology (1592), and medicine (1601). From the summer of 1599 to the summer of 1601, he resided in Siena, Pisa, Florence, Rome, and Naples, where he attended university. Upon returning to Padua in the summer of 1601, he first began teaching theology (at the Santa Maria school in Avanzio), then natural philosophy at the Studio Patavino, after being appointed directly by the Doge Grimani to replace Cesare Cremonini, who was promoted to teach in primo loco, as professor at the second Department of Philosophy. Raguseius stayed in Padua until his death in 1622, during which time he regularly taught Aristotelian natural philosophy. For more than twenty years, Raguseius was also active as a doctoral promoter (e.g., in 1602 he was one of the promoters of William Harvey’s doctorate) and engaged in debates with Cremonini. Along with commenting on Aristotelian philosophy, his second focus was astronomy. He published the Astronomico et filosofico discorso sopra l’anno M.D.X.C. calculato al meridian dell’inclita (Astonomical and philosophical essay on the year 1590 calculated in accordance with the inclining meridian) in 1590 and participated in discussions on the appearance of the Great Comet of 1618. In these discussions, quite atypically for a scholastic Aristotelian, Raguseius insisted on the role of the senses and experience in the evaluation of natural events: he praised the use of the telescope for acquiring first-hand experience in order “to resolve all the controversy tormenting the minds of many philosophers”. According to several contemporary sources, Raguseius spent the rest of his life closely connected with the university life in Padua, often participating in vehement discussions even with his closest associates, something which seems to have been a norm of academic etiquette. Raguseius died in Padua on January 13th, 1622, and was buried in the Church of St. Francis, also in Padua.
Raguseius’ most significant works were:
- Georgii Raguseii Veneti, in Patavina Academia philosophi ordinarii, Peripateticae disputationes, in quibus difficiliores naturalis philosophiae quaestiones examinantur, praecipua, obscurioraque Aristotelis loca illustrantur. Eius animi sensa, qualiacunque tandem fuerint, ingenue aperiuntur, et veritas Catholicae Fidei ubique inviolata servatur, Apud Petrum Dusinellum, Venetiis, MDCXIII.
Peripatetic discussions of Georgius Raguseius of Venice, full-time philosopher at the Academy of Padua, in which the more difficult matters within natural philosophy are examined and Aristotle’s more peculiar and darker places illuminated. The ideas of his mind, whatever they may be, are originally displayed and the truth of the Catholic faith is immaculately served. (Published) by Pietro Dusinelli, Venice, 1613.
- Georgii Raguseii Veneti theologi, medici et Patavinae Scholae philosophi ordinarii Epistolarum mathematicarum seu de divinatione libri duo. Quibus non solum divinatrix astrologia, verum etiam chiromantia, physiognomia, geomantia, nomantia, cabala, magia, ceteraeque huius generis superstitiosae disciplinae tanquam inanes exploduntur, et naturalibus rationibus a fundamentis penitus evertuntur. Sumptibus Nicolai Buon, Parisiis, MDCXXIII.
Two Books of Mathematical Letters or On Divination by Georgius Raguseius of Venice, the theologian, physician, and full-time philosopher at the School of Padua. They not only reveal divinational astrology, but also palmistry, physiognomy, geomancy, nomancy, Kabbalah, magic and other superstitious and empty skills of that kind, which are then completely refuted from the ground up with natural explanations. (Published) at the house Nicolai Buon, Paris, 1623.
Raguseius’ criticism of astrology
Raguseius’ extensive criticism of astrology is contained in his posthumously published work Epistolae mathematicae seu de divination (Paris, 1623). The book is a collection of seventeen letters, each dealing with a different attack on astrology. Raguseius Raguseius recounts his early experience of astrology in the following way:
Therefore, as a young man, burning with a yearning for knowledge and encouraged by grand promises, I invested six years of effort [in studying astrology] in Venice. My first teacher was Octavian of Ghent, a man highly educated in all sciences, whom I especially valued and from whom I received solid foundations; and then [my teacher was] the most famed Barozzi, Venetian nobleman who trained me not only in investigating Ptolemy’s works Quadripartitum and Centiloquium, but also in Chaldean and Arabic overrefinements. (Raguseius 1623: 26–27)
This auto-testimony serves as a sort of justification for what Raguseius did later– refute astrology: his criticism of astrology would have been quite unconvincing had he not first been well-educated in and familiar with it.
In the second letter of the first book, “What is the specific subject of divinatory astrology?”, Raguseius defines astrology as follows:
Astrology is one which among the mathematical sciences deals with the contemplation of celestial bodies and mostly with regard to the various affections which they bring into this here lower realm. (Raguseius 1623: 19)
With Raguseius, we see a still persisting understanding of astrology as a mathematical discipline, which in its interpretation of the relationship between the celestial and the earthly continues where astronomy, a discipline dealing with the movement of celestial bodies, left off. He distinguishes astronomy from astrology and demonstrates that knowing and dealing with the movements of celestial bodies need not necessarily be tied to the prophesying of personal fates and the construction of natal horoscopes.
His starting point is Aristotelian natural philosophy. After all, by schooling and philosophical allegiance, Raguseius was an Aristotelian. He thought that the celestial exerts influence on the earthly by way of light, heat and movement, of which we have sensory perception. Movement is merely a carrier power, and light weakly affects the earthly because of the great distance from which it arrives. This is only one portion of the perceived influence because light, heat and movement are not sufficient to explain all earthly phenomena, such as the existence of various metals and minerals within the Earth’s viscera, just as they cannot explain the medicinal properties of plants. It is here the question presents itself – whether there exists something besides light, heat and movement that influences events on Earth. He accepts the existence of another form of influence – occult qualities (qualitates occultae). Occult qualities apply only to general things, and certainly not to those related to man’s free will because:
[…] the human soul is, namely, nobler than a star as it was created in God’s image and therefore cannot from nor within them [stars] find the source of its happiness or misery. (Raguseius 1623: 17)
Although he wishes to refute the validity of astrology, a paradox arises within his arguments. Namely, he retains the notion of occult qualities because of the impossibility of explaining all phenomena on Earth from merely observing phenomena, or from visible celestial influences (light and heat). By accepting the occult qualities of celestial bodies, he in fact accepts an aspect of astrology. Stars possess various powers with which they participate in changes occurring on Earth, and cause the creation of various minerals and metals.
According to Raguseius, people in their bodily aspect are also susceptible to heavenly influence, and as such disease may be a product of negative planetary influence. In the twelfth letter of the first book he writes
[…] and so doctors, too, who take an interest in astrology, tend to choose appropriate times to administer medications, seeing as how they observe in various conjunctions of stars that illnesses are inflamed in a strange way and also that deaths then follow in greater numbers. (Raguseius 1623: 157–158)
Raguseius, himself a physician, dedicated the entirety of his seventeenth letter, “Astrology is neither very useful to nor necessary for medicine”, to astrological medicine. In it he brings out additional postulates of astrological medicine. Expectedly, he thought that neither good nor bad, in relation to human health, can be expected from planetary aspects and thus appeals to experience. Prediction as based on the movement of celestial bodies, which Raguseius accepts, relates to meteorological occurrences, navigation, agriculture, and soldiership.
In his third letter, “Refutation of divinatory astrology”, he lists arguments against astrology, and finds it to be an arbitrary ascription of various characteristics to various heavenly phenomena, whose effects on man and the earthly are then arbitrarily interpreted. Astrology is also irrational, but if one resents astrologists for their irrationality, they will refer to their experience. He considers their references to experience unjust, since due to the brevity of human life, they could not possibly possess the experience they refer to. Although there are innumerable celestial bodies, astrologists limit their number of observed phenomena to 1,022 and by doing so negate the influence of other stars on the earthly. Because of this, their conclusions are not precise. He states the logic in assuming that the 9th and 10th spheres also possess some influence over people, if it is assumed that other spheres somehow influence them. Ancient astrologists did not know of the existence of the 9th and 10th spheres, but nonetheless claimed their accurate prediction of future events. This deems astrology an imprecise and arbitrary discipline, as people are unfamiliar with the exact number of stars that could affect them. Astrologists also believe that images from the sky possess the power to create similar things on Earth, but for him
[…] the images were invented by peasants out of ignorance or barbarians out of godlessness or poets out of fantasizing or astrologists out of false postulates. (Raguseius 1623: 52)
Within the context of astrological criticism, the question of astrology’s origin also presents itself as important, a matter he touches upon in his work. Namely, astrologists have claimed that astrology is a science reported from the Heavens, and not invented by human imagination. It was considered that Adam received the secrets of astrology from God himself, and that, by observing the skies, he predicted the world’s destruction through the first flood and then through fire. This is also mentioned by Raguseius, as he cites the Jewish historian Joseph Flavius and his work Antiquities of the Jews. Raguseius does not agree with this because:
I would gladly agree with them if they were to cite any authority from a divine record: but they do not list even one; nor did I myself ever find within holy records mention of Moses or Abraham dealing with divinational astrology […]. (Raguseius 1623: 41–42)
Raguseius’ acceptance of celestial bodies’ influence on the earthly and on the non-living is not motivated by a superstitious perception of celestial bodies as divinities, but an aspiration to know the true causes of natural phenomena. The reason for looking to astrological explanations is the nonexistence of adequate explanations for the diversity of what occurs within nature, which fits into an Aristotelian-based cosmology. All that which could not be explained at the time or understood through existing scientific assumptions, becomes a part of occult qualities. Raguseius’ use of occult qualities should be observed as a human tendency to leave as mysterious only that which truly cannot be explained, and equally to dispose of all unnecessary superstitions. He accepts the stance that the celestial holds influence over man, but he limits this influence to only the human body, thus excluding the human soul. With this stance, he aims to remove the possibility of his comprehension of the celestial influence of occult qualities drawing closer to the positions held by astral determinism.
// Osvrti