BOOK ONE

of divinity, are either denied or granted by the course of the stars. You, who promulgate laws and sanction rights, take away the decrees, break the legal tablets, and free us from those most severe punishments. It was Mercury original: ☿ (as the astrologers claim) who made that man sacrilegious; it was Venus original: ♀ who made that one an adulterer; and it was the star of Mars original: ♂ that armed that man for the slaughter of others. It is Mercury original: ☿ who compels a man to forge documents or mix poisons; he is the one who, with wicked incantations, rouses the peaceful souls of the dead, even those already purified by the forgetfulness of the River Lethe In mythology, the river in the underworld that caused souls to forget their past lives before reincarnation.. Look there: that man is inflamed by incestuous passions, or you see another clinging to the embraces of boys—we attribute the cause of such great evil to Mars or Venus. And yet, that man is struck down by the hand of the executioner at your command, without cause; the sentence passed against him is a mistake if he was compelled to sin not by his own desire, but by the flawed radiation of the stars. You magistrates have no just basis for punishment, because you know we are always incited to these vices by the malignant fuel of the stars.

These and other similar speeches they compose, asking whether we say the stars are animate or inanimate beings, hoping that by the conclusion of this question we will be confused and find it difficult to express the judgment and opinion of our minds. For whichever of these is said, they turn it to the contrary with the stings of their syllogisms, so that the speech of those responding is forced to agree with their own whim. In these matters and disputes, we certainly praise their cleverness, but we avoid their purpose and method, because astrology original: astrologia has proven its good faith to us through the divine and most manifest authorities of its responses and resultsoriginal: apotelesmatum; the predicted outcomes or effects of planetary configurations.

Certain others add—so that they might seem to agree with us on one hand, while on the other, they disturb this entire science with a flattering consensus born of despairing doubt—that while this teaching has the greatest power, no mortal can reach it with total clarity. They cite the brevity of the minute parts of the zodiac, the extremely rapid course of the stars, and the steep, whirling fall of the heavens' rotation. They do this so that by their plausible-sounding definitions, the substance of the entire science might be undermined. We, however, though our talent is thin and our speech almost ineffective in its narrow oratory, ought to refute what they say using only the truth of the matter itself. We should confirm the precepts of this divine science through the consistency of its responses and results. Nevertheless, we shall respond, asking for your indulgence, Lollianus Mavortius Lollianus, the Roman senator to whom this work is dedicated., our great honor, so that in all our refutations, the faithfulness of the truth—not the splendor and substance of the oratory—is what is sought.

THE REFUTATION OF OBJECTIONS.

CHAPTER II.

A decorative woodcut drop cap 'E' featuring ornate foliage and vine patterns within a square frame.
And first, I would wish that this vehement accuser of the Mathematiciansoriginal: Mathematicorum; in this era, this term specifically referred to practitioners of astrology rather than modern arithmetic, who pursues this art with such lofty speech, would declare whether he has ever personally undertaken any experiment in this science. I wonder if no one ever gave him a true answer when he inquired, or if he instead refused to listen, fearing his ears would be defiled by such responses. Perhaps he is simply being severe and forceful, disturbing the laws of all divinity in a way, sharpening the stings of his arguments with the license of practiced speech. If he received true answers to his questions, and the certainty of truth confirms the opinion of the one who responded, why does he brand with infamy what he ought to have admired? Why does this treacherous accuser attack a divine science with the mind of a traitor?

If, however, the one who professed to know Astrologyoriginal: Mathesin; the divine knowledge of the stars was unable to fulfill what he said because of erratic responses, and his lies stained the promise of his words, then it is only that man's ignorance and rashness—not Astrology itself—that should be attacked. It is the deceptive promise that should be brought into infamy. Indeed, such a man is worthy of every misfortune for causing the study of so noble an art to be overshadowed by the false lies of his answers.

But he who has refused to ask or hear anything, and has not lent the judgment of his ears to those who answer truly—fearing, no doubt, that the faith of the truth would shatter his rigid thoughts—acts unjustly. He is wrong to think he should criticize whatever he could not, or would not, perceive with the dull focus of his mind. For as we know, those judges are always unjust who pronounce judgment on things unknown to them. Those who are led to make a determination by the unskilled license of rashness possess no authority to judge, nor do they bring a sentence to its proper effect if they have not thoroughly examined the allegations of the [other] party...