Manuel I Komnenos and Michael Glycas:
A Twelfth-Century Defense and Refutation of Astrology
by Demetra George
Part 1 - History and Background
Abstract
Manuel Komnenos I, Emperor of the Byzantine Empire composed a defense of astrology to the Church Fathers, in which he asserted that this discipline was compatible with Christian doctrine. Theologian Michael Glykas, possibly imprisoned and blinded by Manuel for political sedition, refuted this defense, claiming that the astrological art was heretical. This is the first time that this exchange of treatises has been translated into any language since their composition in the twelfth-century. The introduction sets these works into their historical framework, at a time when the belief in the validity of astrology was held by some of the best scholars of this century as a result of the flood of Arabic astrological translations coming into the Latin West and Greek East. The writings of these two antagonists precipitated anew in mediaeval thought the problem of the correct relationship between man, the celestial bodies and God who dwelled in Heaven.
Part 1. History and Background
Introduction
Manuel I Komnenos, emperor of the Eastern Byzantine Empire from 1143-1180 wrote a public defense of astrology to the Church Fathers, integrating his belief in the astrological science with Christian doctrines.[1] Michael Glykas, a monastic theologian, responded to this letter with a famous refutation.[2] While Manuel's astrological defense, aside from legislation and dialogues in which he is featured, is his only surviving document,[3] this is the first time that it, as well as Glykas' refutation, have been translated from the Greek since their composition in the twelfth century. The lack of academic interest in these two tracts points to the marginal position in which historians have placed the field of astrology as a body of knowledge in the Middle Ages. However as Lemay asserts, 'It has always been a great mistake of historians of mediaeval thought to minimize or to totally overlook this field of inquiry as of no importance or as having negligible bearing on the intellectual outlook of the time'.[4] The first part of this introduction presents an overview of the historical development of astrology in antiquity faced with the continual opposition from both pagan philosophers and Christian writers. The debate that takes place between Manuel and Glykas over the validity and legitimacy of astrology was not an isolated twelfth century exchange between an emperor and a monk, but the continuation of a long tradition of controversy over what was the proper relationship between the divine and the stars. The question of whether a belief in astrology constituted heresy was at the core of their dispute, and the significance of what transpired between Manuel and Glykas can best be comprehended when placed within a larger historical context.
Manuel lived during an intellectual revival of astrological thought, and his stance on the subject, far from being a superstitious defect of his character, was reasonable and in accordance with the interests and beliefs of some of the best scholars of his time. Glykas, in his repudiation of Manuel, was drawing upon a long standing anti-fatalistic tradition of both pagan philosophers and Christian writers who condemned the notion that the stars, rather than human or divine will, determined a person's fate and destiny.[5]
The conflict of opinion between these antagonists over astrology mirrored the tension that existed between the two of them in their personal lives. Modern historians, if they even mention this dispute at all, generally denigrate Manuel as a 'dabbler in astrology',[6] while depicting Glykas as a learned, conservative, Orthodox theologian, whose response to Manuel 'shows him at his critical best'.[7] The second part of this introduction will explore the biographies of each man as they pertain to the issue at hand, and question the traditional assessments of their characters. Manuel was a well-educated individual who had access to the tradition of ancient scholarly astrological texts and his dedication to astrology was revealed from his serious commitment to supporting translation of occult texts in his court. And digging deeper into Glykas' life reveals a man who had dual identities, the devout scholar and the shadowy figure who in his youth was known for his occult interests, suspected of political sedition against Manuel, and imprisoned and blinded by his Emperor for sorcery.
The two primary source biographies for the life of Manuel were written by John Kinnamos [hereafter Kinn] and Nicetas Choniates [hereafter Chon].[8] Kinnamos was the official historian for John II and Manuel I Komnenos, having spent a number of years in Manuel's service and often accompanying him on military campaigns. An admirer of the Komnenii dynasty, he composed his history within two years of Manuel's death and is generally considered to be the more accurate of the two biographers. He was silent on the subject of astrology.
Choniates' work recounts several incidents in which Manuel used astrology in both his professional and personal life. Choniates, who was still a youth when Manuel ascended to the throne, wrote his account near the end of his own life around 1215, many years after Manuel's death. He is quite critical of the Komnenii rulers and blames Manuel for the subsequent decline of the Byzantine Empire. While his distance, both in regard to time and proximity to the royal family, gives him more perspective on the consequences of Manuel's policies, it also contributes to the many factual inaccuracies found in his work.
Byzantine Astrology and the Opposition to Stellar Fatalism.
1. The Problem
The relationship between the stars, the gods - and God - was central in the determination of whether or not a belief in astral influences implied a corresponding inevitable fate for human beings. When astrology first appeared as a mode of divination in the second millennium BCE in Mesopotamia, their appearances and movements signified portents of coming events; but because the stars were understood as one of the manifestations of the gods, the gods themselves could be (and were) entreated to change their minds. Thus the future signified was by no means fixed and inevitable, and consequently there existed no concept of astral fatalism.[9]
In Greek philosophy Plato and Aristotle concurred that the stars were living intelligences and composed of divine material.[10] [11] When the Greeks identified the planets and stars, they gave them the names of gods, such as the star of Aphrodite signifying the planet Venus, and those of heroes immortalized in the constellations, such as Hercules. Thus, in later Greek thinking, the general concept of divinity was embedded in notions of celestial bodies.
With the advent of Hellenistic astrology, there existed, on one hand, a mystical current as evidenced in the hermetic writings that were said to have been divinely revealed. The hermetic treatise The Poimandres spoke of the planets as governors of fate, but whose decree one could escape through gnosis and union with God.[12] There also existed a more predominant scientific current which was clearly articulated by Ptolemy. He utilized Stoic and Aristotelian doctrines to assert that the planets were material and functioned as the physical causes of sublunar change.[13] When the Stoic viewpoint that all of nature operated according to a law of necessity leading to predictable and inevitable results was incorporated into astrological doctrine, the concept of an unalterable astral fatalism was born. Because sentient divinity had been removed from the stars, which now operated according to natural mathematical laws rather than by the will of the gods, they could no longer be entreated to reverse negative portents. Similar to the extreme deterministic position of Stoicism, the only choice allowed through a knowledge of one's fate as revealed by astrology was whether to accept it willingly or unwillingly.
It was to this state of hopelessness resulting from the unchangeable decree of the celestial bodies that the polemics of the anti-fatalism against the stars were addressed. The pagan philosophers affirming the power of human will over the stars utilized scientific arguments to invalidate the precepts of astrology. And the Christian writers asserted that the will of the monotheistic God was superior to that of the stars. The saving grace of Christianity was the conviction that believers could be liberated from the astral decrees, and that it was the presence of Christ in the world that freed them from this tyranny.
The philosophical dilemma is rooted in the contradiction between the assumption that, if the stars are sentient and operate by divine will, they can be entreated, and therefore are not fatalistic on the one hand, and the implication then exists that they are of a divine nature which has volition and power on the other. Yet, if the stars are not sentient and operate according to physical laws of necessity, they cannot be entreated. Thus, though not divine, they are fatalistic and invalidate human free will. From a Christian point of view, if the stars are alive and can be entreated, they challenge the supremacy of God. If they are fatalistic and deny human choice, the system of reward for righteousness and punishment for sin, the efficacy of prayer, God's salvation for the repentant, and Judgment all become meaningless.
Let us now turn to a discussion of the opposition against the fatalism of the stars in the context of astrology's historical development and its provisional use by the emperors. The alternating rise and fall of astrology through the centuries culminated in the twelfth century with an intellectual revival that occurred in the lifetimes of Manuel Komnenos and Michael Glykas.
2. From Babylon to Byzantium
The concepts of Mesopotamian celestial omen divination from the second millennium BCE that had been imported into Hellenistic Egypt were imbedded with the tenets of an astrological religion in which the stars and planets were manifestations of the gods. Scientific Hellenistic astrology gradually divested the stars of their associations with the gods, although the more spiritual conceptions continued to survive in esoteric traditions of late antiquity such as the hermetica and theurgy.[14] When astrological doctrines first entered into Rome, they were dismissed or viewed with suspicion. However, by the first century BCE they had gained acceptance by the Roman elite, because of the pervasive influence of Stoicism that both spoke of the cosmic sympathy existing in all parts of the universe and maintained the validity of divination.
Hellenistic philosophy tended to object to astrology on technical and dialectical grounds rather than because of its curtailment of human freedom.[15] While Posidonius was 'much given to astrology'[16] Cicero, dismissing the subject, stated that he concurred with Panaetius, the only leading Stoic to have rejected astrology and spoke at length about the problem of the twins.[17] The Epicureans, in their belief that the gods were not concerned with human affairs, discredited the astrological art as they did all forms of divination. The Skeptics discounted the possibility of ascertaining positive knowledge of any discipline, and included astrology in their attack, suggesting that it must have been sufficiently influential at that time to merit their denunciation.
This limited opposition did little to stem the astrology's spread and the first Roman emperors were heavily involved with their court astrologers, Thrasyllus and his son Balbillus, who were advisors in turn to Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero. The emperors frequently outlawed the practice of astrology, fearing that political rivals were using it to plan revolts based upon the determination of their vulnerable periods, while simultaneously employing it for their own benefit.[18] In the first century CE astrology was approaching its peak of popularity and influence as evidenced by the works of astrologers such as Dortheus of Sidon and Teucer of Babylon, and the philosophers were quiet on the subject.
Greek astrology peaked in the second century CE which saw the production of substantial literature by Vettius Valens, Claudius Ptolemy, and Antiochus of Athens.[19] Taking the staunch fatalistic position, Valens wrote that it was useless to offer prayers and sacrifices to the gods since all was ruled by an inexorable fate.[20] Ptolemy, favoring a less deterministic stance, refuted absolute astral determination and added the factors of heredity and environment to the formation of character.[21]
In general the critics of astrology did not deny that the stars had influence over terrestrial events; this was a basic precept of Aristotle's natural philosophy which held that all sub-lunar change was effected by the movements of the celestial bodies. What was questioned was the effect that the planets had on human will as well as the astrologer's ability to predict these influences. Issues concerning the fatalism of the stars became paramount.
The opposition to astrology from the second century onwards centered around the issue of fate and free-will. The philosophers challenged the notion that the stars rather than human will were the arbiters of a person's destiny, a belief that allowed for a denial of moral accountability for one's actions. The Christians concurred with this objection, adding the concern that the will of God should be greater than the power of the stars to effect results in the world. If human actions were pre-determined and inevitable, what was the incentive for the apportionment of rewards and punishments for one's choices.
The rationalist Favorinus of Arles (85-155) and the Pyrrhonean Skeptic Sextus Empiricus (late 2nd century) attacked astrology primarily on the scientific grounds that it was impossible to determine all of the manifold planetary and stellar influences and to accurately determine the exact moment of birth for the calculation of the horoscope.[22] Favorinus asserted that the idea that every human action, even the most trivial detail, was immutably predestined was ridiculous and unbearable. Sextus Empiricus claimed that is was impossible to make an accurate prediction in regard to someone's actions because they had no original predetermined cause.[23]
The Peripatetic Alexander of Aphrodias presented the argument that would become the core of the mediaeval compromise on the issue of determinism. He conceded that all physical matter was under the control of the stars, but maintained that this influence did not extend to the realm of the soul and human decision.[24] Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) acknowledged that while 'astrologers can indicate the desire which a malignant power [planetary configuration] produces, 'the acting out of that desire' depends upon freedom of human will'.[25]
The third century saw a decline in the scientific rationalism which had previously characterized Greek philosophy, and with the advent of Neoplatonism a trend toward a more mystical philosophical world view emerged. In astrology this became manifest in the proliferation of astral cults such as Mithraism, Sol Invictus, and the astrological cosmologies in the Corpus Hermeticum and Gnostic Pistis Sophia.[26] Christian writers voicing strong opposition to pagan philosophy also became prominent. When they directed their attention toward astrology, they objected to an astral fatalism that denied the power of God to intervene in His creations, that provided knowledge of the future acquired through human divination rather divine inspiration, and the outright worship of celestial bodies as gods. The Christians, in general, maintained that all forms of magic and divination were the invention of the devil.
Tatian, in his assault upon pagan philosophy (c. 180), clearly associated the demons with the gods of Greek mythology who, embodied in the stars and constellations, introduced 'the doctrine of fate-ordained nativity.' Whenever 'the light of one of them was in the ascendant' they would be amused as the fortunes of people rose and fell.[27] Tertullian of Carthage (c. 200) asserted that it was the fallen angles who brought forward magic and astrology, warning that these wiles were forbidden by God and should not be practiced by Christians.[28] The notion that the stars were evil powers was also evidenced in the doctrines of some Hermetic and Gnostic sects whose practitioners sought to free their souls from the tyrannical power of the stars, ascending through successive planetary spheres to heavens where they could reside beyond the control of the planets. These notions most likely arise from the Apocryphal Book of Enoch which recognized the connections of angels and stars, whereby the angels who attended the phases of the moon and the revolutions of the sun and stars taught mankind the various occult arts.[29]
The problem of the star of the Magi as related by Matthew in the New Testament was an ongoing obstacle to the early Church Fathers, and there were many attempts to dismiss the implications that Christ was subject to the decree of the stars. Ignatius proclaimed that the star at Christ's birth, heralding God's presence in human form, was so brilliant that magic was destroyed, ignorance dispelled, and the rules of demons ended.[30] Tertullian put forth the explanation that astrology and magic had been permitted only until the birth of Christ, so that afterwards no one should interpret the nativity of another from the heavens. The dream sent to Magi telling them to return home by a different route was a message that they should 'walk otherwise' and abandon their former practice of astrology.[31] In the following centuries other Christian writers would add to this explanation the notion that the star was not truly a star.
Early in the third century the great Church Father Origen and the Neoplatonist philosopher Plotinus, who both were students of Ammonius Saccas of Alexandria, set forth similar views on the nature of the stars. They concluded that the stars were signs of coming events rather than the actual physical causes of those events. The merging of religion and philosophy in late antiquity, as characterized by Neoplatonism, was in large part a reaction to the scientific rationalism of earlier Greek philosophy. It is probably no accident that many of the Neo-Platonists were of Semitic origin and this would account for some similarity between their teachings and Babylonian astral doctrines. Plotinus denied that the stars caused evil, and adhering to the doctrine of unity in the universe, he maintained that the stars could be seen as God's handwriting in the heavens announcing the future for those capable of reading it.[32] Origen added that these signs were revealed for the instruction of divine powers, such as angels, that are greater than humans, and that God's foreknowledge did not necessitate the foreknown events. While granting the stars influences as signs, he fully articulated the problem of how a belief in astral determinism destroyed the concept of free-will, upon which the basic premises of Christian doctrine stand. Origen thus set the stage for the consideration of astrology as a heretical creed.[33]
The fourth century opened with the ascension of Constantine the Great (306-357) to the throne of the Roman Empire. In 330, after he had established his capital at Constantinople and converted to Christianity, he began the process of Christianizing the empire. As part of an anti-pagan legislative effort, a series of secular and church laws were instituted over the next century (in 438 Theodosius II codified these laws, along with other imperial legislation, in the Theodosian Code), including injunctions against magicians and astrologers under penalty of death, although the use of astrology for medical and agricultural purposes was excluded from punishment.
In 319 Constantine declared that any soothsayer who approached someone's house would be burned alive and the person who summoned him exiled and his property confiscated.[34] However, he excluded from punishment those magical practices which sought medical remedies for human bodies or weather cooperation for agricultural purposes in rural districts.[35] In 357 Constantius II decreed that "the inquisitiveness of men for divination shall cease forever," and ordered death by sword for those who consulted soothsayers, astrologers or diviners.[36] In 358 he ruled that any person imbued with magical contamination...even an astrologer who was found in his retinue would not be protected by his high rank from being sent to the torture house where iron claws would rip out his sides.[37] The Emperors Valentinian and Valens in 373 forbade the teaching and learning of astrology,[38] and Honorius and Theodosius in 409 required that astrologers burn their books in the presence of bishops and return to the Catholic religion under penalty of exile.[39]
The Council of Nicaea in 325 classified those whose beliefs fell outside of the strict Church doctrines as heretics, and astrologers fell into this category. In 365 the Council of Laodikaea forbade the clergy to be astrologers or magicians, and the Constitution of the Apostles in the 4th century refused astrologers, along with debauchers, magicians, and philosophers, the rite of baptism.[40] This repression of all kinds of divination can be seen as part of the struggle against paganism whose methods of foretelling the future rivaled Christian prophecy. However, there exists much evidence that these laws and edicts were not strictly enforced nor obeyed, even by the emperors themselves, which was not unlike the responses of the first Roman emperors. The historian Ammianus Marcellinus recounted that the emperor Valens (364-68), upon being told by the astrologer Heliodorus of a plot against him, made Heliodorus his own astrologer and gave him a high office.[41] During the turbulent reign of Emperor Zeno (474-91) a group of horoscopes dating 474-88 have been preserved in later compendia which were cast by astrologers employed by Zeno analyzing the prospects of his political rivals.[42]
In fact, astrologers continued to compose new works, as well as compiling, editing, and teaching the doctrines of their predecessors. The fourth century marks the transition of the classification of astrological literature from that of late classical to Byzantine, and writings from a host of astrologers have survived, including Pancharious, Maximus, Paulus Alexandrinus, Anonymous of 379, Hephaiston of Thebes, and Proclus.[43]
Christian writers continued to assail astrology, and these ongoing attacks suggest the extent to which people continued to cleave to the art. Singling out all the groups which he considered to be heretics, Epiphanius of Cyprus (315-403) denounced astral fatalism in the context of his attack upon the Stoics and Pharisees and claimed that the Pharisees translated the Greek names of zodiac signs and planets, and thus 'introduced the untenable, insane, nonsense of astrology to the world'.[44]
Basil of Caeserea (330-79), in a discourse reconciling examples of natural science with the processes in the six days of Creation, recognized that the moon 'makes all of nature participate in her changes.' However, he denied that the stars could indicate human personality, claiming the impossibility of determining the exact moment of birth. He also objected to the notion that a 'malefic star' was evil either by the dictate of its Creator who made it or evil by its own volition, which notion suggested that stars are endowed with intelligence and will.[45]
John Chrysostom (347-407) wrote a frequently cited homily concerning the Magi and the Star of Bethlehem in which he discredited the implication that the story of Christ's birth as related by Matthew could be interpreted as a verification of astrology. Reiterating the sentiments of Tatian, Ignatius, and Tertullian, he asserted that 'the star was not a star at all... but some invisible power transformed into the appearance of a star' as was evidenced from its unusual course. Its divine nature was so powerful that its mere appearance was sufficient to bring the barbarian Magi to the feet of Christ.[46]
But it was Augustine (354-430) who made the most extensive and influential condemnation of astrology during this era. In the Confessions he admitted that once he was attracted to astrologers but after his conversion to Christianity, he vehemently denounced the fatalism of astrology as 'having the effect to persuade men not to worship any god at all'.[47] In the midst of a host of other arguments, he acknowledged that accurate astrological predictions are due to the help of demons and that while the stars affect terrestrial change, 'it does not follow that the wills of men are subject to the configurations of the stars'.[48] In another work Augustine discussed the problem of the Star of Bethlehem and, like Chrysostom, asserted that it was a new star that shone because Christ was born and its purpose was to point the way for the Magi to find the Word of God.[49]
During the reign of Constantine and his sons, Julius Firmicus Maternus demonstrated that Christianity and astrology could be compatible. Writing in Latin, he composed a textbook on astrology, the Mathesis, and an exhortation to abolish pagan cults. Answering the Christian objections to astrology, he maintained that through prayer to an omnipotent Deity who governed the universe, humans could resist the decrees of the stars.[50] The polemics of the theologians and the secular and holy decrees had little effect upon the astrologers. They did not bother to defend their art, they simply continued to practice it. The fourth century was the most prolific period of Byzantine astrological literature. As for those who consulted astrologers, as today, their desire to know their destiny obviously outweighed their concern that the belief in such an art might nullify their free will.
In 476 the Roman Empire in the West came to an end, and with its collapse, knowledge of the Greek language virtually died out. Along with the loss of the language, knowledge of astrology, which had been predominantly written in Greek, disappeared.[51] In the East, while Latin was the official language, it was Greek that was actually used throughout the empire. Many astrological writings remained available, and thus the teaching survived over the next thousand years, in spite of continued periodic opposition from the Christian Church. Two years after the ascension of Justinian in 527, the philosophical schools of Athens were closed and many pagan scholars emigrated to the more liberal courts of Persia, as well as to those in Harran and India. In Persia and India, Greek astrological texts were translated into Pahlavi and Sanskrit, and these would later find their way into Islamic literature in the eighth and ninth centuries, and thence return to Byzantium in the eleventh century and the Latin West in the twelfth century.
But Justinian, like Constantine before him, could not completely eradicate the activities of the astrologers. The names of the astrologers Olympiodorus (c 564), Julian of Laodica (c 500), John of Lydus, and Rhetorius of Egypt were prominent astrological writers and teachers in the sixth and seventh centuries.[52] After the fall of Alexandria to the Arabs in 642, the contributions of its resident Greek astrologers to the Byzantine Empire ceased, and the relentless opposition of the Church finally effected a general decline of astrology over the next two centuries. There do not appear to be any significant theological attacks, and this suggests that the problem had been put to rest, at least for the time being.
At the end of the eighth century, Stephanus the Philosopher moved to Constantinople from Baghdad where he had studied with Theophilus of Edessa (d.785), the Greek-speaking military astrologer of the Caliph al-Mahdi. Stephanus brought with him a treasury of astrological manuscripts from the library at Baghdad. As such, he was said to have reintroduced the art back into the Byzantine Empire.[53] These manuscripts then appear to have passed through the hands of Leo the Mathematician who was a ninth century scholar, teacher, and astrologer in Constantinople as well as an archbishop of Thessalonika for a period of time.[54]
There was no further influx of Arabic astrology into Byzantium in the ninth and tenth centuries. However, by the late tenth well-known astrologers such as Demophilus and Theodosius edited and compiled compendia of excerpts of ancient astrological books which began to circulate for the first time in many centuries, initiating the beginnings of an astrological revival. By the early eleventh century during the Komnenian period there was a proliferation of Greek translations of Arabic astrological works, by such astrological authors as Mash'allah, al-Kindi, Abu Ma'shar, and Achmat the Persian, and the translation of the Karpos or Centiloquium falsely attributed to Ptolemy.[55] Virtually all of the thousands of astrological manuscripts listed in the Catalogus codicum astrologorum Graecorum that were compiled in Byzantium date from the twelfth to fifteenth centuries.[56] It was in the midst of this astrological revival that gradually but steadily increased, peaking in the fourteenth century, when astrologers such as John Katrones, John Abramious, and Eluetherias Zebelenos revised major classical and early Byzantine astrological treatises, that Manuel's advocacy of astrology took place.
The re-discovery of ancient astrological knowledge that came in large part through Arabic channels was not confined to the Byzantine East. In the Latin West a similar phenomenon began about a century later. With the re-conquest of Spain (1085) and Sicily (1060-91), scholars were drawn to these areas to partake of the knowledge of the Saracen cultures. Here they translated Islamic material, a great deal of which had been derived from ancient Greek writers, whose teachings the Arabs had preserved and modified.
It was in the area of science that this intellectual revival was most pronounced, and the medical, scientific, and mathematical treatises contained elements of astrologia, i.e., astrology seen as the practical application of theoretical astronomy. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries a vast body of both Greek and Arabic astronomical and astrological works were translated into Latin. Richard Lemay argued that it was through the translation of Abu Ma'shar's Greater Introduction that Aristotelian natural philosophy entered into the West some twenty years before any specific work of Aristotle's natural philosophy was actually translated into Latin.[57] Many twelfth century scholars who were interested in natural sciences associated with Aristotle were also firm believers in the validity of astrology, including Adelard of Bath, John of Seville, Hermann of Carinthia, William of Conches, Bernard Silvester, Roger of Hereford, Daniel Morley, Raymond of Marseilles, Robert of Chester, Alfred of Sareshel, Alanus de Insulis and Raoul of Longchamp.[58]
In the following century Aristotle would be Christianized, purged of astrology and pantheistic cosmology that had been embedded into his philosophy by the Arabs. However, 'In the twelfth century,' as Tullio Gregory said, 'astrology was one of the physical sciences men had to study–as a physical science, not as something based on imaginary data– because it really was a positive science for mediaeval men'.[59] That all operations of the inferior world of nature were governed by the movements and influences of heavenly bodies was universally accepted until the sixteenth century.[60]
Thus Manuel's interest and belief in astrology must be seen in light of the twelfth century intellectual renaissance that was taking place in both the Byzantine East and Latin West, an era when substantial translations of astrological works from Arabic were contributing to the shaping of the scientific world view. While knowledge of astrology had disappeared in the West, the tradition had been relatively continuous in the East, and the revival that had begun during the reign of Manuel's grandfather Alexios I was swelling in Manuel's own lifetime. That he had access to this vast compendia of literature is attested by the catalog of astrological works which were a part of the special 'restricted' collection in his own imperial library,[61] and his knowledge of the art was based upon the recent availability of the works of ancient Greek authors and the best of the Arabic astrologers.
Manuel was not unique in his sentiments. Greenfield, discussing politics and magic in twelfth century Byzantium, underscores this fact:
Nevertheless, when emperors ...make use of astrology when making important decisions, when leading intellectuals and scholars seriously discuss magical practices and cast horoscopes, when manuscripts of sorcery that require extremely high levels of erudition are copied and employed, and when senior churchmen are condemned for using, and actually being practitioners of magic, it is quite clear that what is being dealt with here is not to be dismissed as 'superstition,' as the misguided, ignorant, and unrepresentative beliefs of a lowly social group or a few isolated individuals, but is something that was an integral part of general Byzantine culture and thought.[62]
This new wave of ancient scientific knowledge, including that of astrology, hit the Latin West when Manuel was Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire. In his endeavors to break down the barriers between East and West through a cultural exchange of ideas, Manuel could not help but be aware of the intellectual renaissance that was occurring. He found in the scholarship of the West a confirmation that his own beliefs in astrology were in complete accordance with those of the best thinkers of his generation and saw himself as an active participant in the intellectual renaissance of his time.
In arguing his defense Manuel drew upon a fifteen hundred year tradition of Western astrology that steadfastly survived despite continual attacks from philosophers and theologians. As an upholder of the Orthodoxy, he sought to reconcile his religious and scientific convictions in the assertion that astrological beliefs were not heretical. Glykas, also well-educated in religious, scientific, and occult matters drew upon the equally resilient tradition of opposition to the fatalism of the stars in his refutation of Manuel's defense. He was the first person in many centuries to stir up all the old objections. Manuel Komnenos and Michael Glykas are two voices who, in the twelfth century, summarize and re-articulate for their era the ageless debate concerning humanity's correct relationship with the stars.
Manuel I Komnenos and His Dedication to Astrology
Manuel I Komnenos was an advocate of astrology and his court was known for its interest in divination and wonders. While astrology was by no means his main enterprise, it shaped the way that he viewed the world. In his 1993 biography of Manuel, Magdalino challenges the traditional less-than-favorable view of this emperor arguing that Manuel's reign was, 'in some sense the high point of medieval Greek civilization.[63] However, he is at a loss to understand Manuel's strong commitment to astrology, wondering if it derived from a particularly successful astrological prediction or if he had fallen under the spell of charismatic astrologers.[64]
Manuel's position on astrology did not arise from an uninformed and uncritical acceptance of a superstitious belief nor was it an idiosyncratic mark or character defect of an otherwise rational man as his contemporary biographer Choniates maintained.[65] Rather, well-educated, widely read, and distinguished for his profound intellect Manuel lived at a juncture in time when his natural interest in astrology as part of his cultural and familial heritage coincided with a renaissance in the West in which some of the best scholars of the century likewise believed in the validity of this art.
Divinatory Signs of Manuel's Destiny
Born on November 28, 1118,[66] Manuel was the fourth and youngest son of John II and the Hungarian princess Eirene. After receiving a mortal wound in a hunting accident while on campaign in Cilicia in 1143, John II proclaimed Manuel, who was accompanying him at the time, heir, even though he had an older son Isaac in Constantinople.[67] Many signs and portents confirming his nomination surrounded the new emperor, still a young man in his early twenties.
Both Kinnamos and Choniates record the speech that John II made on his deathbed in which he justified his choice of the younger son over the elder (Kinn. 1.26-27; Chon. 1.1.45). While praising both of his sons for virtue, nobility and intelligence, John II deemed that, 'my last-born son would be the better administrator of the empire'. He goes on to affirm that, 'proof that God has destined and chosen him to be emperor are the many predictions and prophecies of the men beloved of God, all which foretold that Manuel should be emperor of the Romans' (Chon. 1.1.45). Kinnamos gives us further words that John uttered,
'I would tell you also some of the tokens which revealed the present fate to him [Manuel], except that I am aware that these things are deemed irrational by the multitude; for nothing leads more easily to slander than stories of dreams and predictions of the future' (Kinn. 1.28).
Thus not only did the young Manuel have a sense of having been chosen to rule by destiny, but these passages also reveal the seriousness with which his own father believed in portents. The use of the word 'prediction' has the uncanny connotation of astrological prediction. It was the custom for the nativities of potential rulers to be cast and evaluated for indications of success or failure. Thus Manuel's predilection for astrology may have been part of a family tradition which before him had not been made public or had been played down for the reasons that his father explicitly stated. Manuel's paternal aunt, Anna Komnena, in The Alexiad (a history of her father, Alexios I's, reign), admitted that 'we also at one time investigated in this [the astrological science]', although she qualified this admission with the fact that she despised it.[68]
Choniates, who was scathingly critical to Manuel's devotion astrology, himself believed the prophecy of the renowned seer, Niketas the Bishop of Chonai, who happened to be his godfather. When the young emperor passed through his land on his way to claim the throne in Constantinople, many doubted Manuel's ability to wrest it from his older brother who was ensconced in the Great Palace. The seer proclaimed that Manuel's sovereignty had been ordained and decreed by God, and he also predicted that Manuel would go mad toward the end of his reign (Chon. 2.7.121). This story highlights the distinction that was made by the Church in the Middle Ages between the knowledge of the future gained through divination by stars and that acquired through Christian prophecy. That the future could be known was not contested, but the means by which this was accomplished was a critical doctrinal issue. Manuel succeeded to the throne in a peaceful manner, and was crowned at St. Sophia on March 31, 1143. The time of his coronation was noted and the astrological chart of this event is preserved in a twelfth century codex (see Fig. 2).[69]
Well known for his great stature, personal charm, and swarthy good looks, Manuel cut a dashing figure. He was noted for his physical strength, bravery, skill in battle, and willingness to share the toils of his soldiers while on campaign. A brilliant statesman, he was also renowned for his broad intellect (Chon. 2.1.50-51). Well educated, he had a particular interest in science and medicine, enjoyed discussing philosophy and immersing himself in theological debates as an arbiter of Orthodoxy (Chon.2.7.212-219). He simultaneously supported monasticism and held a lavish and extensive court where he promoted the arts and literature. His appetites for sensual pleasures, banqueting, reveling, and women were legendary (Chon. 2.1.54).
Manuel and His Relationship with the Latin West
Manuel was a lover of all things Latin; he sought to interact with and emulate the culture of the West, gaining the reputation of a Latinophile. His strong affinities were due, in part, to personal relationships. He was born to a Hungarian mother Eirene and married to two Western princesses, the German Bertha of Sulzbach (renamed Eirene after her marriage) and the Norman Mary of Antioch. But even more it was his expansive and curious intellect, prompting him to explore and expand the horizons of his mind beyond the limits of the Eastern empire that led him to establish cultural connections with Westerners. This extension to the West was also prompted by his foreign policy whereby he sought to acquaint himself with and utilize the skills and knowledge of the West as a means by which to strengthen his empire from the threats of their encroachment.[70]
For all these reasons, not the least of which was his aspiration to a cosmopolitan self-image, he welcomed foreigners from all nations to his magnificent court, whether they be Germans, Normans, Italians, French, or English. He employed them as soldiers, appointed them to diplomatic and civil administrative positions, and gave them grants of land (Chon.2.7.200). This policy generated tremendous anger among the Byzantines leading to a national hatred which erupted in the reign of Andronikos.[71]
In addition to receiving many Latin missions, Manuel sent a continuous succession of Greek embassies to the West, with a reciprocal exchange of scientific and literary knowledge.[72] It has been suggested that this was a deliberate policy in an attempt to dissolve the barrier between East and West. The western crusading movements that passed through Byzantium generated an awareness of new trends that existed outside of the borders of the Eastern empire. Manuel's policy of cultural foreign exchange aimed at introducing these Latin ideas in order to stimulate Byzantine thinking;[73] this policy also allowed Manuel himself ample opportunities to be in contact with the new intellectual movements that were percolating in Western Europe.
In particular a renaissance was occurring in Western Europe that was precipitated by the flood of translations from Arabic of ancient Greek scientific and philosophical treatises. These included several hundred astrological works which were imbued with the doctrines of Aristotle's natural philosophy. Manuel's questing intellect that looked westwards saw that astrology was being considered by scholars as a legitimate aspect of natural science, and thus he found confirmation of his own beliefs as well as the assurance that he was a 'man of his time'.
Manuel as a Patron of Astrology
Let us now turn to the evidence of the ways in which Manuel patronized astrology and the occult arts in his court. Astrologers were no newcomers in the Komnenian courts. The art was flourishing in Byzantium in the eleventh century when vast compendia of astrological writings were being compiled by well known astrologers such as Theodosius and Demophilus.[74] Anna Komnena gave a detailed description of a number astrologers who were active at the court of her father Alexios I (1081-1118) and whom many people consulted. Anna mentioned the names of the astrologer Seth who accurately forecast the fate of Robert Guiscard, the Egyptian Alexandreus who gave correct a prediction to the Emperor himself, the Egyptian Eleutherius, and the Athenian Catanances. Even though Alexios I consulted astrologers upon occasion (he inquired into the significance of the great comet that appeared for 40 days just prior to the first crusade), Anna stated that he showed 'some hostility' to the teaching out of fear that the guileless would reject their faith in God and gape at the stars instead.[75] Anna's attack on astrology clearly showed the powerful hold that it had on her contemporaries, in spite of the effort of past emperors to abolish it. Her father's hostility was not due to a disbelief in the art so much as to a concern for the people in his role as the protector of the Faith.
Manuel was likewise surrounded by astrologers whose names are unknown. Among the artists and writers who were patronized at Manuel's court, we have evidence of two poets who composed astrological poems and several scholars who were commissioned to translate occult treatises that were a part of the special collections of Manuel's library.
John Kammateros who became archbishop of Bulgaria ca. 1183 was Manuel's drinking companion and shared his interest in astrology. Kammateros wrote two astrological poems which he dedicated to Manuel. In On The Zodiac he used primary sources of ancient astrologers such as Hephaiston of Thebes and Rhetorius of Egypt and made many classical allusions in his discussion of the twelve signs of the Zodiac, planets, fixed stars, the decans, and all matters of genethlialogy and catarchic astrology.[76] The Introduction to Astronomy, written in the political verse of the vernacular, was directed to a more popular audience, explaining the terrestrial influences of the stars on matters such as civil war, poor crops, unsuccessful campaigns.[77]
Theodore Prodromos is another name that comes up in connection with astrological poetry. He was court poet to Empress Eirene Doukaina, her son John II, and her grandson Manuel. He dedicated a lengthy astrological poem to Manuel's sister-in-law, the Sebestokratorissa Irene, who had gathered around her an array of literary talent.[78] Recent scholarship has shown that this poem may have been written by Constantine Manasses, who also belonged to her circle.[79]
Twelfth century scholars flocked not only to Spain and Sicily in order to avail themselves of the ancient knowledge that was now available for translation, but also some found their way to Manuel's court to discover the treatises that had been stored in Byzantium. There they learned Greek and made Latin translations of a number of occult works from Manuel's library, some of which were of restricted circulation. A brief catalog of the astrological works from this collection has survived.[80]
An Italian writer, Pascal the Roman, who was known for his interest in occult matters appeared at the Byzantine court and, at Manuel's order, translated in 1169 the alchemical Kiranides--a treatise on the ancient lore of animals, stones, and plants which makes reference to other works on the magical virtues of herbs and planets. While at Manuel's court, he also compiled the Liber Thesauri occulti, a dream book from Latin, Greek, and Arabic sources, citing Aristotle and Hippocrates.[81]
The Pisean Leo Tuscus, a career diplomat and Greek scholar from Pisa, served Manuel as imperial secretary during the 1176 Asiatic campaigns. While in Manuel's orb, he was credited with translating from the Greek to Latin the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom as well as the Oneirocriton, a ninth century dream book of Ahmed ben Sirin who also wrote an astrological treatise extant in Greek.[82] References to Manuel occur in connection with other alchemical treatises which he collected and commissioned. Michael Scot mentions his name along with that of the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa, in his Summula and the De Perfecto Magisterio states that it was taken from the 'Liber Emanuelis'.[83] The legend of Prester John, a Christian holy man living in India, was widely circulated in the twelfth century. He was said to have written a letter to Manuel which described the wonders and marvels of the East. Manuel then purportedly transmitted this letter to Frederick, who then saw to its Latin translation.[84] While this letter has since proven to be a Western forgery, it points out that Manuel's reputation for his occult interests spanned the divide between East and West.
We also see Manuel's direct participation in facilitating the exchange of learning in the areas of astronomy and divination. He sent a beautiful codex of Ptolemy's Almagest as a diplomatic gift to the court in Sicily. Henricus Aristippus, one of the principal Sicilian translators carried this and other manuscripts from Manuel's library, and it was from this copy that the first Latin translation was made in 1160 by a visiting scholar who wrote that he was assisted by Eugene the Emir who had translated Ptolemy's Optics from the Arabic.[85]
Eugene the Emir was also associated with the translation from Greek to Latin of the prophecy of the Erythraean Sibyl, an oracular forecast of the deeds of kings and emperors. This text explicitly stated that it was brought from the treasury of Emperor Manuel, having first been translated from Chaldean by Doxopater who appeared as imperial nomophylax (i.e. guardian of the laws) at Constantinople during Manuel's reign.[86]
Manuel actively supported the translations of astrological, alchemical, and other occult works in his own court and his astrological knowledge was based upon direct contact with ancient scholarly texts, as opposed to hearsay. In addition, by providing astrologically related texts from his own library, he participated in a larger effort to make this knowledge available to the countries outside of his empire. These actions can be seen as attempts to enhance his own status and to establish his court as a center and source of ancient knowledge, comparable to the translation activities taking place in Spain and Sicily. Manuel had pride in his astrological identity and had no qualms about making it public.
Manuel's Personal Use of Astrology
Manuel's personal use of astrology was described by Choniates, who relates that astrologers advised the Emperor on auspicious times for beginning political actions, kept him appraised of upcoming significant planetary alignments, were present at the birth of his son, and in attendance during Manuel's last months of life (Chon.2.2.96;5.154; 5.169; 7.220-21). Manuel relied upon astrological considerations in his decisions concerning military affairs and in the aftermath of the Second Crusade of 1147, he prepared a second expedition (1154) under Constantine Angelos against Roger II of Sicily, who had attacked Greek cities just as the Crusaders were first passing through and plundering Byzantine territories. Manuel determined the time of the fleet's departure by means of astrological timing. According to Choniates:
Manuel held the reprehensible belief that the retrograde and progressive motion of stars and their positions, as well as the configurations of the planets, their proximity and distances, influence the fortunes and circumstances of human life; and he believed in all those other things that astrologers falsely attribute to Divine Providence while deceptively introducing such phrases as 'it is decreed' and 'the decrees of Necessity are unchangeable and irreversible.' In such fashion he determined that Angelos' expedition would be propitious.
Having made the necessary arrangements, he sent Constantine Angelos on his way. But what happened? The sun had not set before Constantine returned at the emperor's command, for the departure had been ill-timed, and Angelos had set out when there were no favorable configuration of the stars to decree such an action, or rather there was an inaccurate reading of the tables of the astronomical sphere. As the babblers conceded, they were guilty of making indiscriminate projections, and consequently they erred in finding the propitious time for undertaking the expedition. The horoscope was cast once again and the astrological tables carefully scrutinized. And thus, after a searching investigation, close inquiry, and careful observation of the stars, Angelos moved out, urged on by the beneficent influence of the stars.
So advantageous was the determination of the exact moment to the success of Roman affairs, or in redressing the failures of the preceding commanders, and in redeeming every adversity, that forthwith Constantine Angelos was delivered into the hands of the enemy (Chon. 2.2.96)
In the next decade Manuel faced a coalition of Normans, Serbs, Hungarians, and Kievans in which he had some successes. At the battle of Semlin, in 1167, against the Hungarians, just as the Byzantine general was about to charge into battle, a courier suddenly arrived bearing a letter from Manuel ordering the commander to put off the engagement until another day. Choniates comments:
That particular day was rejected as being unlucky and unfavorable for a military encounter, but since the successful completion or failure of great and mighty deeds depends on the goodwill of God, I do not know how it was that Manuel could put his trust in the conjunctions and positions and movements of the stars, and obey the prattle of astrologers as though they were equal to judgments coming from God's throne (Chon. 2.5.154).
The general ignored Manuel's order and went on to victory. The only incidents that Choniates relates are those in which Manuel's astrological judgments were in error. It could be surmised that because of the historian's anti-astrological attitude, it is unlikely that he would have included the successes. However, unless Manuel had seen positive results gained by taking planetary configurations into consideration, he would not have continued to make use of the art. What is clear, however, is Manuel's attentiveness to astrology and his confidence in its practitioners, even in regard to major military undertakings and affairs of state.
Concerning Manuel's private life, Choniates acknowledged the presence of astrologers at the pivotal moments of birth and death. When the pregnant Empress went into labor:
The sight of the emperor, who was in attendance and anxious for his wife, eased her pangs; even more, he cast frequent glances at the stargazer, the gaper at heavenly signs. Since it was a male child that issued forth from the womb, and the astrologers' art predicted that he should be blessed, a child of destiny, and successor to his father's throne, prayers of thanksgiving were offered up to God, and everyone applauded and rejoiced (Chon. 2.5.169).
Kinnamos offers the additional insight that the birth of this son was a vindication of a stance that Manuel had taken in regard to a theological dispute concerning the superiority of the Father to the Son. During a discussion of the controversy he received news of his wife's miscarriage of her first pregnancy. He made a supplication to God that if he was mistaken, would that he never bear another child, but if his opinion was pleasing, to allow this hope be fulfilled quickly (Kinn. 6.257). Manuel's previous children from his first wife were two daughters. A male heir who would survive to succeed to the throne was even more important than a military victory, and Manuel looked to his astrologer for immediate confirmation of his son's destiny who was born not long after this entreaty.
It was during the final months of Manuel's life that an incident occurred, described by Choniates in a lengthy condemnation of the Emperor's belief in astrology. He stated that Manuel's astrologers foretold the coming of a grand planetary alignment that would precipitate the eruption of violent winds and that consequently Manuel had the glass removed from the imperial buildings and ordered that caves and underground places be prepared for habitation and protection from the winds (2.7.220-21). Choniates disparagingly described their activity as:
... being glib of speech and accustomed to lying, they foretold the ... convergence and conjunctions of the largest stars, and the eruption of violent winds. Not only did they reckon the number of years and months and count the weeks until these things would take place and clearly point them out to the emperor, but they also designated the exact day and anticipated the very moment as though they had precise knowledge of those things which the Father had put in his own power' (2.7.221).
In the years immediately preceding Manuel's death, various prophecies began to be made concerning a grand conjunction of planets on September 16, 1186. Manuel's Byzantine astrologers were in active correspondence with their Arab and Western colleagues, predicting that there would be great political and natural disasters, including violent weather upheavals.[87] But Manuel who, as it seems, was part of the international community of scholars who at that time believed in the validity of astrology, had every reason to take their warnings seriously. As protector of the empire, the responsible action from his perspective would be to take the necessary precautions for the safety of his people.
At the onset of his serious illness in March 1180, Manuel did not accept his approaching death, because his astrologers who were in attendance had predicted that he would soon recover and live for another fourteen years to yet level cities to the ground. Thus, even though Alexios II was still in puberty, Manuel refused to make provisions for the running of his government during his son's minority. By September of 1180, as his symptoms worsened, he finally appointed his Norman wife Mary as regent, renounced his earlier trust in astrology on the advice of the patriarch, and taking the monastic habit as was customary, passed away in the thirty-eighth year of his reign.
Manuel's Reception of the Provocative Letter
At some point during his reign, probably in the 1170's, a letter criticizing astrology and denouncing its proponents as heretics was put into Manuel's hands by the Patriarch.[88] It had been written by a simple monk of the Pantokrator Monastery which had been founded by Manuel's father John II and funded by the Komnenian dynasty. Given the extent of Manuel's belief and use of astrology, and his support of the art in his court, Manuel could not help but take it as a personal affront. Moreover, as Emperor and Defender of the Faith, he could not allow a charge of heresy to be directed against himself. In addition to being a staunch supporter of the Orthodoxy, he relished doctrinal debate, and thus composed a defense of the subject, employing arguments from ancient astrologers, scriptural passages, and the writings of Church fathers. Michael Glykas, who by this time had a reputation for theological astuteness, and who maintained that he had been unjustly wronged by Manuel some years earlier, wrote a refutation. Let us now turn to Glykas' story as it relates to the exchange of these documents.
Michael Glykas and His Motivation for the Refutation
There exists much evidence to suggest that Michael Glykas, the conservative theologian who wrote a refutation against Manuel's defense of astrology was the same person as Michael Sikidites who was convicted of sorcery, and imprisoned and blinded by the orders of Manuel. Some scholars have proposed that Glykas' punishment was the direct result of his criticism of Manuel's use of scriptural passages whereby he accused him of falsifying the claims that the Church Fathers supported the astrological art.[89] However, it seems more plausible that Glykas' refutation was, in part, an act of retaliation against the emperor due to his conviction that he had been falsely accused of magic in connection with political sedition, and consequently an attempt to redeem his reputation.[90] Let us try to unravel the mystery of Glykas' identity and the motivation for his critical refutation of Manuel's defense of astrology.
Michael Glykas was born in the first third of the twelfth century on Corfu, and served as grammatikos, an imperial secretary, in Manuel's court until 1159.[91] While in his later writings he took a stand against astrology, he was quite knowledgeable in the subject as evidenced in his Chronicles.[92] In the earlier part of his life he was known for his interest in the occult and, as such, the young Glykas would have easily fitted in with others in the imperial environs.[93]
Glykas' Suspected Role in the Political Conspiracy
In 1158-59 while Manuel was on an expedition to Cilicia and Syria, a conspiracy to overthrow his throne occurred in Constantinople. It was led by Theodore Styppeiotes, the 'keeper of the inkstand' and head of the civil administration. According to Manuel's official biographer Kinnamos, Styppeiotes 'foretold to many, as if from a prophet's tripod, that the span of the emperor's life had already been measured out,' and that the Roman senate should bestow authority upon a more mature man who would conduct 'the state's business as in a democracy' (Kinn.184). When Manuel was informed of the plot by his empress Eirene, he sent orders to arrest and blind Styppeiotes and the other conspirators.
It was at the very time of Styppeiotes' disgrace that Glykas was being held in prison, as was Manuel's cousin Andronikos, who was a continual source of trouble because of his own aspirations to the throne.(After Manuel's death, Andronikos, usurping power, executed Manuel's wife and heir Alexios II and installed himself as Emperor). An anonymous Syrian chronicle states that Manuel made peace with Nureddin 'because he had heard that Andronikos, one of his nobles, had rebelled in the capital',[94] causing him to cut short his campaign. While Andronikos was 'allowed' to escape, saving the Emperor the embarrassment of having to convict a close relative of treason, Glykas was partially blinded and retained in prison for some years afterwards. The specific charge against Glykas is not known.
While all the twelfth century historians give varying accounts of this conspiracy, none of them explicitly link Glykas, Styppeiotes, and Andronikos as co-conspirators.[95] Kresten speculated that Glykas may have been instrumental in composing the prophecy in folk verse about the approaching death of the Emperor and putting it into circulation.[96] Astrologically based predictions concerning the imminent death of an emperor as part of sedition plots were a common practice as far back as Augustus, whose edicts against astrologers were aimed to prevent this very thing.[97]
Michael Glykas alias Michael Sikidites
The matter might have ended there, except for the fact that Choniates, who did not mention the name of Glykas in his history, did relate a story about a Michael Sikidites who was punished with blinding and imprisonment by the command of Emperor Manuel for his 'devotion to astrology and the practice of demonic magical arts' (Chon. 2.4.148). Sikidites was reported to have put magical spells upon a boatsman and bathers in a bathhouse, 'tricking them into believing that what they saw was real, and diverting his viewers as he conjured up ranks of demons to attack those he wished to terrify' (Chon. 2.4.148). After being deprived of his sight, Sikidites became 'tonsured as a monk, and composed after some time a treatise on the Divine Mysteries' (Chon. 2.4.150) concerning the corruptibility of the Eucharist which was to provoke a great theological debate and divide the church toward the end of the century.[98]
Many of the biographical details of the life of Michael Glykas correspond to those of Michael Sikidites as set down by Choniates. Choniates confirmed that it was 'the false monk Sikidites who introduced this novel doctrine, 'and that there was an attempt by the Patriarch John Kamateros 'to subject to anathema its author as heresiarch' (6.2.514).
Michael Glykas also authored a theological chapter on the corruptibility of the Eucharist that took the same position as the one attributed to Michael Sikidites by Choniates and is the subject of such an attack. In another work.[99] Choniates stated, 'In regard to the court of Manuel Komnenos there was a certain man by the name of Michael, whose surname was Sikidites, who was counted among the imperial secretaries'.[100]
While Michael Glykas was imprisoned he wrote a note as a preface in one of his manuscripts of verse in which he stated that he was a grammatikos who was blinded by the Emperor due to false rumors, and then turned to the writing of holy books in monastic solitude:
The distinguished grammatikos wrote the above lines while he was imprisoned hoping that they would be shown to the holy king and he would receive his freedom. But he did not manage to obtain his objective. For ignoble rumors were spreading everywhere at that time strongly rousing that kind and quite reasonable man to anger. These things happened: A swift royal command came from Cilicia and because the matter had not been examined, he was blinded but continued his profound education as it was before the inquiry. What to do after these things? He received a flood of woes. He took responsibility for this situation. He did not fall down before suffering. He bore the misfortunes of his trial nobly. He was not troubled because of this, but rather he allowed that these events were graces to the one who accedes to God and he spoke according to the words of divine David, 'It is good for me that I was afflicted that I might learn your statutes. ' (Ps. 119.71) In this way he embraced the solitude and he became engrossed with sacred books.[101]
Given the facts that both men were imperial secretaries, both were imprisoned and blinded by the command of Manuel, both then turned to 'holy books', and both were attributed with writing a controversial doctrine on the Eucharist, there exists strong evidence that Michael Glykas and Michael Sikidites were the same person. Apparently Glykas was only partially blinded as he was able to continue reading and writing, and there is no mention of a reader assisting him with literary tasks. The difference in surnames may be explained by the monastic custom of taking on a new name. Another explanation offered by Kresten is that the Greek meaning of Sikidites is a derogatory term indicating a melon or cucumber which has connotations of 'a loser.' Alternately it means fig which has obscene overtones and may therefore have been used to ridicule him after his disgrace.[102]
Dating the Refutation
During Glykas' confinement in the years after 1159 he composed a number of political verses, including a six hundred line poem entitled 'Verses While Held Imprisoned' that beseeched Manuel for his release, claiming that he had been falsely accused.[103] It was written in vernacular speech, a new literary form in the twelfth century, and incorporated oral proverbial lore that he knew would appeal to the literary tastes of the Emperor.[104] In this poem he lamented about his misery because of the ill will of his neighbors who defamed him, implying that he was falsely charged. However, there is no mention of an apology for his critique of Manuel's astrological exposition, and this omission strongly suggests that it was not for this reason that he was condemned. Kresten points out that the fact that Glykas lost his eyes had nothing to do with the fact that Manuel didn't like his poem in the folk language, but because a charge of conspiracy did not allow any leniency.[105]
If it is the case that Glykas' imprisonment was on account of the accusations, either rightly or falsely, of conspiracy, and his contribution to the plot was the composition of folk verses predicting the Emperor's imminent death, this would account for the charges of demonic acts, especially in connection with his reputation for astrological knowledge. If afterwards he then turned to the writing of holy books within a monastic context, we can dismiss the argument that he was punished because he attacked Manuel's astrological beliefs and criticized his integrity in interpreting scriptural doctrines. Therefore we can look to a later date for the composition of the astrological refutation.
The astrological refutation was letter number forty of a collection of ninety-five letters contained in Glykas' work known as the Theological Chapters.[106] Covering a wide range of topics, they were written as responses to both monks and lay persons who were seeking spiritual guidance from him. Krumbacher has given convincing proof that this corpus of letters was composed by Glykas toward the end of Manuel's reign 1170-80 and in the time following his death.[107] There did not appear to be any repercussions from Manuel at this time because of the letter. We must even question if perhaps it could have been written after Manuel's death in 1180. However, the introductory tone of the letter suggests that it was being written to a living person.
Glykas was correct when he pointed out that some of the claims that Manuel made regarding the writings of the Church Fathers were simply not supported by the evidence of the texts themselves. And if, in fact, Glykas had repented his former occult interest in the light of his theological conversion, he may truly have believed that astrology was heretical. However, there also is a thinly veiled bitterness and sarcasm in the letter, and as Kresten pointed out, this response can be understood as a kind of literary revenge against an emperor who blinded him, and ruined his reputation and career upon perhaps false charges of sorcery. He was demonstrating to his contemporaries the contempt in which he held the astrological art as an attempt to redeem his reputation and emphasizing the injustice of having been disgraced for an astrological belief that the Emperor himself held.[108]
Another letter in the collection that adds to the intrigue of imperial politics and personal retaliation is that addressed to Princess Theodora Komnena, Manuel's niece and mistress.[109] She had murdered another woman out of jealousy, and Glykas consoled her that as long as she was truly penitent, salvation was still possible for her. It is not clear whether or not this letter was solicited, but again one must wonder at Glykas' motives in acting as a spiritual counselor to his enemy's lavishly supported royal mistress who bore the Emperor many sons (Chon.2.7.204).[110]
Other Works by Glykas
After Glykas' eventual release from prison sometime after 1164, he turned to a monastic life, as he explained in his preface, and became a major theological expert. Politically Glykas was anti-Komnenian, intellectually he was considered a rationalist, and theologically he was a defender of the Orthodoxy and a voice of traditional common-sense. His views on theological problems were eagerly sought as he had a reputation for wisdom, offering practical problem-solving advice. Yet Glykas the theologian functioned at the fringes of the ecclesiastical hierarchy.[111] If he was in fact disgraced, expelled from the court, and known by an appellation of ridicule, those members of Byzantine society who were aspiring for political and personal favor from the court would naturally distance themselves from association with him.
In addition to his collection of political poems written in folk verse while in confinement, he is credited with authoring the Chronicle.[112] This work is a annalistic narrative of events from creation to 1118 (the reign of Alexios I) incorporating history, theology, curiosities, and natural science, and showing a familiarity with both Pagan and Christian authors. Twelfth century writers in Byzantium were concerned with the problem of fate and necessity in the development of history, and Glykas took a firm stand against a determinist view of history and attacked the belief in fate.[113] Glykas was anti-astrology, but in his account of creation he discusses an astrological perspective, displaying some knowledge of the subject.[114]
In Glykas' role as a theological commentator on spiritual problems and his anti-deterministic position, addressing a charge of heresy in connection with astrology would have been entirely within his province. Thus, we must consider the possibility that his response was simply in keeping with the character of his other works. However, given the nature of the personal relationship between these two men, it is equally as likely that Glykas took great personal satisfaction in the composition of his refutation and that his life long embitterment was a contributing factor to his motivation, despite his Stoic statement of the acceptance of his fate. Whether or not he was actually guilty of the crime for which he was punished cannot be determined from the available evidence. However, the truth of one's guilt or innocence is not always the critical factor in the build up of resentment toward another who has been the cause of one's disgrace. His attack against Manuel, accusing him of impious beliefs which he claimed were indeed heretical and of literary dishonesty in misrepresenting his doctrinal sources must be also considered in the light of his own grievances against the Emperor.
Summary and Analysis of the Arguments
1. Manuel's Argument
In the opening of Manuel's letter, he presents the circumstances which led to his defense of astrology. A 'simple' monk of the Komnenian funded Pantokrator Monastery in Constantinople had written an attack against astrology based upon passages from 'authoritative writings.' This letter was sent to the Patriarch who then passed it on to Manuel, along with a conclusion that those who pursue the science of astrology are heretics. Because Manuel himself was an ardent and public supporter of this art, the implication that he too must be a heretic was an untenable position for an Emperor. Thus he composed a reply 'to defend the truth itself and those who have been excluded from the community of Christians for the belief'.
Manuel's problem in creating an argument whereby astrology was not seen as heretical depended upon the assertion that God's will was superior to the powers of the stars. Thus Manuel in his defense of astrology must argue, if he is a Christian and not a heretic, that the stars do not have an independent volition that supersedes the power of God, but that the apparent power that comes through them to effect results in the world, is that of God Himself utilizing the stars to send signs to humanity.
Employing both natural and scriptural proofs, Manuel's argument has three major components. He acknowledges that there do exist some types of astrology that are indeed impious and worthy of condemnation, namely those that consider the stars as alive and intelligent. In this kind, the stars are entreated with amulets and invocations to accomplish certain results which is the essence of astral magic. He then distinguishes another kind of astrology whereby the stars are understood as God's creations which are good, natural, have a purpose, are given by God's providence for man's use and are under His dominion as messengers of his mysteries. Finally, Manuel cites passages from a variety of holy kings and fathers, pointing out that if these esteemed men who are not heretics use and endorse astrology, it cannot thus be considered a heretical art.
Is Manuel successful? Beginning from the assumption that everything that God has introduced is good and useful for man, he presents the often cited environmental arguments that point to the beneficial effects that the sun and moon have on agricultural cycles and their correspondences with meteorological phenomena, ocean tides, and rhythms in the lives of animals. He posits that if the physical world is so obviously affected by the two lights as something natural, so too must the other planets have an effect. He also puts forth the notion that just as the medical art uses natural substances by which to regulate health, so also can the natural laws of stars be used in this way. Manuel has chosen these examples very carefully, most likely aware that of all the injunctions against astrology in the Theodosian Code, its use for agricultural and medical purposes was excluded from punishment.
Manuel concedes that the art is likely to fail, not only from the faulty calculations of its practitioners, but even more so because of God's ability to suspend natural law out his desire to work miracles. Here he clearly asserts the supremacy of God over the natural laws which regulate the stars. Manuel then launches into a discussion concerning the Star of the Magi at the birth of Christ and the eclipse at his crucifixion. Again he is very aware of the tradition of Tertullian, Ignatius, Augustine and Chrysostom which refuted that these stellar manifestations were an affirmation of astrology. Like the Church Fathers, Manuel maintains that these were unnatural occurrences, evidences of God's wonderworking in his desire to utilize the stars as divine signs of his mysteries occurring on earth. Here he echoed the sentiments of both Origen and Plotinus who put forth the explanation that the images of the stars were God's handwriting in sky announcing the future to those who could read it.
It is in Manuel's presentation of the writings of the Church Fathers that his argument is the weakest on account of the questionable accuracy of his citations. Optimally Manuel would have like to have shown that the Church Fathers endorsed astrology, and, minimally, even if they outright dismissed astrology that at least they did not brand it as heretical. Here Manuel had limited success in his endeavor.
His citation of these authorities demonstrates his tendency toward exaggeration of the facts and the ability to walk a fine line between truth and falsehood. As his biographer Choniates points out, Manuel 'distorted the meaning of the written word to accord with his own intent, providing definitions and giving exegeses of doctrines whose correct meaning the Fathers had formulated...' (Chon. 2.7.210). The story of Basil the Great's validation of the Jew who prophesied his death according to astrology was clearly a fabrication of the actual events. The evidence in regard to John the Damascene, Anastasios, and Basil's Hexameron was true in so far as they did writes treatises on the stars. However, John the Damascene concluded that the stars did not cause anything except weather changes, Anastasios dismissed astrological suppositions as 'foolish prattle,' and Basil asserted that is was impossible to accurately construct a horoscope.
Yet to Manuel's credit, he never outright said that these men validated astrology, only that they did not explicitly condemn the natural activities of the stars functioning as signs according to Gods will. And on this point Manuel was technically correct. Manuel maintained that the reason that the holy men silenced astrology was to protect the rank of Christians, many of whom were easily deceived, from any notions that might present obstacles to their belief in Christ.
Manuel concludes his treatise with Biblical examples drawn from stories such as David and Goliath, stressing that what power the stars have to seemingly effect results is due to God's power working through them. That power can be recognized analogously in the heavens, which is God's throne, declaring the glory of his creations through the stars as good entities. In as much as they are inanimate and obediently remain in their orbits given to them by God, they are not contrary to God as is the devil who has volition and autonomy. Here Manuel is refuting the many Christian doctrines beginning with Tatian and augmented by Augustine that the stars are demonic. His final statement is that even if the stars had sense perception, their intelligence could not be comprehended by astrologers.
Manuel's defense of astrology is only marginally directed at proving its validity; his concern is to create a convincing demonstration that it is not heretical. He is careful to avoid any suggestion that the stars are sentient, have volition, or are the physical causes of effects, and he denounces any astrology that is based upon these assumptions. Instead, he aims to show that the stars are natural, good creations of God which function as signs transmitting God's power and will. When the art fails, it is due to its practitioners or to the intervention of God who reigns supreme over the stars. Manuel strength is that he never wavers from this position; his weakness is in the use of his evidence, and it is on this point that Glykas thrusts the brunt of his attack and shreds Manuel's argument.
2. Glykas' Argument
Glykas opens with a sarcastic jab at Manuel's profundity of thought, and immediately discredits the example of Basil and the Jew. Glykas points out throughout his treatise that his copies of the texts which Manuel cites do not contain the claims that Manuel is making, and he demands that this discrepancy be remedied. Glykas is using the opportunity to challenge Manuel's defense of astrology for a greater purpose, namely to cast doubt upon his adversary's integrity as he believed that he himself had been slandered by his Emperor.
Glykas states that Basil and Chrysostom attacked those who tried to use the Star of the Magi as an affirmation of astrology, and insists, like Chrysostom, that the Magi were inspired by God, not the Star, in their search for Christ and afterwards renounced their astrological beliefs. Like Augustine, Glykas upholds the supremacy of Christian prophecy over any other form of human divination such as astrology. Glykas then launches into a discussion of the thema mundi (the horoscope of the world) of which Manuel had made no mention. Either these segments are missing from the text of Manuel's defense, or Glykas, in the enthusiasm of his attack, allows his own extensive knowledge of the subject to seep through.
Glykas confronts Manuel's assertion that the stars are signs rather than causes in Manuel's example of Constantine employing the astrologer Vettius Valens to elect the time for the founding of Constantinople so that it would forever remain impregnable to its enemies. While subsequent scholarship has proven that this story is not true, the point is well taken. Manuel, who himself used catarchic astrology to time the initiation of military campaigns in order to assure victory, contradicts himself here in his assertion that the stars do not effect specific results.
The bulk of Glykas' refutation is devoted to presenting counter-arguments and different interpretations of all of the authorities that Manuel cited, claiming that Manuel's evidence is unreliable and his examples are absurd. Glykas attempts to demonstrate that the writings of the Church Fathers and Scriptural passages, for the most part, not only denounce the validity of astrology, but also reject it upon the grounds that it is impious, i.e., heretical.
One example that illustrates the nature of the quibbling that takes place between the two authors' respective use of the sources is found in the passage on astrology in Basil's Hexeramon. Basil stated that all of nature participates in the moon's changes and that this must be due to some remarkable power in accordance with the testimony of the Scripture.[115] Manuel is justified in accurately citing Basil in regard to his position that it is God's power that works through the stars. Basil also said that horoscopic astrology which purports to describe an individual's nature is both impossible to calculate and ridiculous,[116] so Glykas is not altogether incorrect either in his counter-argument. Glykas' assertion that Basil's view that astrology was impious was based upon the Saint's objection that the notion of being born under a malefic star implied that its evil was due to it Creator or else to its own volition as an intelligent entity. However, Manuel is absolutely clear that he also considers this interpretation of astrology to be unholy. Glykas' evidence that Basil stated that no one should apply the teaching of astrology to the Star of the Magi comes from a spurious homily.[117]
On the whole, Glykas is more reliable than Manuel in his assessment of the evidence, but he is not above using it incorrectly, as does Manuel, to strengthen his arguments. And though Manuel is attentive to being very precise in what he specifically claims, in some cases, while technically correct, he distorts the meaning of the passage in its entirety.
Glykas questions Manuel's medical argument, asserting that medicine operates according to natural rather than astrological laws according to the eminent physicians Hippocrates and Galen who did not endorse astrology. While that might be an accurate statement in general, in fact Galen authored two very specific astrological treatises on diagnosing an illness from the astral configurations at the time of its onset. Glykas is indeed at his critical best when he scrutinizes the Ptolemaic explanation of Jupiter as strengthening the physical constitution because of its temperate nature. He spots a contradiction in Ptolemy's reasoning when he classified the planets in accordance with the Aristotelian categories of hot, wet, cold, and dry. It is noteworthy that Glykas pulls back at this point in his refutation, admitting his ignorance of pagan matters, when in fact such an observation could only have come out of a mind that was astutely knowledgeable about such doctrines.
Returning to the Star in his conclusion, Glykas reemphasizes the Chrysostomian argument that the star was an unnatural occurrence, divinely inspired by God, displaying itself in a form that would be familiar to the Magi in order to lure the barbarian Magi to a knowledge of Christ and cause them to thereafter renounce astrology. His final words are an affirmation of his own role in the dispelling of doubt concerning these matters.
Conclusion
Manuel's aim was to construct an argument demonstrating that there was a kind of astrology that did not conflict with Christian doctrine. The position that he took that the stars function as signs rather than causes is the perspective that has been most endorsed by the majority of astrologers over the course of astrology's history. This view does not contradict a basic Christian premise of the supremacy of God and the manifold ways in which he makes his will known. To this extent Manuel was successful in his endeavor. Glykas directs his refutation not so much against Manuel's philosophical arguments as against the claims of his evidence, which indeed were highly questionable in some places and skirted a fine line of truth in other places. With intelligence, skill, discriminating perception, command of his sources, and critical astuteness, Glykas destroyed not only Manuel's argument, but also cast doubt on the moral and literary integrity of its author. In this way Michael Glykas sought to redeem his reputation in the eyes of posterity.
Acknowledgment
I would like to acknowledge Dr. Malcolm Wilson, University of Oregon for his assistance in all the phases of the translation process and extend much appreciation for his support in this project.
Fig. 1. Birth chart of Manuel I Komnenos
November 28 1118, Constantinople, time unknown, cast for noon.
Source: Varzos, TITLE, I: 205, n., 13.
(computed using Solar Fire software, Porphyry houses)
Fig 2. Coronation Chart of Manuel I Komnenos
9.15 am, 31 March 1143, Constantinople
Source: Vat. gr. 1056, a fourteenth-century manuscript of a twelfth-century codex, gives the horoscopes for the coronations of Alexius I Komnenos in 1081 and Manuel I Komnenos in 1143: see David Pingree, 'Gregory Choniates and the Palaeologan Astronomy', Dumbarton Oaks Papers 18 (1964), p. 139, n., 29. The birth and coronation horoscopes for Manuel are in Appendix B.
The horoscope below is computed using Solar Fire software: Porphyry houses. The original manuscript gives the following positions: ascendant 25° Gemini 49', midheaven 1° Pisces 11', Saturn 6° Aries 00', Jupiter 9° Aquarius 15', Mars 9° Leo 36', Sun 16° Aries 52', Venus 22° Pisces 28', Mercury 16° Aries 52', Moon 1° Libra 04'.
References
[1] Michael Glykas, Aporiai: Μιχαὴλ τοῦ Γλυκᾶ, Εὶς τὰς ἀπορίας τῆς θείας Γραφῆς κεφάλαια, ed. S. Eustratiades (Athens, 1906), vol. 1: ζ-πψ; Catalogus codicum astrologorum Graecorum, ed. F. Cumont and F. Boll, (Brussels, 1904), 5.1: 108-25.
[2] Eustratiades, Glycas, 1, pp. 476-500; Catalogus codicum astrologorum Graecorum, ed. F. Cumont and F. Boll, (Brussels, 1904), 5.1: 125-40.
[3] Paul Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel Komnenos, 1143-1180 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 21, 378.
[4] Richard Lemay, Abu Ma'shar and Latin Aristotelianism in the Twelfth Century (Beirut: American University of Beruit, Oriental Series no. 38, 1962), xxv. For classical and medieval astrology see also Tamsyn Barton, Ancient Astrology (London & New York: Routeledge, 1994), David Pingree, From Astral Omens to Astrology: From Babylon to Bikaner (Rome: Istituto Italiano Per L'Africa e L'Oriente, 1997) and Jim Tester, A History of Western Astrology (New York: Ballantine Books, 1987).
[5] For a thorough discussion of anti-fatalism see David Amand, Fatalisme et Liberte dans L'Antiquite Grecque (Louvain: Bibliotheque de L'Universite, 1945).
[6] J. R. Tanner, C. W. Previte-Orton, and Z. N. Brook, eds., The Cambridge Mediaeval History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1936), 4: 363.
[7] Magalino, Manuel, p. 378.
[8] John Kinnamos, Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus, trans., Charles Brand (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), Niketas Choniates, O City of Byzantium, Annals of Niketas Choniates. trans. Harry J. Magoulias (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1984).
[9] For Mesopotamian astrology see Michael Baigent, From the Omens of Babylon: Astrology and Ancient Mesopotamia (London: Penguin, 1994), Ulla Koch-Westenholz, Mesopotamian Astrology: An Introduction to Babylonian and Assyrian Celestial Divination (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculunum, University of Copenhagen, 1995). Campion, Nicholas, ‘Babylonian Astrology: Its Origins and Legacy in Europe’ Helaine Selin (ed.), Astronomy Across Cultures: the History of Non-Western Astronomy (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000) pp. 509-554 and Brown, David, Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy-Astrology (Groningen: Styx Publications 2000).
[10] Plato, Timaeus 30D, trans. R.G.Bury, (Cambridge Mass., London: Harvard University Press, 1931).
[11] Aristotle, De Caelo 270b, 1-12. trans. W.K.C.Guthrie (Cambridge Mass., London: Harvard University Press, 1921).
[12] Poimandres I.9 in Hermetica, trans Brian Copenhaver (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992).
[13] Ptolemy, Claudius, Tetrabiblos, trans. F.E.Robbins, Cambridge Mass., London, 1930, Bk. 1.
[14] For Hermeticism, see Copenhaver, Hermetica and for theurgy, see Iamblichus, On The Mysteries, trans. Thomas Taylor (San Diego: Wizards Bookshelf, 1984), section 4.
[15] For an analysis of the arguments for and against astrology by Hellenistic philosophers, see A. A. Long, 'Astrology: arguments pro and contra' in Science and Speculation, ed. J. Barnes, J. Brunschwig, M. Burnyeat, and M. Schofield (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977).
[16] Augustine, City of God, 5.2, trans. Henry Bettenson (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, Penguin 1972).
[17] Cicero, De Divinatione, 2.42 - 47, trans. W.A.Falconer (Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press., London, 1929).
[18] Frederick H. Cramer, Astrology in Roman Law and Politics (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1954), pp. 81-144.
[19] For the classical Greek astrologers see James Herschel Holden, A History of Horoscopic Astrology (Tempe, AZ: American Federation of Astrologers, 1996).
[20] Vettius Valens, Anthologies 5.9, ed. David Pingree, as Vetii Valenti Antiocheni Anthologarium, libri novem (Leipzig: Teubner 1986.
[21] Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos. 1.2.16-17.
[22] Aulus Gellius, trans. J.C. Rolfe, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 14.1; Sextus Empiricus, Ad Mathematicos, trans. R.G.Bury, Vol IV, Cambridge Mass., London, 1933.
[23] Sextus Empiricus 5.48.
[24] Alexander of Aphrodisias De fato 5,12;14f, cited in Cramer, Astrology, pp 199-200.
[25] Clement of Alexandria, The Recognition. 12 In Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (ed.), in The Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Edinburgh: Y and T Clark, 1847), 3,401ff.
[26] Pistis Sophia, ed. Carl Schmidt (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1978), 4.136-37; 138-40.
[27] Tatian, Oration to the Greeks 8-12, trans. Molly Whittaker (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1982).
[28] Tertullian Apologeticum 35 in Apologetical Works, trans. Rudolph Arbesmann, Sister Joseph Daly and Edwin A. Quain (New York; Fathers of the Church, 1950).
[29] I Enoch 8.3, trans. M.A.Knibb in H.F.D.Sparks (ed.) The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1984) p. 191.
[30] Ignatius, 'Letter to the Ephesians'.19, in James A. Kleist (trans.), The Epistles of St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of Antioch (New York: Newman Press, 1946), pp 61-68.
[31] Tertullian, On Idolatry, 9. trans. J.H. Waszink and J.C.M. van Winden (Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1987).
[32] Are the Stars Causes?, II.3.7 in Plotinus, Vol.., 2, trans., A.H. Armstrong (Cambridge Mass., London: Harvard University Press, 1929) p. 69.
[33] Origen, Commentary 'Commentary on Genesis' 6.11 in Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel, trans. Edwin Hamilton Gifford (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House).
[34] Theodosian Code 9.16.1 in Clyde Pharr, Theresa Sherrer Davidson and Mary Brown Pharr, The Theodosian code and novels and the Sirmondian constitutions (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952).
[35] Theodosian Code 9.16.3.
[36] Theodosian Code 9. 16.4.
[37] Theodosian Code 9.16.6.
[38] Theodosian Code 9.16.8.
[39] Theodosian Code, 9.16.12.
[40] Canons of the Apostles 2.56.72 in Edwin Knox Mitchell (ed.), The canons of the first four general councils, Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon, (London: P. S. King, 1898); Fiensy, David A., Prayers alleged to be Jewish: an examination of the Constitutiones Apostolorum (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, c. 1985).
[41] Ammanius Marcelinus 29.1ff: see Tamsyn Barton, Ancient Astrology (London and New York: Routledge, 1994), p. 66.
[42] See David Pingree, 'Political Horoscopes From the Reign of Zeno', Dumbarton Oaks Papers 30 (1976): 135-150.
[43] In the fourth century, the earliest known Byzantine author Pancharios wrote a treatise on medical astrology, Epitome Concerning Bed Illness, and Maximos composed a poem On Beginnings which discussed catarchic astrology (the selection of astrologically favorable times for initiating events). In 378 Paulus Alexandrinus wrote Introductory Matters, an overview of traditional Hellenistic astrology and in 379 Anonymous of 379 composed a work on the natal delineation of 30 bright fixed stars. In 415 Hephaiston of Thebes reconciled the traditions of Ptolemy and Dorotheus in his Apotelesmatics. During the fifth century The Anthologies of Vettius Valens was edited and expanded as well as a commentary on Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos attributed to Proclus. See David Pingree, 'Astrology' in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (1991), 1:214-216 and Robert Hand, Chronology of the Astrology of the Middle East and West by Period (Orleans, MA: Arhat, no date).
[44] EpiphanIus of Cyprus 'Panarion' 34.5; 16, in The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Book I, trans. Frank Williams (Leiden and New York, E.J. Brill 1987-1994).
[45] Basil of Caesara, 'Exegetic Homilies', 6. 5-8, trans. Sister Agnes Clare Way in The Fathers of the Church (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, )
[46] John Chrysostom, 'Homily on Matthew', in Philip Schaff (ed.) The Nicene, Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (New York: The Christian Literature Co., 1888) Vol. 10, pp. 36-73.
[47] Augustine Confessions, 4.3, 7.6, trans. R.S.Pine-Coffin, (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin 1961).
[48] Augustine, City of God, 5, trans. Henry Bettenson, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, Penguin 1972.
[49] Augustine, Contra Faustum Manichaeum 2.5 (PL 42:cols 212-13) cited in Tester, History, pp. 111-12.
[50] Julius Firmicus Maternus On the Error of Profane Religions, 1.280.2-28. ed. A. Pastorino (2nd edn, Florence, 1969) as cited in Tester, History, p. 133.
[51] The only astrological texts which had been written in Latin were Manilius' Astronomica, Firmicus Maternus' Mathesis, some passages in Macrobius Dream of Scipio, and a later compilation of hermetic treatises in the Liber Hermetis. As there were no astronomical tables in Latin by which to cast horoscopes, these books were useless. See David Pingree, 'Astrology', in The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th Edition, 83.
[52] Olympiodorus composed a commentary on Paulus' Introductory Matters in a series of lectures given at Alexandria. Julian of Laodica wrote a work on catarchic astrology that included military timings of events. John of Lydus, who served 40 years in the civil service under Justinian, wrote On Months, a history of calendars and feasts, and On Omens, a historical survey of divination and related matters which earned him the title of the last astrologer of the old world. In the early seventh century Rhetorius of Egypt, probably at Alexandria, authored a large collection of excerpts from earlier Greek astrologers which was one of the main repositories of both classical and fifth and sixth century Byzantine horoscopes. See Pingree, The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium.
[53] In 775 Stephanus brought with him the works of his teacher and manuscripts containing catarchic, interrogational, military, and political astrology. Many of these texts contained Arabic translations of Pahlavi texts where elements of Greek, Syrian, and Indian astrological doctrines had been combined and developed in new ways by Sassanian astrologers from the third century onwards. He himself wrote a work on political history incorporating the doctrines of Zoroastrian millenarianism and an autobiographical defense of astrology as a Christian science which Manuel drew upon for his own argument. See David Pingree, From Astral Omens to Astrology, p. 64.
[54] Leo the Mathematician also possessed manuscripts by Ptolemy, Paulus of Alexandria and John Lydus. Legends preserved by George Hamartolos, Symeon Logothete and others present him as an astrologer able to predict the future who knew how to utilize astrology for the raising of crops. See David Pingree, 'Scientific Traditions', The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 3:1854.
[55] See Pingree, From Astral Omens to Astrology, p.71.
[56] Catalogus codicum astrologorum Graecorum (CCAG), ed. F. Cumont and F. Boll, 12 vols. (Brussels, 1904).
[57] See Richard LeMay, Abu Ma'shar and Latin Aristotelianism, Beirut: American University of Beirut, Oriental Series no. 38, 1962, p. xl.
[58] LeMay, Abu Ma'shar. p. xxiv; Thorndike, Thorndike, Lynn, History of Magic and Experimental Science (8 Vols, New York: Columbia University Press, 1923-58), Vol. 2, pp. 3-302, Charles Homer Haskins, Studies in the History of Mediaeval Science (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1924) 1-18.
[59] Tullio Gregory, 'La nouvelle idee de nature et de savoir scientifique au XIIe siecle,' The Cultural Context of Medieval Learning, ed. J. E. Murdoch and E. D. Sylla, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, XXVI (Dordrecht and Boston, 1975, p. 214), see Tester, History, p. 149.
[60] Lynn Thorndike, 'The True Place of Astrology', Isis 145 (September 1955), pp. 273-278.
[61] CCAG, 1. 83-84. See Appendix C.
[62] Richard A. Greenfield, 'A Contribution to the Study of Palaeologan Magic,' Byzantine Magic, ed. Henry Maguire (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1995), 151-52.
[63] Magdalino, Manuel, p. xi.
[64] Magdalino, Manuel, p.78.
[65] Choniates, Niketas. O City of Byzantium, Annals of Niketas Choniates. trans., Harry J. Magoulias (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1984), 2.5.154.
[66] Konstantine Varzos, Ή Γενεαλογία των Κομνηνών, 2 vols. (Thessaloniki: Vizantiiski Vremmenik, 1984), 1.205, n., 13. NB GREEK FROM OLD NOTE 45.
[67] Robert Browning, 'The Death of John II Comnenus', Byzantium (Brussels 1961), pp. 227-235 argues that John II was assassinated and that Manuel had the support of the Latin soldiers in the camp who championed his succession over that of his brother Isaac who presumably favored the Greeks.
[68] Anna Comnena, Alexiad 6.7, trans. Elizabeth A.S. Dawes (New York: Barnes and Noble 1928).
[69] Vat. gr. 1056. See David Pingree, 'Gregory Choniates and the Palaeologan Astronomy', Dumbarton Oaks Papers 18 (1964), p. 139, n., 29. The birth and coronation horoscopes for Manuel are in Appendix B.
[70] Michael Angold, The Byzantine Empire 1025-1204 (London & New York: Longman, 1984), p. 205.
[71] Tanner, Previte-Orton, and Brook, eds., The Cambridge Medieval History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), Vol. 4, p. 362.
[72] See Haskins, Mediaeval Science, pp.194-95.
[73] See P. Lamna, Comneni e Staufer, I, pp.xiiff; II., pp. 320ff and passim as cited by J. M. Hussey, The Cambridge Medieval History Vol. 4, p. 226.
[74] Pingree, From Astral Omens to Astrology, p. 66.
[75] Anna Comnena, Alexiad 6.7.
[76] E. Miller, ed., Notices et extraits des MSS de la Biblioteque Nationale 23.2 (1872), 40-112. See Herbert Hunger, Die Hochsprachliche Profane Literatur Der Byzantiner (Munich: C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1978), pp. 24243; Lysimaque Oeconomos, La Vie Religieuse Dans L'Empire Byzantin (New York: Burt Franklin, 1918), pp. 77-78.
[77] Introduction to Astronomy, L. Weigl, ed., (Berlin: Leipzig, 1905). See also Herbert, Die Hichsprachliche Profane Literatur Der Byzantiner, pp. 242-43; Alexander Kazhdan and Simon Franklin, Studies on Byzantine Literature of the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), p. 172.
[78] E. Miller, ed., Notices et extraits des MSS de la Biblioteque Nationale 23.2 (1872), 8-39; Oeconomos, 69-77.
[79] Hunger, 242-43.
[80] CCAG 1, 83-84, see Appendix C.
[81] Haskins, Mediaeval Science, pp. 218-19.
[82] CCAG 2: 122; Haskins, Mediaeval Science, 215-18; Thorndike, History, 1: 291-92.
[83] 'Et hoc feci amore Dei et cuidam compatri meo, qui pauper sint[sic] et infortunatus, et postea fortunatus fortuna bona et amore Imperatoris Emanuelis et Frederici', as cited by J Wood Brown, An Enquiry into the Life and Legend of Michael Scot (Edinburgh: David Douglas, 1897), 83-84.
[84] Haskins, Mediaeval Science, p. 221; Thorndike, History, 2: 236-45.
[85] Aristippus was the translator of Plato's Meno and Phaedo and Aristotle's' Meteorology, Haskins, 143;149. See also Haskins, 143; 164.
[86] Haskins, Mediaeval Science, p. 164; 173-4.
[87] Roger of Hoveden wrote in his Chronicle, 'In that year, the astrologers both Spanish and Sicilian–and indeed almost all the world's prognosticators, Greek and Latin–wrote much the same prediction about the conjunction of the planets.' Chronica Magistri Rogeri de Hovedene, ed. W,.Stubbs (Roll Series 51, 1869) 2. pp. 290-298 as cited by Tester, History, pp. 148-48.
[88] Karl Krumbacher, 'Michael Glykas Eine Skizze seiner Biographie und seiner litterarischen Thatigkeit nebst einigen unedierten Gedichte und Briefe desselben,' (Munich: Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenchaften, philologische-historische Klasse, 1894, part 3, 1895, pp. 441-42.
[89] Cumont, CCAG 5.1.107; and Hans-Georg Beck, Kirche Und Theologische Literatur im Byzantinischen Reich (Munich: C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1959), 654.
[90] Otto Kresten, 'Zum Sturz des Theodoros Styppeiotes,' Jahrbuch Der Osterreichischen Byzantinistik 27 (1978), pp. 49-104.
[91] Krumbacher, 'Michael Glycas', p. 381
[92] Michael Glykas, Chronicles, ed., I. Bekker (Bonn: Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, 1836), 44-56.
[93] Magdalino, Manuel, p.199.
[94] Anon. Sry. 119 as cited by Magdalino, Manuel, p.199.
[95] John Kinnamos, Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus, trans. Charles Brand (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), pp. 232-3, 184-5; Choniates., 103, 106-08, 110-13; Otto of Freising, continued by Rahewin, Gesta Frederici seu rectius Cronica, ed., F. J. Schmale, trans., A. Schmidt (Darmstadt, 1965) pp. 506-8 as cited by Magdalino, Manuel, p. 199.
[96] Kresten, 'Zum Sturz des Theodoros Styppeiotes', p. 95.
[97] In 11 BCE Augustus, knowing he did not have long to live, passed an edict against astrological consultations about one's own political future or about the well-being and death of the ruler as evidence of treason. See Cramer, 232.
[98] See Michael Angold, Church and Society in Byzantium Under the Comneni, 1081-1261, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 128-31.
[99] Eustratiades, ed., Glykas, pp. 133-135.
[100] Panophlia dogmata 15, as cited by Kresten, 'Zum Sturz des Theodoros Styppeiotes', p. 91.
[101] Krumbacher, 'Michael Glykas', pp. 416-16.
[102] Kresten, 'Zum Sturz des Theodoros Styppeiotes', p. 90 ff.
[103] Michael Glykas, Μιχαὴλ Γλυκᾶ, Στίχοι οὓς ἔγραψε καθ' ὃν κατεσχέθη καιρόν, ed., E. Tsolakes (Thessaloniki: Ἐπιστημονικἠ Ἐπετερὶς τῆς φιλοσοφικῆς Σχολῆς τοῦ Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης, Παράρτημα 3, 1959).
[104] Glykas was known as the first Byzantine to have recorded a collection of proverbs which is still extant. (ed., Eustratiades, I) Also see Beck, Geschichte Der Byzantinischen Volksliteratur (Munich: C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1971), pp. 206-07. The twelfth century saw several experiments in writing of Greek vernacular verse, which were all written in political verse and in the orbit of the court. Glykas stands out as a prime example of this literary innovation, and he alternated the vernacular with the more formal language at rhetorically appropriate moments to highlight the poets predicament. Such experiments ceased after Emperor Manuel's death and did not resume again for another one and one half centuries later in Greek lands ruled by Westerners. See E.M. and M. J. Jeffreys, Popular Literature in Late Byzantium (London: Variorum Reprints, 1983), p. 483
[105] Kresten, 'Zum Sturz des Theodoros Styppeiotes', pp. 95.
[106] See note 1.
[107] Krumbacher, 'Michael Glykas', pp. 441-42.
[108] Kresten, 'Zum Sturz des Theodoros Styppeiotes', pp. 94.
[109] Eustratiades, 'Glycas', 2:118-27; also Krumbacher, 'Michael Glycas', pp. 452-60.
[110] Manuel had four nieces, all named Theodora Komnena. Choniates (2.1.54; 2.3.104) claims that the kinswoman whom Manuel 'unlawfully penetrated' was the daughter of Manuel's brother Andronikos. However, according to Varzos, the Theodora who was Manuel's mistress was the daughter of his sister Eudokia Vol. 2 (150), cf. (131). See also Krumbacher, pp. 427-28.
[111] See Magdalino, Manuel, pp. 370-77.
[112] Bekker, Chronicles.
[113] Glycas, Annales, 53. 3-10; Eustratiades, 'Gycas', 1: 385, 394, 410, 437, 446;
[114] Glycas, Chron. 44-57.
[115] Basil Hexeramon 6.10.
[116] Basil Hexeramon 6.5.
[117] Pseudo-Basil, 'Homily on Generation', ed. J. P.Migne in Patrologiae cursus completus (PG), Series Graeca, (Paris: apud frates Garnier ditores, 1912.), PG 31. 1469A-1475B.
