The young in Canada are said to be taking up astrology. But why? Do they think Mark Carney is a star? The ancients saw astrology as a form of divination, which Cicero debunked in 44 bc.
The debunking is in the form of a debate with his brother Quintus, who defines divinatio as ‘the foreknowledge and foretelling of events that happen by chance’.
First, Cicero points out that no one summons up the diviner when there are experts to hand. On questions of nature men go to a scientist, on statecraft to a politician, on war to a general and so on. The diviner has no role anywhere.
Then consider the logic. If something happens ‘by chance’, it cannot, by definition, be predicted: otherwise it could not be said to have happened ‘by chance’. Could even a god predict what happens ‘by chance’? If not, how could a diviner?
Cicero then proposes a different tack: that everything is controlled by fate. In that case, divinatio is not a lot of use because it cannot, by definition, prevent fate taking its course. If something is fated, it will happen, come what may. No amount of divination would help you avoid it. And how awful it would be to know everything that will happen to you, Cicero goes on, quoting the example of the recently assassinated Julius Caesar. If, on the other hand, fate could be turned aside, then nothing is certain. In which case divinatio is pointless too, since it is supposed to deal with what is certain.
Cicero then mocks horoscopes, oracles, dreams, watching birds and other such nonsense and asserts the importance of true religion, which he associates with ‘the knowledge of nature’, contrasting it with ‘superstition, which must be torn up by the roots: for it is at your heels all the time, pursuing you at every twist and turn and means you can never be at peace’.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in