I thought that Shakespeare’s actual birthday isn’t known? He was baptized April 26 and presumably born in the previous week, but the traditional date of April 23 was chosen more for ‘poetic’ reasons, namely that a) it’s his death date also and b) it’s St. George’s Day, appropriately enough for England’s greatest writer.
This is a good point and the answer is yes, 23rd is partly favoured because it's so appealingly neat. There's a bit more to it though because three days was a standard amount of time to wait to baptise your baby and people were also instructed to get it done no later than the first Sunday after a baby's birth. 23rd April was a Sunday so was too quick a turnaround to be baptised the same day, but if he'd been born on 22nd or 21st they would likely have rushed to get him baptised on or before 23rd. For the purposes of this article it doesn't really matter because it's just a bit of fun and I've broken loads of astrology rules to account for missing information (like time of birth!)
Oh, you’re totally right. I had it in my head that the 26th was a Sunday and assumed that babies were usually baptized that day (so any day in the past week would have been equally likely) but I was apparently looking at days of the week for Gregorian not Julian.
Another fascinating piece, Rebekah! I've heard of Simon Forman, but not read any of his diaries. He sounds like an intriguing character(!), and interesting to see that he would have been consulted on everyday problems such as missing property. Interesting also that astrology was somewhat rescued from the Christian prejudice against magic and witchcraft - as is also evidenced by the reputation of John Dee, the Queen's astrologer (though Dee also suffered from a degree of infamy relating to his magical interests).
Coincidentally, I've just been reading Priscilla Costello's "Shakespeare and the Stars", which goes into a lot of detail about what astrological knowledge the Bard might have possessed. Also interesting is "The Byrom Collection" by Joy Hancox, which discusses a curious collection of architectural plans that seem to relate to a number of the public theatres, including the Globe, and draw on astrology, numerology and "sacred geometry". Whether they were actual plans that were used in the theatres' construction is still a mystery, but well worth checking out.
Various characters in the plays believe in the influence of "the stars". But the implication seems to be that they are credulous or unthinking. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings" comes from cunning Cassius. "It is the stars, The stars above us govern our condition" used by Kent, no deep thinker, to explain how Cordelia is so different from the other two. Edmund mocks his dad's astro beliefs as "excellent foppery". Okay Edmund not really a lifestyle guide but still I don't see Shakespeare consulting any astrologer.
There's no reason to believe he did, just a bit of fun. I suspect you’re right about him being a sceptic, although as a playwright myself I am quite cautious when making assumptions based on opinions expressed by a character. Mine say all sorts of stuff I don't believe!
Fun piece - but as you noted Lilly's astrology is very complex, e.g. the head & tail of the dragon (which comes into play for horary questions, but not for nativities [excepting the Moon]).
My problem with modern astrology including the outer planets goes like this -
1) they move slowly if at all relative to Earth, so can only introduce vague and non-specific "generational" effects into charts.
2) tradition, not knowing them, not naming them, has left no clue to their real meaning.
2) they don't have magnetic fields strong or near enough to have a variable influence on the Earth's magnetic field depending on their relative position. All the classic heavenly bodies do. This negates the best pseudoscientific rational for an astrological effect.
A delightful exploration that weaves parlor trickery with serious literary history! I suspect Shakespeare’s horoscope would be the subject of even more interpretations than all of his plays combined.
Did you know that Forman has his own video game? It's DELIGHTFUL. They used his casebooks as a source of inspiration and historical grounding, although obviously liberties were taken. https://www.astrologaster.com/
Forman is a fascinating character, for sure. Among other things, I've read that he was one of the lucky ones who survived the plague. Another figure of interest from a Shakespearean perspective is John Dee. A couple of sources I've encountered suggest that Shakespeare took him, at least in part, as a model for Prospero.
I thought that Shakespeare’s actual birthday isn’t known? He was baptized April 26 and presumably born in the previous week, but the traditional date of April 23 was chosen more for ‘poetic’ reasons, namely that a) it’s his death date also and b) it’s St. George’s Day, appropriately enough for England’s greatest writer.
This is a good point and the answer is yes, 23rd is partly favoured because it's so appealingly neat. There's a bit more to it though because three days was a standard amount of time to wait to baptise your baby and people were also instructed to get it done no later than the first Sunday after a baby's birth. 23rd April was a Sunday so was too quick a turnaround to be baptised the same day, but if he'd been born on 22nd or 21st they would likely have rushed to get him baptised on or before 23rd. For the purposes of this article it doesn't really matter because it's just a bit of fun and I've broken loads of astrology rules to account for missing information (like time of birth!)
Oh, you’re totally right. I had it in my head that the 26th was a Sunday and assumed that babies were usually baptized that day (so any day in the past week would have been equally likely) but I was apparently looking at days of the week for Gregorian not Julian.
It can get quite confusing…’give us back our 11 days!’
Fascinating as always, thank you!💕
Thank you, Sheila!!x
Another fascinating piece, Rebekah! I've heard of Simon Forman, but not read any of his diaries. He sounds like an intriguing character(!), and interesting to see that he would have been consulted on everyday problems such as missing property. Interesting also that astrology was somewhat rescued from the Christian prejudice against magic and witchcraft - as is also evidenced by the reputation of John Dee, the Queen's astrologer (though Dee also suffered from a degree of infamy relating to his magical interests).
Coincidentally, I've just been reading Priscilla Costello's "Shakespeare and the Stars", which goes into a lot of detail about what astrological knowledge the Bard might have possessed. Also interesting is "The Byrom Collection" by Joy Hancox, which discusses a curious collection of architectural plans that seem to relate to a number of the public theatres, including the Globe, and draw on astrology, numerology and "sacred geometry". Whether they were actual plans that were used in the theatres' construction is still a mystery, but well worth checking out.
Various characters in the plays believe in the influence of "the stars". But the implication seems to be that they are credulous or unthinking. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings" comes from cunning Cassius. "It is the stars, The stars above us govern our condition" used by Kent, no deep thinker, to explain how Cordelia is so different from the other two. Edmund mocks his dad's astro beliefs as "excellent foppery". Okay Edmund not really a lifestyle guide but still I don't see Shakespeare consulting any astrologer.
There's no reason to believe he did, just a bit of fun. I suspect you’re right about him being a sceptic, although as a playwright myself I am quite cautious when making assumptions based on opinions expressed by a character. Mine say all sorts of stuff I don't believe!
Fun piece - but as you noted Lilly's astrology is very complex, e.g. the head & tail of the dragon (which comes into play for horary questions, but not for nativities [excepting the Moon]).
P.S.
Warwick link doesn't work
Should be fixed!
My problem with modern astrology including the outer planets goes like this -
1) they move slowly if at all relative to Earth, so can only introduce vague and non-specific "generational" effects into charts.
2) tradition, not knowing them, not naming them, has left no clue to their real meaning.
2) they don't have magnetic fields strong or near enough to have a variable influence on the Earth's magnetic field depending on their relative position. All the classic heavenly bodies do. This negates the best pseudoscientific rational for an astrological effect.
It’s far too complicated for me :)
OK, so this post blindsided me. Why do I not know these things? That is another great post.
“Modestly treated of in three books”
A delightful exploration that weaves parlor trickery with serious literary history! I suspect Shakespeare’s horoscope would be the subject of even more interpretations than all of his plays combined.
Did you know that Forman has his own video game? It's DELIGHTFUL. They used his casebooks as a source of inspiration and historical grounding, although obviously liberties were taken. https://www.astrologaster.com/
I did NOT know this but will immediately play it!
Forman is a fascinating character, for sure. Among other things, I've read that he was one of the lucky ones who survived the plague. Another figure of interest from a Shakespearean perspective is John Dee. A couple of sources I've encountered suggest that Shakespeare took him, at least in part, as a model for Prospero.
Dee is really closely linked with Jonson who owned one of his old grimoires and parodies him in The Alchemist