Astrologers, economists and other seers

Continuing the 17th century Puritan trend in recent posts, I’m currently reading Christopher Hill’s book The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas during the English Revolution.

In one chapter he describes the growth of prophecy following the Reformation’s abolition of mediators between individuals and God, a growth which added to the already widespread belief in magic at all levels of society. Hill lists a number of respected, educated figures – including Sir Walter Ralegh, Francis Bacon, John Locke, John Kepler – who believed in magic, astrology, alchemy and other things that we might now dismiss as superstition. In their defence he writes:

It is only from our modern vantage point that we can separate what is “rational” in seventeenth century science from what is not. We must not allow this wisdom after the event to make us condescending about beliefs held by men like Bacon, Boyle and Newton. Only in the course of the seventeenth century did the laws of nature harden and congeal… (pp.89f.)

But is our view today really so much more scientific anyway? Here is Hill a couple of pages later on the growth of “prophecy” during the 1640s and 50s:

In England the revolutionary decades gave wide publicity to what was almost a new profession – the prophet, whether as interpreter of the stars, or of traditional popular myths, or of the Bible. It is therefore very important for us to grasp the role of prophecies in popular psychology.

“Dreams and prophecies do thus much good,” Selden observed; “they make a man to go on with boldness upon a danger or a mistress. If he obtains, he attributes much to them; if he miscarries, he thinks no more of them, or is no more thought of himself.”

Hobbes too in his history of the civil war noted that prophecy was “many times the principal cause of the event foretold.” (p.91)

Astrology, divination or the “scientific” study of biblical prophecy no longer feature highly among the “respectable” sources of guidance sought by the educated and powerful (though they are not as absent as some would like to think). However, we still live in an uncertain world in which it is possible to make a good living by claiming to provide guidance for the future based on one’s deep, specialist, arcane knowledge: as an economist, media pundit or business guru, for example.

Now clearly the nature of these disciplines is very different from that of 17th century prophets and seers, reflecting the very different culture in which we live: one in which science and statistics are valued more highly than magic and the discernment of God’s inscrutable will. But their function is arguably similar: enabling people (including politicians and business leaders) to “go on with boldness upon a danger” instead of being paralysed by indecision; and frequently being themselves “the principal cause of the event foretold”.

To see this similarity in function, you only have to look at the adulation shown towards those – such as Nouriel Rubini or Meredith Whitney – who are perceived to have predicted the credit crunch. Maybe they did (and do) have special insight; maybe they just got lucky (like the economists who have been described as having “predicted seven of the last two recessions”). But many people hang on their every word (along with other perceived seers such as Warren Buffett), partly because it’s either that or nothing – just as it was for those in the 17th century, battered by uncertain harvests and tumultuous political and religious upheavals.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Culture, History and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Astrologers, economists and other seers

  1. Rick Ritchie says:

    What are your favorite works on the broader subject of Puritanism? Our main text for my English Puritanism class was The Rise of Puritanism by William Haller. I would say it was mildly dry, but handled the subject very well. I have also enjoyed Perry Miller. Miller is an amazing synthesizer of information, but you would often be hard-pressed to know what to cite to make the case yourself. He doesn’t footnote as much as modern writers. (He says he left notes in the Harvard Library, so next time I’m in Cambridge, MA perhaps I’ll check, if I can get special permission. Haha.) I’ve read part of Christopher Hill’s The English Bible and the Seventeenth Century Revolution and found it fascinating.

  2. John H says:

    Rick: the “ur-text” for me as regards the Puritans remains J.I. Packer’s “Among God’s Giants” (think it was published in the US under a different name… *quick google*… that’s the one: “The Quest for Godliness”. At least, I assume that’s the same book). He’s very good on both the strengths and weaknesses of Puritanism, particularly the way in which the doctrine of justification by faith declined among the later Puritans (such as Baxter).

    Another good Packer book on the Puritans is “A Grief Sanctified”, which is an updated version of Richard Baxter’s tribute to his late wife, together with an introductory essay by Packer.

    Must check out the Hill book you mention, though E (who studied the English Revolution for her history A-level) did comment that he basically wrote the same book over and over again: the radical revolution that came frustratingly close to fruition, but obviously couldn’t have done because Marx says the time wasn’t right for it. 😉

  3. J. Random Hermeneut says:

    the radical revolution that came frustratingly close to fruition,

    You really are enticing me to read Christopher Hill now. But my views are probably opposite. The Puritans were harshly repressed. But Laud was martyred.

  4. Pingback: Confessing Evangelical » Blog Archive » Justification, election and social order

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s