Simón, J.; Herrán, N., Lanuza, T., Guillén, J.; Ruiz, P. (Eds) Beyond Borders: Fresh perspectives in History of Science, Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008, pp. 79-97. 79 Astrology in Spanish Early Modern Institutions of Learning Tayra M.C. Lanuza-Navarro European University Institute, Florence (Italy) 1 According to M. Jacob’s recent assessment of the state of the field of the studies on early modern European science, the third volume of the Cambridge History of Science proves that historians have liberated early modern science from straitjackets such as the dichotomies science/religion or science/magic. 2 This would mean, for what astrology is concerned, that the critics expressed years ago by Paolo Rossi, Francis Yates or Simon Schaeffer, 3 among others, concerning the dismissal of the studies on the “occult sciences” within the history of science, have already been assumed and amended. B. Copenhaver’s words in presenting “a few of the larger questions that suggest how relevant occultism is to the history of early modern science” in the volume Reapprisals of the Scientific Revolution would agree with that idea. 4 However, the actual occurrence of astrology in the scientific institutions of the early modern period – if mentioned – is still usually considered a secondary matter that can be overlooked without misrepresenting the mainstream of science and/or the activity of early modern scientists. Even if historians of science admit that astrological ideas were not only common in the popular context, but that the influence of the stars was a generally accepted idea in the intellectual world, 5 1 This article has been possible thanks to the fellowship ‘Beca Postdoctoral d’excel·lència per estades en centre estrangers’ of the Generalitat Valenciana during 2006 in Bath Spa University, UK, and in the European University Institute in Florence, Italy, during 2007. studies on what kind of astrology was part of 2 Jacob, M. (2007). “The importance of early modern European science and the state of the field”, Isis, 98: 361-365. The volume is Park, K. and Daston, L. (eds.) (2006). The Cambridge History of Science. Volume 3: Early Modern Science. (Cambridge History of Science). New York: Cambridge University Press. For instance, William Eamon’s Secrets of nature began explaining that “the conception of knowledge embodied in this account [in a letter of Hermetic studies] blurs the distinction between religious and scientific knowledge”. See Eamon, W. (1994) Science and the secrets of nature. Books of Secrets in Medieval and Early Modern Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 20. 3 Among other examples of this criticism, see Rossi, P. (1968) Francis Bacon: from magic to science. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul; Yates, F. (1972) The Rosicrucian Enlightenment. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd; Schaeffer, S. (1985) Occultism and reason, in Holland, A. J. Philosophy, its history and historiography. Dordrecht: Reidel; and Schaeffer, S. (1987) “Godly men and mechanical philosophers: souls and spirits in Restoration Philosophy”. Science in context 1: pp. 55-85. 4 Copenhaver, B. (1990) “Natural magic, hermetism and occultism in early modern science”, in Lindberg, D.C.; Westman, R.S. (eds.) Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press. The terms ‘occultism’ and ‘occult sciences’ are being abandoned in more recent publications because they project modern categories in the past. 5 As Lynn Thorndike showed long ago in his work, Thorndike, L. (1923-58). History of magic and experimental science, London: Macmillan & Co.