Chiromancy and the Mediaeval Church
It has often been thought that there was considerable ecclesiastical
opposition to the occult arts and divinatory sciences of astrology and chiromancy,
especially during the mediaeval period. However, it is quite clear from the kind of people
who were writing on these arts and the places in which these subjects were both studied
and preserved that this really was just not the case at all. For, as we have already seen,
it was within the context of the church itself that chiromancy first flourished! Its
gaining acceptance at this time can also be seen by reference to the lives of several
important mediaeval figures, the writings of whom show quite clearly how little likelihood
there was of being persecuted by the church for a belief in chiromancy at this time, much
less for its actual practice.
Michael Scot (c1195-1236?) was a clergyman, a doctor
of theology and court astrologer to King Frederick II of Italy and is renowned for being
the author of several treatises on astrology and physiognomy. At one point in his life, he
was offered an ecclesiastical position as an Archbishop by the Pope, but he declined the
offer. He was also responsible for translating several of Averroes' works from Arabic into
Latin, including Aristotle's 'De Historia Animalium' and other commentaries on
Aristotle's works by Averroes and Avicenna. It is perhaps this translation work which
sparked off his interest in hands, for a section of 'De Physiognomia' (Bodleian
Library, Oxford Ms Bodl 266) concerns itself with the chirognomy of the hand, wherein
he pays particular attention to the nails, and a copy of an astrological treatise of his
from the fifteenth century also contains a short fragment on chiromancy. A further
manuscript on chiromancy 'Chiromantia Scientia' has also been attributed to him.
What is clear from the writings of Scot is that both chiromancy and astrology were taken
to be subjects worthy of serious consideration in theological circles as well as in the
arena of scientific thought.
Albertus Magnus
Further substantiation of this lack of ecclesiastical opposition to the
study of chiromancy comes from the writings of one of the dominant ecclesiastical figures
of the thirteenth century, Albertus Magnus (c1193-1280?). Albertus was a theologian and a
Bishop and a member of the Dominican Order but was also something of a scientist and a
philosopher as well as having a strong interest in the divinatory arts. He is known to
have travelled widely and to have held several lecturing posts at different universities.
Together with his pupil St Thomas Aquinas, the two were amongst the foremost philosophers
of their time and were the two people most responsible for adapting the natural philosophy
of Aristotle to the tenets of Christianity. In addition to his biblical commentaries, his
theological writings and his commentaries on Aristotle, Albertus also wrote on natural
science, alchemy, astrology and the practice of divination from dreams. In some of his
works he even goes out of his way to defend the mantical arts; in 'Speculum
Astronomiae', he writes specifically for the defence of judicial astrology to
demonstrate its compatibility with Christian belief. He also wrote on physiognomy and
moreover, several treatises on chiromancy are attributed to Albertus, including
'Chiromantia Alberti' and 'Alberti de Colonia ars Chiromantiae'. One manuscript dating
from the latter part of the fourteenth century can be found today in the Bibliotheque
Nationale in Paris (Ms 7420a) and may well be a later copy of one of Albertus'
own texts. Albertus is also freely quoted in the anonymous fifteenth century text
'Cyromancia Aristotelis cum Figuris' and other early chiromantic manuscripts.
Evidence such as this only serves to strengthen the evidence for the suggestion that
Albertus did indeed write a chiromantic text.
In any case, it is most unlikely that he would have considered
chiromancy a heretical or dangerous art. In his physiognomical writings, he describes
physiognomy as a science which divines mans character from the physical form of various
parts of the body. From this, it would seem reasonable to infer that he would have held no
objections to chiromancy as a divinatory art, given its relation to the study of
physiognomy. Moreover, Albertus is also quite happy to accept magic and divination as
quite natural phenomena and therefore natural things to study. Whilst he distinguishes
between 'good' magic and 'evil' magic, all natural forms of divination which do not
involve communication with demons were considered acceptable. From the texts of his that
we still have, it is clear that he does not find any particular problem with or see any
contradiction in studying the divinatory arts such as astrology and chiromancy and, at the
same time, in being a member of the Christian church.
Thomas Aquinas
Such a sympathetic disposition towards the divinatory arts is again to
be found in the writings of St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). Aquinas became a Dominican monk
from the age of sixteen and is perhaps the most well known of all the mediaeval scholars,
his saintly life occasioning him to be canonised eventually by the Roman Catholic church.
In addition to his theological writings and his commentaries on Aristotle, Aquinas also
wrote on natural science, where he declared that alchemy was a true art and where he also
asserted that astrological theory had an important part to play in the study of natural
science. Although he condemned most forms of divination (such as necromancy) as the work
of demons, he grants that those divinatory arts which have a natural basis are
permissible. Hence, forms of divination such as the interpretation of dreams and those
arts which are based on or related to astrology, such as chiromancy and physiognomy, are
perfectly acceptable. Any method of divination based on astrology was already considered
to be amply justified at this time. Whilst there are no writings from his pen on the study
of the hands, that he knew of it as an art is certain and, indeed, he had the opportunity
to disclaim it should he have wished to; but he mentions chiromancy in passing without
disapproval. It is quite clear from this and from his remarks in general that he saw
chiromancy as a natural art and, hence, a perfectly legitimate form of divinatory study.
The writings of Thomas Aquinas and Albertus Magnus were instrumental in
bringing Aristotelian thought into wider general acceptance within Europe at this time. It
is perhaps more than just coincidental that this occurs at the same time as the increasing
interest in the study of the hand. For whether it is true or not, many people have thought
that the study of chiromancy came directly from the authority of Aristotle himself. With
the influence of Aristotelian ideas at its height at this time, it was not unusual for
works of unknown origin to be attributed to Aristotle, particularly if they were works on
the divinatory arts and other forms of esoteric knowledge. But we can understand the
attribution of texts to his name more as a means of asserting the respectability and
validity of the study of these arts rather than as being a poor attempt at fraud and
deception. For it is undoubtedly the increasing acceptance of Aristotelian thought in the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries that was responsible for the flowering development of
chiromancy and all the other divinatory arts at this time. For it was the intellectual
re-connection with ancient Greek thought that paved the way for the revival of the study
of the natural sciences in all their forms, and, without doubt, it was the acceptance of
Aristotelian ideas that had the most significant impact on liberating European thinking
from the confines of the intellectual straight-jacket imposed by the Catholic Church
throughout the whole of the Dark Ages.
