The Sources of European Chiromancy
It is thought that many of the 'occult' sciences were introduced to the
European mind around the middle of the twelfth century. Alchemy was introduced to Europe
from Arabic culture around 1150, as was astrology, which was intimately bound up with the
studies of what we now refer to as maths and physics - and was often even called mathematici
at this time. It is quite likely therefore that chiromancy also came into Europe from
the same source and at about the same time. Indeed, the influence of Arabic thought on
European chiromancy is attested to by the claims of many mediaeval authors that both
Averroes and Avicenna were authorities in the art.
Avicenna (c980-1037) was a philosopher and a physician
and contributed much to the development of mediaeval medicine as well as to alchemy and
astrology. He in particular is often quoted as having written on chiromancy and it would
be surprising if he knew nothing of the subject given its relation to astrology and
mediaeval medicine. Averroes (c1126-1198) was an accomplished student of
theology, mathematics and philosophy and is generally credited for the reintroduction of
Aristotelian thought to the European mind. He has sometimes also been considered to be the
one most likely to have revived palmistry in Europe. However, whilst both did indeed write
on physiognomy, no chiromantical treatises survive from either of them. Perhaps we are
dealing more with legend than with history here but, nevertheless, that does not undermine
the considerable contribution made to the development of the European mind by these two
individuals in particular and Arabic culture in general. Given the impact of Arabic
culture at this time it would be surprising if the upsurge of interest in subjects like
chiromancy did not have as its origin an Arabic source.
However, there is some manuscript evidence that also points to this
conclusion. The scribe Adelard of Bath (c1080-1142?) is thought to have
either written a manuscript on chiromancy or to have translated one from Arabic into
Latin. At first, this seems quite plausible since it is known that he had an interest in
alchemy and astrology and that he indeed did translate several works of Arabic astrology
into Latin. Moreover, in his 'Quaestiones Naturales' he even discusses the uneven
shape of the fingers and comments on the concave nature of the palm. However, he shows no
interest in the lines of the hand and it is this point that makes Thorndike sceptical that
he ever actually wrote or translated a chiromancy at all. One very early chiromantic
manuscript kept at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris (Nouv.acq.lat 693),
thought to have been written in the twelfth century, actually states that it was
translated out of the Greek of a certain Arab into Latin by Adelard himself. However, this
is extremely unlikely, since Adelard never translated any Greek into Latin.
Johannes Hispanus
Another early scholar of whom it is said that he translated Arabic
chiromancies into Latin is Johannes Hispanus (c1140 - exact dates
unknown). Several pseudonyms are given for Hispanus, including John Avendeath and the name
by which he is more commonly known, John of Seville. Hispanus is known to have translated
several Arabic astrological texts into Latin and it is quite possible that he did in fact
also translate Arabic chiromancies into Latin as well. Thorndike thinks the evidence for
this is more compelling than it is for Adelard, though he doubts that he actually penned
such a chiromancy himself. A fifteenth century copy of an early manuscript ascribed to
Hispanus can be found in Klagenfurt in Austria, catalogued as Bischoflische Bibliothek
XXX.d.4 as being a chiromancy of Aristotle and Averroes as translated from the Arabic
into Latin by Johannes Hispanus.
The text itself contains a note from Hispanus saying that he translated
the original Arabic text for the benefit of the Queen of Seville. It is probably this
manuscript which is responsible for the apocryphal tale recounted by many palmistic
writers (and writers of encyclopaedias!) about Hispanus having translated a chiromancy
written in gold letters found by Aristotle on an alter dedicated to Hermes (for example,
see Cheiro's 'Language of the Hand' and 'La Grande Encyclopedie'). However, it is thought
that this legendary story is more likely to be connected to the origin of the
pseudo-Aristotelian 'De Secreta Secretorum', for Hispanus tells this tale of the
man who originally translated the 'De Secreta' from the Greek into Arabic, and says that
it was this man who met a sage at an altar dedicated to Hermes and who had prevailed upon
him to lead him to the secret cache of esoteric writings wherein this text was to be
found! Although Hispanus is also known to have made a partial translation of the 'De
Secreta', the mistaken transference of the legend to an original chiromantic work of
Aristotle simply seems to be a manifestation of the perennial inclination of chiromancers
to impute a mystical and authoritative origin to their art. A later, fourteenth century,
manuscript confirms this preoccupation as it contains a treatise on chiromancy ascribed to
Solomon, ie Solomon the Magician from biblical times! We have here a most clear example of
the fanciful imagination of the early chiromancers, though we can perhaps understand why
they would want their art to be associated with a man of such high esoteric credentials
and with the reputation of being 'the wisest man in the world' of biblical times.
Pseudo-Aristoteles Chiromantiae
In fact, there was quite a tradition of associating chiromantical
treatises with magical and authoritative authors of Ancient Times during the whole of this
early period. Aristotle was a particular favourite for compilers of chiromancies, for
there are a considerable number of chiromantical texts that date from the thirteenth to
fifteenth centuries which are either dedicated to Aristotle or were penned in his name.
Knox and Schmitt list forty-one such chiromantic manuscripts in their guide to
pre-fifteenth century Latin works which were falsely ascribed to Aristotle! Indeed there
were more Pseudo-Aristotelian texts circulating at this time than there were genuine works
by Aristotle himself!
With the developing influence of Aristotelian ideas, it was not unusual
for works of unknown origin to be attributed to Aristotle at this time, particularly if
they were works on the divinatory arts and other forms of esoteric knowledge. Many of
these texts dealt specifically with various occult subjects such as alchemy and astrology
and there are a multiplicity of texts with the title Physiognomia or Chiromantia which
were purportedly by Aristotle himself. Most of these texts were written during the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, though some copies are known to have been made in the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. However, although many of these texts claim to be
copies of works actually written by Aristotle, most contain material so vastly different
from anything Aristotle ever said about the hand, it is quite obvious that they were not
derived from anything originally written by him. We can therefore understand the
attribution of these texts to his name more as a means of asserting the validity and
respectability of the study of these arts rather than as being a poor attempt at fraud and
deception. Moreover, we can also see that this desire to assert that chiromancy came
directly from the authority of Aristotle himself once again suggests that chiromancy
entred Europe from Arabic sources. For it was Arabic culture that had preserved
Aristotelian thought and it was from Arabic sources that Aristotelian thought was being
re-introduced to the European mind.
Arabic Manuscripts
However, there are in fact some extant Arabic treatises on palmistry
which have survived from this period, some of which are now kept in Berlin (eg. Ms
Ahlwardt 4255-8) but according to Burnett these are of little relevance or interest
to the European tradition of chiromancy. This is presumably because of a lack of
similarity in both style and content, which suggests a considerable divergence between
Arabic and European chiromancy at this time. Of course, this is really what is to be
expected as there would have been the inevitable need for Arabic, and therefore
essentially Muslim ideas, to be re-interpreted as well as their need to be translated.
This becomes most evident when we look at the ideas contained in many of the earliest
chiromantic manuscripts, the religious tone of which clearly shows that even the earliest
chiromancies are not entirely Arabic in content.
Burnett also ascribes the origin of the term chiromancy itself as being
a result of the translations of Arabic texts by Latin scholars. He finds no evidence for
the use of the term chiromancy earlier than about 1160 and notes that the appearance of
the word at this time compares well with the adoption of other similar terms such as
geomancy, from the Arabic 'Ilm al-raml' or sand divination. The use of the term
'chiros' for hand or palm is universal in early Latin texts, derived from the Greek
'kheir', and he attributes the origin of the word chiromancy to the same scholastic trend
which substituted Greek terms for Arabic in scientific translations of the twelfth
century. However, an Arabic source for chiromancy cannot be conclusively demonstrated for
none of the Latin chiromantic texts that are still extant can clearly be shown to derive
from an Arabic original. Be that as it may, it nonetheless seems to be the most likely
explanation of all that the origins of European chiromancy do indeed lie within an
original dissemination from some, now lost, Arabic source.
Back to Top
