The Study of Wretched Subjects

[Scion]

So many of y'all know I've been doing a lot of research into ancient astrology of late... Well, I just ran across something about skepticism the role of scholarship in esoterica that I thought other people might find useful or interesting, and I wanted to post a bit of it here for anyone who hasn't run across it before. Apparently, this exchange between 2 academics was something of a sensation when it happened over 50 years ago...

Back in 1951, Professor George Sarton of Harvard (History of Science) wrote a particularly scathing and dismissive review of a book about ancient astrology. Professor Otto Neugebauer of Brown (History of Mathematics) wrote what is possibly one of the greatest rebuttals of academic skepticism.

Check it out:

THE STUDY OF WRETCHED SUBJECTS by Otto Neugebauer

In the last issue of Isis (vol. 41, 125-126, p. 374) there is a short review by Professor Sarton of a recent publication by E. S. Drower of the Mandean "Book of the Zodiac" which is characterized by the reviewer as "a wretched collection of omens, debased astrology and miscellaneous nonsense." Because this factually correct statement does not tell the whole story, I want to amplify it by a few remarks to explain to the reader why a serious scholar might spend years on the study of wretched subjects like ancient astrology.

The great Belgian historian and philologist, Franz Cumont, in August 1898 signed the preface to the first volume of the Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecmum, the twelfth volume of which is now in preparation. The often literal agreement between the Greek texts and the Mandean treatises requires the extension of Professor Sarton's characterization to an enterprise which has enjoyed the wholehearted and enthusiastic support of a great number of scholars of the very first rank. They all labored to recover countless wretched collections of astrological treatises from European libraries, and they succeeded in giving us an insight into the daily life, religion and superstition, and astronomical methods and cosmogonic ideas of generations of men who had to live without the higher blessings of our own scientific era.

To the historian of science the transmission of ideas is rightly one of his most important problems. Astrological lore furnishes us one of the most convincing proofs for the transmission of Hellenistic astronomy to India; astrological manuscripts help us to estimate more accurately the combination of Syriac, Arabic, Hindu, and Greek sources in the building up of Islamic science. No Arabic astronomer can be fully understood without a thorough knowledge of astrological concepts. The only hope of obtaining a few glimpses of the astronomical methods of the time of Hipparchus rests in the painstaking investigation of wretched writers like Vettius Valens or Paulus Alexandrinus. Six large volumes of miscellaneous nonsense were published by Professor Thorndike and have become a treasured tool for the study of Mediaeval scientific literature. And the history of the art and philosophy of the Renaissance has gained immensely from the researches carried out by the Warburg Institute on the astrology of preceding periods.

The book by Mrs Drower is only one modest contribution within the larger task of research in the history of the civilization of the Near East. The difficulties of the problems involved are by far greater than in the case of Greek or Latin texts with their so much better known terminology and background. We have to thank Mrs Drower for exposing a new source which may one day furnish the missing link in the transmission of doctrines which have left their imprint in almost all phases of Mediaeval learning, Medicine, Botany, Chemistry, etc.

All these facts are, of course, well known to Professor Sarton. But when the recognized dean of the History of Science disposes of a whole field with the words "the superstitious flotsam of the Near East," he perhaps does not fully realize how much he is contributing to the destruction of the very foundations of our studies: the recovery and study of the texts as they are, regardless of our own tastes and prejudices.

Amen.

 

[6 Haunted Days]

Burn! I saw that title and just had to read it. Wonderful rebuttal, thanks for sharing it!

 

[Alta]

Thanks Scion. I certainly never would have found that very restrained and precise rebuttal on my own.

Marion

 

[ahclem]

While on the basis of your quote (which is all I know about this episode) I would tend to agree with Professor Neugebauer's position, I am curious why you characterize this as "possibly one of the greatest rebuttals of academic skepticism."

Where exactly is the issue of skepticism here? Sarton characterizes Drower's book as "a wretched collection of omens, debased astrology and miscellaneous nonsense." Neugebauer expressly agrees that this is a "factually correct statement." His point being that one can learn a great deal about the history of science (and, in fact, much of ancient civilizations) from such sources, and that one shouldn't let one's prejudices blind one to that fact.

The issue here seems to be one of academic prejudice, not skepticism (which, as far as I'm concerned, is a good thing).

 

[Scion]

I suppose I see your point, although he actually categorizes all of the work that he's done, along with his peers, as wretched and valueless... so I took the "factual" dismissal in the same ironic tone as the rest of the rebuttal.

He isn't dismissing intellectual skepticism wholesale, he is criticicizing the tendency of academic skeptics to characterize our ancestors as credulous halfwits who "had to live without the higher blessings of our own scientific era." Let's remember that he wrote this less than ten years after WWII and in the middle of the Korean conflict and the escalation of the Cold War. The blessings of our era (in this context) are atomic annihilation, anti-intellectualism, and rampant bigotry. It is an ironic statement. In the same way that the entire argument is ironic. So I don't (and won't) take Neugebauer's categoric damning of his entire field of study literally, and I'm willing to swear that wasn't his intention. In a sense he was criticizing just that kind of habitual skeptical literalism in academics.

I'm not suggesting that Neugebauer was adamantly pro-astrology, but rather that he cultivated an the kind of openness to the unexpected upon which all progress depends. But he wasn't dismissing astrology as a "false" science any more than he was calling himself and his colleagues wretched, misguided imbeciles. Irony in the service of truth.

Academic prejudice factors in, but I would argue he is attacking the condescension and pose of moral superiority with which academia dismisses subjects it has deemed less "advanced" or "enlightened." In his small way, I think Neugebauer was attacking the trenchant academic pose of benevolent authority and the kneejerk skepticism with which it sweeps entire subjects and disciplines into the rubbish.

I'm reminded of a little joke of Bertrand Russell's: "Organic life, we are told, has developed gradually from the protozoon to the philosopher, and this development, we are assured, is indubitably an advance. Unfortunately it is the philosopher, not the protozoon, who gives us this assurance."

Scion

 

[ahclem]

I suppose I see your point, although he actually categorizes all of the work that he's done, along with his peers, as wretched and valueless... so I took the "factual" dismissal in the same ironic tone as the rest of the rebuttal.

Sorry if I'm being dense, but I can't quite parse that sentence. Which "he," "he's," and "his" are we referring to here?

All I see as being characterized as "wretched" is the contents of Drower's book. If there is any indication of irony in Neugebauer's agreement, it is in his parroting back Sarton's melodramatic phrasing, which to my reading does not necessarily negate his agreement that it is in fact "factually correct" (as far as the contents of Drower's book is concerned).

He isn't dismissing skepticism wholesale...

I would argue that he isn't dismissing it at all.

he is criticizing the tendency of scientist skepticism to look down on those who "had to live without the higher blessings of our own scientific era."

I'm sorry, but I simply don't see this. To me his argument is very clear and cogent (and yes, presented with entertaining irony): There is much valuable historical knowledge to be gained by the recovery and study of historical texts concerning "miscellaneous nonsense." And that one's prejudice against that nonsense should not keep one from recognizing the extent to which one can learn about the history of civilizations from such study.

Let's remember that he wrote this less than ten years after WWII and in the middle of the Korean conflict and the escalation of the Cold War. The blessings of our era (in this context) are atomic annihilation, anti-intellectualism, and rampant bigotry.

Well, except for the atomic annihilation part, I don't see where anti-intellectualism and rampant bigotry were in any way unique to that era. (And that's a bit selective, as we were also seeing dramatic advances in medicine and other beneficial technology as well.)

It is an ironic statement. In the same way that the entire argument is ironic. So I don't take Neugebauer's categoric damning of his entire field of study literally, and I'm willing to swear that wasn't his intention.

Again, I'm sorry, but damning whose entire field of study? I certainly don't see how Neugebauer's agreement that the contents of the Drower book is nonsense is in any way damning to the study of it for historical insight.

I'm not suggesting that Neugebauer was adamantly pro-astrology...

I see no indication in what you quoted that he was pro-astrology in any degree. Other than believing that knowing as much as possible about a civilization's astrological beliefs and practices (as well as other beliefs and superstitions) is crucial in understanding the history of learning.

But he wasn't dismissing astrology as a "false" science any more than he was calling himself and his colleagues wretched, misguided imbeciles. Irony in the service of truth.

Well, here we will just have to disagree. I frankly think he was dismissing astrology as a false science, and I don't read this as calling himself and his colleagues wretched, misguided imbeciles, even ironically.

Academic prejudice factors in, but I would argue he is attacking the condescension and pose of moral superiority with which academia dismisses subjects it has deemed less "advanced" or "enlightened." In his small way, I think Neugebauer was attacking the trenchant academic pose of superiority and the kneejerk skepticism with which it sweeps entire subjects and disciplines into the rubbish.

And, again from the text quoted, I think he's attacking Sarton's prejudice. Period. Neugebauer is himself an academic and he refers directly and indirectly to various other academics and academic institutions as doing valuable work researching the kind of material Sarton characterizes as wretched. Without knowing a lot more about this episode than is evident in this citation, I don't really see a basis for extrapolating to a wholesale condemnation of an "academic pose of superiority and the kneejerk skepticism..." etc. It's about Sarton.

I'm reminded of a little joke of Bertrand Russell's: ...

Cute line, but I fail to see the applicability to what I read as Neugebauer's point. (Unless there are philosophers undervaluing research into early protozoan superstitions.)

 

[rachelcat]

It's interesting to note that the publication under discussion was the product of one Mrs. Drower. Perhaps Professor Sarton's prejudice extends not only to wretched subjects such as astrology, but also to women academics who perhaps are demeaning academia by stooping so low as to study and publish on such wretched subjects.

(Just a thought . . .)

 

[ahclem]

I'm not suggesting that Neugebauer was adamantly pro-astrology, but rather that he cultivated an the kind of openness to the unexpected upon which all progress depends. But he wasn't dismissing astrology as a "false" science any more than he was calling himself and his colleagues wretched, misguided imbeciles.

Since I was not previously familiar with Otto Neugebauer, I decided to do a bit of research. The following is his entry in Lester Ness's article Historians of Astrology from the web site of the University Centre for Astrological Research (a decidedly pro-astrology organization):

OTTO NEUGEBAUER (1899-1990)

Perhaps the most groundbreaking research on the history of astrology has been done by Assyriologists. The most important of them is unarguably Otto Neugebauer. His published lectures, The Exact Sciences in Antiquity (1957) have been many people’s introduction to the subject. Astronomical Cuneiform Texts (1955) is an indispensable resource. The same is true for his collaboration with Robert Parker, Egyptian Astronomical Texts, especially volume III, Decans, Planets, Constellations and Zodiacs, Texts (1969) and for Greek Horoscopes, another collaboration, this time with H. B. van Hoesen (1959).

Neugebauer was primarily interested in the history of mathematics and looked to astrological works in hopes of finding traces of mathematical techniques used by astrologers after they had been abandoned by astrologers. He had no great interest in astrology per se and sometimes is verbally contemptuous towards astrologers. Nevertheless, he defended the study of the history of astrology in a famous letter to the journal Isis, "On the Study of Wretched Subjects," reprinted in his selected essays (1983). Like Cumont, he was a prolific author of articles as well as books, covering a wide range of astronomical and astrological subjects.

 

[Lillie]

Tut.

Men!

 

[Scion]

Well, ahclem

I don't want to get into a hairsplitting match, but it sounds as though where I see irony you see grim academic defensiveness.

As I pointed out in the post above, I'm not suggesting that Neugebauer was pro-astrology, but that he was open to the wisdom he could glean from its study. That is the reason for the "Nevertheless" in the short bio you quoted: though dubious about astrology he defended and made use of it acadmeically. He saw fit to defend its centrality to his entire body of work and the history of science in general. When he says that a "great number of scholars of the very first rank. They all labored to recover countless wretched collections of astrological treatises from European libraries" I don't believe that he is denigrating either the collections or the scholars... in fact quite the opposite.

More significantly, and the reason I posted the piece on the forum is that I thought it might prove a useful lens through which to regard and discuss anyone who "does not fully realize how much he is contributing to the destruction of the very foundations of our studies: the recovery and study of the texts as they are, regardless of our own tastes and prejudices." For the record, that includes fluffy new-agers skeptical about science's hard edges.

Science that cannot demolish its own assumptions is more museum piece than lab work. Neugebauer was an academic openly critiquing a colleague in a public forum. "Wretched Subjects" is almost the only thing remembered about these men outside of their fields. I take Neugebauer's statement as a defense of scholarship qua scholarship and criticism of prejudicial prejudgment of topics by well-meaning skeptics. We obviously read those 4 paragraphs differently. You are of course free to take it (or not) as you like. Humor is in the eye of the beholder.

I think we will agree to disagree. There is nothing so pointless as explaining irony. Dissecting humor is a humorless enterprise and generally pointless... since by the time its explained any humor has been so throughly reified as to render it lifeless. Fun for no one, interesting for no one, full stop

Scion