| This dissertation looks at a little-known corner of intellectual history: the obsolete universal explanatory system and language of 17th century astrology. Papers of the astrological virtuoso William Lilly contain letters from such scientific luminaries as Jeremiah Shakerly and William Oughtred (his vast superiors in both astronomy and mathematics and acquainted with the art as long as he) seeking Lilly's astrological advice in deferential tones. Just what constituted Lilly's great skill in judicial astrology is explored and located within its own tradition.;Although they inform the discussion, the conventional contexts of astronomy and mathematics, Puritanism, politics or the Royal Society are rejected in favor of that of encrypting rife in 17th century writings. To ascertain what constituted astrological proficiency, an internal analysis of some 17th century practices gleaned from contemporary texts is provided. By applying this language system to Lilly's pamphlets, an underlying subtext is revealed in which astrological attributions have been substituted for politically unpalatable opinions. The rationale behind this encoding system sheds light on other areas, such as the problem of Elias Ashmole's diary structure.;A new explanation is advanced for astrology's demise, viewed as a symbolic language system that disappeared from intellectually elite circles. The very mechanisms of astrological language which allowed Lilly to encode prophecies in his texts mandated its obsolescence. This richness, multiplicity, and capacity for ambiguity are shown to have been inimical to the linguistic demands of the times. These are represented by the quest led by Francis Lodwick and John Wilkins for a universal character and language, and in Royal Society specification (expressed by Thomas Spratt, a disciple of Wilkins) for "a close, naked, natural way of Speaking" with an object "to bring all things as near to the mathematical plainness" as possible. |
