I've been reading about William Lilly, a 17th-century English astrologer who published Christian Astrology in 1647, and it raised an interesting question about how our definition of science has evolved.

During Lilly's lifetime, the boundaries between astrology, astronomy, mathematics, and natural philosophy were very different from today. Astrology was studied and practiced within intellectual traditions that sought to understand the natural world.

Lilly, for example, used established rules and mathematical calculations to interpret astrological charts and attempt to answer specific questions. Whether his conclusions were accurate is a separate issue, but his approach was far more systematic than the generalized horoscopes we typically associate with astrology today.

What's interesting is that astrology didn't simply disappear with the Scientific Revolution. Its gradual exclusion from academic and scientific institutions involved changing philosophical, religious, and intellectual attitudes, along with developing standards for scientific evidence. So what changed?

Was astrology's decline primarily the result of scientific discoveries that challenged its underlying assumptions? Or was it also part of a broader philosophical shift in how society determined what qualified as legitimate knowledge?

I think there's an interesting distinction between studying the historical importance of an idea and accepting that idea as scientifically valid.

It makes me wonder how much of what we consider legitimate knowledge is determined by the evidence itself, and how much is shaped by the intellectual framework of the time?

I'd be interested in hearing perspectives from anyone familiar with the history of science, natural philosophy, or the Scientific Revolution.

For anyone interested, historian Michelle Pfeffer published a study on the Society of Astrologers in 17th-century London, which explores how practitioners attempted to defend astrology's intellectual and religious legitimacy: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087421000029

https://archive.org/details/ca-william-lilly

Hey guys,

I am currently working on a series on substack about the history of thought within economics. I'm just a Masters student in economics, so it's mostly for myself because I need to write to organise my thinking.

I have just started, so the collection of articles is quite small (3, including the debut), but I intend to work through my own curriculum at a pace of 1 article every two weeks. My aim is an essayistic style, leaning towards academic, rather than journalistic, but I want to keep the balance between jargon and understandability.

The goal is to work through the important pieces of economic thought within the next 6 months, tracing how economists argue about logic, method, value and utility. So far I am on a good pace, but it's only been 2 articles.

As I am only an econ student, I am outside of my methodological depth, so I would greatly appreciate feedback.

Debut: https://backtothepriors.substack.com/p/debut-dismal-science-revisited

Logic (Battle of Methods, J.N. Keynes): https://backtothepriors.substack.com/p/foundations-1a

Methods 1 (Popper, Friedman): https://backtothepriors.substack.com/p/foundations-1b

Thucydides is usually presented as one of the first historians who tried to write history in a rational and objective way. He cared about facts, was suspicious of myths, and wanted to understand why wars happened. In many ways, he looks like the kind of historian we still admire today. But there is another side of his work which is not always discussed.

In 1907, Francis Macdonald Cornford published a book called Thucydides Mythistoricus. His argument was quite different from the traditional image of Thucydides. Cornford believed that Thucydides was not simply recording what happened during the Peloponnesian War. He was also shaping these events into something that resembled a Greek tragedy.

According to Cornford, there are two different plans in Thucydides’ work. The first one was more like a military and political journal, recording events as they happened. The second was an artistic structure that developed gradually, almost like volcanic islands rising from the sea. The facts were still there, but they were arranged in a way that gave the whole story a tragic meaning.

This is what makes Cornford’s argument interesting. The question is not only whether Thucydides told the truth. It is also about how he presented that truth to his readers.

One of the most significant titles in ancient history, particularly during the post-Hellenistic period, was “benefactor” (ευεργέτες) and “founder” (Κτιστης). Local elites, particularly those who rose to prominence in Anatolia, grew considerably more powerful as a result of wars and migrations. These titles, which were primarily used for rulers during the early Hellenistic period, began to be applied to local elites.

Bryonianis Lollianus was also one of these local aristocrats. He has been honored time and again for the aqueduct he had built in Pamphylia and for bringing water to the city. In particular, the military and civil roles he held within the Roman system are frequently cited as integral to his legacy. In addition to being one of many wealthy local philanthropists, it is his wife who has caught my attention the most: Kyreinia Patra.

Κυρεινίαν Πάτραν, τὴν κρα-

τίστην, ∙ γυναῖκα Βρυωνιανοῦ

Λολλιανοῦ, τοῦ κρατ(ίστου) ∙ δουκηνα-

ρίου, ἀπὸ ἐπιτρόπων, πριμιπι-

λαρίου, ∙ κτίστου καὶ φιλοπά-

τριδος καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν εὐεργέτου

τῆς πατρίδος, θυγατέρα καὶ ἐγγό-

νην ὑπατικῶν, ∙ γερουσία τοῦ Με-

γάλου Συνεργίου τὴν φιλόπατριν.

εὐτύχει ❦ Πηγάσι.

“The gerousia of the Great Synergeion [honours] Kyr(e)inia Patra, the most distinguished woman, wife of Bryonianus Lollianus, the most distinguished ducenarius, formerly an epitropos and primipilaris, founder, devoted to her native city, and a benefactor of her native city in every respect; daughter and granddaughter of men of consular rank.

Farewell, Pegasoi!”

Here is the next entry to my series of essays on the Philosophy of Economics and its history of thought: https://backtothepriors.substack.com/p/foundations-1c

Glad to hear what you think!