Arty Farty Friday ~ Michelangelo...(and those horns! )

We've recently watched, courtesy of Netflix, the 1965 movie The Agony and the Ecstasy, the story, partly based on Irving Stone's biographical novel of the same name, deals with the conflicts of Michelangelo and Pope Julius II during the painting of the Sistine Chapel's ceiling. It's a reasonable depiction of likely events, I guess. The film was made in the then current style used for epic stories (Ben Hur, El Cid, etc.) but the film comes over, in 2016, more as a lush, expensive documentary; but I'm glad to have seen it, at last.

I had in mind to blog arty-fartily about Michelangelo, but he is too huge a figure in the art world to reduce him to a tiny blog post. Michelangelo's astrology has been picked over many times. His natal chart can be seen at Astro-databank HERE.

Michelangelo

A few pointers to his nature, as shown in his natal chart are indicated in a book, DESIRE and DESIGN: A Look at Venus and Mars in Action by Mary Jane Staudenmann, excerpt below from Google Books, HERE.
(Click on images for clearer views).

The sight of one of Michelangelo's masterpiece sculptures in the movie, that of Moses, brought back a question: those mysterious horns on Moses' head! I'd noticed these in the past, but never had the time, or resources, to investigate the mystery. This time I had Google at my finger-tips.

There appear to be two possible explanations for the horns: a mis-translation, or a symbol of power.

From HERE:

What about the horns? Scholars believe this was a mistranslation of Hebrew scriptures into Latin by St. Jerome, called the Vulgate. It was the Latin translation of the Bible used at that time. Moses is described as having “rays of the skin of his face.” Jerome translated it to horns from the word keren, which means either radiated or grew horns.

Horns were a symbol of wisdom and rulership in ancient times. Was Moses a descendent of antediluvian kings, those who reigned before the flood, as some interpreted it?

Michelangelo was not the only artist to put horns on Moses. Several paintings and sculptures from the medieval and renaissance era depict him this way and can still be seen on the streets and in museums.

And HERE:

In her book The Horned Moses in Medieval Art and Thought (Los Angeles, UC Press, 1970), Ruth Mellinkoff describes how prominent this “mistranslation” became in depicting Jews physically, as well as metaphysically, as being in league with the Devil. Of course, the best known – but certainly not only -- example of this depiction is Michelangelo’s magnificent Moses.

Most commentators have simply said that Jerome mistranslated “keren” as “horned” rather than “radiant.” But Bena Elisha Medjuck, a McGill University Department of Jewish Studies graduate student, offered a more complex explanation in his 1988 thesis “Exodus 34:29-35: Moses’ ‘Horns’ in Early Bible Translation and Interpretation.”[1] Medjuck explains that Jerome was well-acquainted both with the variant meanings of “keren” and with the prevailing translation of his contemporary Jewish scholars – with whom he consulted! Jerome chose the “horned” translation as metaphor faithful to the text: a depiction of Moses’ strength and authority, and a glorification of the Lord! Jerome even explained this in his accompanying commentary!

Horns were almost universally viewed by ancient civilizations as symbols of power, not as the negative or demonic symbols they became for Christians thousands of years later. For example, both Alexander the Great and Attila the Hun were described as wearing horns. Mellinkoff reminds us that horned helmets were often worn by priests and kings, with the horns connoting that divine power and authority had been bestowed upon them.

I can't help wondering why horns were seen as a symbol of power. Several attempts at explanation can be found on the internet, Wikipedia's page on Horned Deities is probably the most reliable and factual. In a nutshell, it appears that horned animals were held in great esteem in ancient times - rams and bulls for instance. The first two zodiac signs (Aries the ram and Taurus the bull) even depict these animals, as do the astrological glyphs for the signs, with associated astrological ages, BC.

 Isis, Goddess of Ancient Egypt

Power and virility were thought to reside in animals' horns - or so the story goes. Ancient warriors are said to have worn helmets bearing the depiction of horns. See HERE. Egypt was likely the source of continuation of an earlier belief, from there spreading through Greece, to Rome and beyond. With the rise of Christianity, though, horns slid into disregard becoming, in time, a pagan symbol of Satan and darkness, even became a common hand symbol for "the cuckold" (index finger and little finger extended, middle fingers bent to palm).

Those explanations, on the face of it, are plausible; something doesn't sit well with me though. Extremely early man could well have held his fellow Earth creatures in high regard, but for such a belief to have bled into later, more sophisticated civilisations, such as those of Egypt and Greece, seems less plausible. But then, I look at this through a 21st century lens. Donning my sci-fi hat (no horns) I could imagine a quite different source: something broadly similar to that Arthur C. Clarke wrote about in a novel I read a few years ago: Childhood's End. Arthur C. Clarke visualised an Earthly memory, surviving in mangled form, from man's earliest hazy days, half-forgotten, half-retained, its source way, way further back in the history of our planet than we are able, currently, to investigate. Fanciful? Sure it is!

Arty Farty Friday - Michelangelo - A Question

The man considered by many to be the greatest sculptor and artist of all, Michelangelo, was born, according to AstroDatabank, while the Sun rolled through zodiac sign Pisces in the year 1475. Why, I'm wondering, have I never featured Michelangelo in these Arty Farty Friday posts before? Ah yes - the old Julian/Gregorian calendar question - as it relates to astrological calculations. I've questioned this in the past (here), but without finding clarification. I do understand the calendar change-over and reasons for it in general. In astrological matters the accurate translation of dates from one calendar to t'other is going to be of extra importance.

"Moses" by Michelangelo

For Michelangelo, born in Italy, on (Julian style) 6 March 1474 - which becomes 1475 Gregorian Calendar because 1 January, not 25 March was turn of year by Gregorian. Several sources for this date, and a time of birth, are quoted in AstroDatabank's page. The change to Gregorian calendar would also transfer 6 March (Julian) to 15 March 1475.
AstroDatabank confirms this, yet proceeds to calculate the natal chart using 6 March. The sources quoted mention that Michelangelo's birth was on a Monday (6 March was a Monday Julian-style), but that would not be the case using Gregorian calendar when 6 March becomes 15 March. I have to suppose that Gregorian calculations are used by today's astrology software, so to find out where the planets were situated on the zodiac at the time Michelangelo was born, wouldn't we have to look at a chart for 15 March ?
I'm puzzled! AstroDatabank's compilers are experts - I'm not arguing with them, but seeking explanation.

For comparison with the chart at AstroDatabank, and out of curiosity, here's a chart set for 15 March 1475, in Caprese, Italy at 1.45AM (data as at AstroDatabank, apart from the day.)

The charts for 6 March and 15 March 1475, throw up what some would consider a crucial difference - Sun in early Aries on 15th rather than Pisces on 6th. I don't see that as any great problem though - Michelangelo was everything Aries is cracked up to be wasn't he? His natal Moon would have been in Cancer rather than Pisces - I'm sure astrologers could live with that - the emotional sensitivity of Water is still there - and in a Cardinal rather than mutable sign. There are still Grand trines linking personal planets to Neptune and/or Uranus.

His rising sign using 15 March would have been Capricorn rather than Sagittarius. I don't see this as a stumbling block, especially as in this chart Moon was very close to Saturn, Capricorn's ruler. I've always considered Capricorn and Saturn emphasis to be very relevant to artists who are drawn towards sculpture, first and foremost - the solidity, strength and hard work involved - as against simply wielding a brush full of paint. Michelangelo shone brightly in paintbrush wielding mode too, of course (Sistine Chapel ceiling etc), but sculpture does seem to have been his true love, and a far rarer skill - to his high standard anyway.

I'd still be interested to know the thinking behind AstroDatabank's choice of dates from which to calculate position of planets in Michelangelo's natal chart. The celestial bodies would surely have been situated in the positions known to us, in later centuries with Gregorian calendar, as 15 March - aren't those the planetary positions we need to be looking at?

I haven't yet come across any astrology-driven blog or website with interpretation of a Michelangelo's natal chart for 15 March (Gregorian). There's mention of Michelangelo's natal chart in an article in a book I have (Best of National Astrological Journal 1933-35). I've mentioned the article before, in different context (see HERE.) What's stated doesn't tie in completely with AstroDatabank's version, or the 15 March chart.

"Michelangelo had Capricorn on the ascendant with the Moon three degrees away. His heavy stone-work, massive sculpture, his diligence in his work and the great length of life all show the influence of Saturn. It is true that he had the Sun and Mars in Pisces in the second house. Manly Hall says that Pisces rules Catholicism, and the Roman Catholic church was certainly Michelangelo's strong outlet."

For me, the plot thickens!

Wandering through some comments/reviews of a Michelangelo biography by Miles J. Unger, published last year, Michelangelo: A Life in Six Masterpieces, I noticed this comment by David Wineberg who had read the biography (I trust he will not mind my using his comment/review here), it might help to throw light on the comparative accuracy of charts for 6 and 15 March...or not.

His life was a constant controversy. He made enemies, he dodged (metaphorical) bullets, and he made art. He was an unpleasant misogynist who ironically adored nothing more than portraying the human body. He was universally recognized as the greatest, within his own lifetime. He lied and embellished, but his art speaks for itself. It all makes for a great read.

He was doubly cursed; he lived in interesting times, and was an interesting character. Michelangelo's greatest achievement was to fuse the artist and his work. That is a huge transition point, centered on Michelangelo in this warts and all biography. Because in addition to taking art in a whole new direction, complementing rather than being subservient to religion, Michelangelo turns out to be arrogant, obnoxious, self-centered, narcissistic, antisocial, overbearing and uncaring about any of it. Despite it all, he was the first superstar of art.

He never married, and there were of course questions about his sexual preferences, what with all those nude males he clearly preferred. He deflected them all by saying his art was all the wife he could handle. Later in life, he risked having close relationships with younger men. He was a drama queen; his favorite tactic was to threaten to quit unless he got everything he wanted. And he quit often anyway. He was a notorious abandoner, starting projects and never completing them. There are far more of them than completed works.

Despite abusing his body with little food, minimal rest, and zero care, he lived into his eighties. He outlived nine popes, and worked with five of them. They were often personal friends of his from childhood, which allowed him to be even more arrogant and petulant than he would otherwise. He seemed to have written it all down in letters and poems, and it is juicily reproduced here. This biography is as flesh and blood as Michelangelo's sculptures and paintings, a fitting framework if ever there was one. (David Wineberg)

I guess it matters not a jot, really, which natal chart is more accurate, as far as Michelangelo's genius is concerned, that's a given. Astrologers (and annoyances like me) are the only set of people who will care about position of the planets as this seminal artistic genius was released into the world.

 Rachel and Leah by Michelangelo