The Fault Is Not in Our Stars 65Was there much truth in the unflattering description of Wallenstein’s
character in Kepler’s first horoscope? Mann observed that ‘it remained
the accepted portrait of him in his own lifetime and after’, which is –
to an extent – true, but he went on to imply that it was not only
accepted but correct. Kepler, he claimed, ‘had cause to be content with
the likeness he had drawn’, but how, he asked, ‘could Kepler know?’
Nevertheless Mann also noted clear inaccuracies, and he added: ‘He
oppressed those beneath him rather less harshly than others of his class.
He was not a hard-hearted wretch. His conversation ... could be ami-
able, not to say easy-going and jovial.’ The evidence in contemporary
accounts is likewise ambiguous. Thus Khevenhüller, an Imperial diplo-
mat and ambassador during Emperor Ferdinand II’s reign, of which he
wrote a history, described Wallenstein as ‘a profound and thoughtful,
active, generous, resourceful and magnanimous gentleman, though
with a hard and rough nature’, which another otherwise critical con-
temporary observer qualified by noting that ‘his customary manner is
more artificially than naturally brusque’. Mann suggested on the one
hand that Wallenstein took Kepler’s character analysis so much to heart
that it had a ‘formative effect’ on him, and on the other that the details
of the horoscope may have leaked out and become ‘the original of what
for centuries was written about Wallenstein’.^26 Both views probably con-
siderably exaggerate its importance. The truth is more likely to be found
in the well-known observation that history tends to be written by the
victors, in this case Wallenstein’s enemies, just as Shakespeare’s picture
of Richard III was based on the accounts of Tudor historians. No doubt
Wallenstein did from time to time display some of the characteristics
attributed to him by the traditional picture – as indeed most people do
to a greater or lesser extent – but it is wise to be suspicious of such an
extreme and one-sided presentation when there is other and arguably
better evidence suggesting a more moderate view of his character.
It remains to ask how the idea that Wallenstein was obsessed with
astrology became so widespread and firmly entrenched, both towards
the end of his life and in subsequent histories. Certainly he himself was
not the source. Wallenstein was a prolific correspondent and a large
number of his letters have survived in the archives, but the surprising
thing is not how often but how seldom astrology is mentioned in them.
Most of the significant cases have already been referred to this chapter,
and although these have often been quoted by biographers as though
they were examples and the tip of the iceberg, in fact there is little more.
A modern doctoral study of Wallenstein’s astrology identified only
four significant references in his own correspondence (some of them