Footnotes:[1]Sir Isaac Newton has the following remarks in regard to the origin of Astrology:—“After the study of Astronomy was set on foot for the use of navigation, and the Ægyptians, by the heliacal risings and settings of the stars, had determined the length of the solar year of 365 days, and by other observations had fixed the solstices, and formed the fixed stars into asterisms, all which was done in the reigns of Ammon, Sesac, Orus, and Memnon,” (about 1000 years before Christ), “it may be presumed that they continued to observe the motions of the planets, for they called them after the names of their gods; and Nechepsos, or Nicepsos, King of Sais,” (772b.c.), “by the assistance of Petosiris, a priest of Ægypt, invented astrology, grounding it upon the aspects of the planets, and the qualities of the men and women to whom they were dedicated;† and in the beginning of the reign of Nabonassar, King of Babylon, about which time the Æthiopians, under Sabacon, invaded Ægypt” (751b.c.), “those Ægyptians who fled from him to Babylon, carried thither the Ægyptian year of 365 days, and the study of astronomy and astrology, and founded the æra of Nabonassar, dating it from the first year of that king’s reign” (747b.c.), “and beginning the year on the same day with the Ægyptians for the sake of their calculations. So Diodorus: ‘they say that the Chaldæan in Babylon, being colonies of the Ægyptians, became famous for astrology, having learned it from the priests of Ægypt.’”—Newton’s Chronology, pp. 251, 252.Again, in p. 327: “The practice of observing the stars began in Ægypt in the days of Ammon, as above, and was propagated from thence, in the reign of his son Sesac, into Afric, Europe, and Asia, by conquest; and then Atlas formed the sphere of the Libyans” (956b.c.), “and Chiron that of the Greeks (939b.c.); and the Chaldæans also made a sphere of their own. But astrology was invented in Ægypt by Nichepsos, or Necepsos, one of the Kings of the Lower Ægypt, and Petosiris his priest, a little before the days of Sabacon, and propagated thence into Chaldæa, where Zoroaster, the legislator of the Magi, met with it: so Paulinus;‘Quique magos docuit mysteria vana Necepsos.’”The arcana of Astrology constituted a main feature in the doctrines of the Persian Magi; and it further appears, by Newton’s Chronology, p. 347, that Zoroaster (although the æra of his life has been erroneously assigned to various remoter periods) lived in the reign of Darius Hystaspis, about 520b.c., and assisted Hystaspes, the father of Darius, in reforming the Magi, of whom the said Hystaspes was Master. Newton adds, p. 352, that “about the same time with Hystaspes and Zoroaster, lived also Ostanes, another eminent Magus: Pliny places him under Darius Hystaspis, and Suidas makes him the follower of Zoroaster: he came into Greece with Xerxes about 480b.c., and seems to be the Otanes of Herodotus. In his book, called the Octateuchus, he taught the same doctrine of the Deity as Zoroaster.”Having quoted thus far from Newton, it seems proper to subjoin the following extract from the “Ancient Universal History:”—“In the reign of Gushtasp” (the oriental name of Darius Hystaspis), “King of Persia, flourished a celebrated astrologer, whose name was Gjamasp, surnamed Al Hakim, or the wise. The most credible writers say that he was the brother of King Gushtasp, and his confidant and chief minister. He is said to have predicted the coming of the Messiah; and some treatises under his name are yet current in the East. Dr. Thomas Hyde, in speaking of this philosopher, cites a passage from a very ancient author, having before told us that this author asserted there had been among the Persians ten doctors of such consummate wisdom as the whole world could not boast the like. He then gives the author’s words: ‘Of these, the sixth was Gjamasp, an astrologer, who was counsellor to Hystaspis. He is the author of a book intitledJudicia Gjamaspis, in which is contained his judgment on the planetary conjunctions. And therein he gave notice that Jesus should appear; that Mohammed should be born; that the Magian religion should be abolished, etc.; nor did any astrologer ever come up to him.’ (E. lib. Mucj. apud Hyde.) Of this book there is an Arabic version, the title of which runs thus: The Book of the Philosopher Gjamasp, containing Judgments on the Grand Conjunctions of the Planets, and on the Events produced by them. This version was made by Lali; the title he gave it in Arabic was Al Keranai, and he published ita.d.1280. In the preface of his version it is said that, after the times of Zoroaster, or Zerdusht, reigned Gushtasp, the son of Lohrasp,†† a very powerful prince; and that in his reign flourished in the city of Balch, on the borders of Chorassan, a most excellent philosopher, whose name was Gjamasp, author of this book; wherein is contained an account of all the great conjunctions of the planets which had happened before his time, and which were to happen in succeeding ages; and wherein the appearances of new religions and the rise of new monarchies were exactly set down. This author, throughout his whole piece, styles Zerdusht, or Zoroaster, our Prophet. (D’Herbelot, Bibl. Orient. Art. Gjamasp.) The notion of predicting the rise and progress of religions from the grand conjunctions of the planets, has been likewise propagated in our western parts: Cardan was a bold assertor of this doctrine. The modern Persians are still great votaries of astrology, and although they distinguish between it and astronomy, they have but one word to express astronomer and astrologer; viz.manegjim, which is exactly equivalent to the Greek word αςτρολογος. Of all the provinces of Persia, Chorassan is the most famous for producing great men in that art; and in Chorassan there is a little town called Genabed, and in that town a certain family which, for 6 or 700 years past, has produced the most famous astrologers in Persia; and the king’s astrologer is always either a native of Genabed, or one brought up there. Sir John Chardin affirms that the appointments in his time for these sages amounted to six millions of French livres per annum.—Albumazar of Balch scholar of Alkendi, a Jew, who was professor of judicial astrology at Bagdad, in the Caliphate of Almamoum††† became wonderfully famous. He wrote expressly from the Persian astrologers, and it may be from the works of Gjamasp, since he also reports a prediction of the coming of Christ in the following words: viz. ‘In the sphere of Persia, saith Aben Ezra, there ariseth upon the face of the sign Virgo a beautiful maiden, she holding two ears of corn in her hand, and a child in her arm: she feedeth him, and giveth him suck, &c. This maiden,’ saith Albumazar, ‘we call Adrenedefa, the pure Virgin. She bringeth up a child in a place which is called Abrie (the Hebrew land), and the child’s name is called Eisi (Jesus).’ This made Albertus Magnus believe that our Saviour, Christ, was born in Virgo; and therefore Cardinal Alliac, erecting our Lord’s nativity by his description, casteth this sign into the horoscope. But the meaning of Albumazar was, saith Friar Bacon, that the said virgin was born, the Sun being in that sign, and so it is noted in the calendar; and that she was to bring up her son in the Hebrew land. (Mr. John Gregory’s Notes on various Passages of Scripture.)”—Ancient Universal History, vol. 5, pp. 415 to 419.† It is maintained by astrologers, that the planets,having been observedto produce certain effects, wereconsequentlydedicated to the several personages whose names they respectively bear.†† This caliph reigned in the earlier part of the 9th century, and caused Ptolemy’s Great Construction to be translated into Arabic, as hereafter mentioned.††† This seems to be a mistake of the Arabian author, for Gushtasp was identical with Darius Hystaspis, and Lohrasp (otherwise Cyaxares) was father of Darius the Mede, who was overcome by Cyrus, 536b.c.—See Newton.[2]To this view of the case, the following remarks seem not inapplicable: they are taken from a periodical work of deserved reputation:—“The study of astrology itself, as professing to discover, by celestial phenomena, future mutations in the elements and terrestrial bodies, ought, perhaps, not to be despised.† The theory of the tides, for example, is altogether an astrological doctrine, and, long before the days of Sir Isaac Newton, was as well understood as it is at this moment. The correspondence alleged by the ancient physicians to exist between the positions of the Moon and the stages of various diseases, is so far from being rejected by the modern faculty, that it has been openly maintained.”†† The writer then recounts sundry incidents, asserted by the astrologers to be dependent on the Moon, and he adds these words: “The fact of these allegations might be so easily ascertained, that it is surprising they should still be pronounced incredible, anddeniedrather thancontradicted.”† “Sir Christopher Heydon’s Defence of Astrology, p. 2, edit. 1603.”†† “Dr. Mead on the Influence of the Sun and Moon upon Human Bodies. See also Edinb. Rev. vol. 12, p. 36—Balfour on Sol-Lunar Influence.”Blackwood’s Magazine for Dec., 1821, Part 2, No. 59.[3]In the 51st No. of the Quarterly Review, Art. “Astrology and Alchymy,” the following observations are made:—“Certainly, if man may ever found his glory on the achievements of his wisdom, he may reasonably exult in the discoveries of astronomy; but the knowledge which avails us has been created solely by the absurdities which it has extirpated. Delusion became the basis of truth. Horoscopes and nativities have taught us to place the planet in its sure and silent path; and the acquirements which, of all others, now testify the might of the human intellect, derived their origin from weakness and credulity” (p. 181). Again; “Astrology, like alchymy, derives no protection from sober reason; yet, with all its vanity and idleness, it was not a corrupting weakness. Tokens, predictions, prognostics, possess a psychological reality. All events are but the consummation of preceding causes, clearly felt, but not distinctly apprehended. When the strain is sounded, the most untutored listener can tell that it will end with the key-note, though he cannot explain why each successive bar must at last lead to the concluding chord. The omen embodies the presentiment, and receives its consistency from our hopes or fears.” (p. 208).It may, perhaps, be difficult to assent to all of the propositions involved in these extracts; but there are among them some which are clearly unquestionable.[4]This edition was printed in double columns, one containing Proclus’s Greek Paraphrase, the other the Latin translation of Leo Allatius; and William Lilly (no light authority in these matters) thus wrote of it in the year 1647: “Indeed Ptolemy hath been printed in folio, in quarto, in octavo, in sixteens: that lately printed at Leyden” (where cthe Elzevirs were established) “I conceive to be most exact; it was performed by Allatius.” To the said edition is prefixed an anonymous address to the reader, in Latin, and to the following effect:—“I have reckoned it part of my duty to give you, benevolent reader, some short information as to the publication of this little work, which, having hitherto existed only in Greek,† is now, in its Latin dress, accessible to the curiosity of all persons. This Paraphrase of Proclus on the Tetrabiblos of Ptolemy was translated a few years ago by Leo Allatius, a Greek by birth, eminently skilled in the learning of his own nation, as well as in Latin literature, and already celebrated for other writings in both languages. He lives, I have understood, in Rome, in the family of Cardinal Biscia, and holds some office in the Vatican Library. He undertook his present work, however, for his own private gratification, and that of certain friends; but when writings compiled with this view have once quitted their author’s hands, it will often happen that they have also, at the same time, escaped his control. So this offspring of Allatius, having emerged from Rome, arrived at Venice, from whence it was forwarded to me by a certain great personage of illustrious rank, in order that I might cause it to be printed. The names of Ptolemy and Proclus, so celebrated among mathematicians and philosophers, besides the subject of the work itself, seemed to me a sufficient warrant for committing it to the press. Whereupon I delayed not to avail myself of the advantages I possessed in having access to our excellent and most accurate typographers, the Elzevirs, and I earnestly solicited them to publish it: they, in their love for the commonwealth of letters, took upon themselves the charge of printing it in the form you see. You will learn from it, inquisitive Reader, how much power the stars have over the atmosphere and all sublunary things: for the stars, and those brighter bodies of heaven, must not be imagined to be idle. The whole doctrine of the stars is not, however, here treated of, but only that distinct part of it which the Greeks call judicial and prognostic, and which, while confined within certain limits is as entertaining as it is useful, and is partly considered to be agreeable to nature. But should it pretend to subject to the skies such things as do not depend thereupon, and should it invite us to foresee by the stars such things as are above the weakness of our apprehension, it will assuredly deserve to be reprehended as a vain and empty art, which has been demonstrated in many learned books by the great Picus of Mirandola. The Chaldæans, Genethliacs, and Planetarians, have been always held in disrepute, because they professed to know not only more than they actually did know, but also more than is allowed to man to know. Even Ptolemy, while he employs himself in his present work upon the Doctrine of Nativities, is scarcely free from the charge of superstition and vanity: perhaps, in a Pagan, this may be forgiven; but it is hardly to be tolerated, that persons professing Christianity should be led away by such an empty study, in which there is no solid utility, and the whole pleasure of which is puerile. Finally, I warn you that some persons doubt whether this was really produced by Ptolemy††: nevertheless, it has certainly appeared to Porphyry and Proclus (who were doubtless great philosophers, although hostile to the Christian faith) to be worthy of receiving elucidation by their Commentaries upon it.††† Peruse it, however, friendly reader, with caution, having first shaken off the weakness of credulity, for the sinew of wisdom is not to believe rashly. Farewell.”In addition to the remarks made in the foregoing address regarding Leo Allatius, it may be observed that he was appointed Keeper of the Vatican Library by Pope Alexander VII, with whom he was in high favour. It is said of him, that he had a pen with which he had written Greek for forty years, and that he shed tears on losing it. Another story of him states, that the Pope had often urged him to take holy orders, that he might be advanced in the church, and one day asked him why he had not done so: “Because,” said Allatius, “I would be free to marry.”—“Why, then, do you not marry?”—“Because I would be free to take orders.”—Chalmer’s Biographical Dictionary.† This assertion is applicable only to Proclus’s Paraphrase. There were several prior translations of the original Tetrabiblos in Latin and Arabic; and it appears by an extract from the Bibliotheca Græca of Fabricius (which will be found in a subsequent page), that a Latin version, done from the Arabic, was printed at Venice as early as the year 1493.†† The reader is again referred to the extract from Fabricius (inserted in a subsequent page), containing that learned person’s account of this book among the other works of Ptolemy.††† Their Commentaries were printed at Basle, in 1559.[5]This translation from the Perugio press has been serviceable in presenting certain various readings; but it does not seem to possess any other peculiar merit. It professes to be a translation from the original text of Ptolemy; and so likewise does the translation printed at Basle, as above quoted.[6]It appears by the printed works of this author, that he was named Didacus Placidus de Titis. He was a native of Bologna, by profession a monk, and was styled Mathematician to the Archduke Leopold William of Austria. He wrote in the earlier part of the 17th century, and his work, now cited, is considered to contain the most successful application of Ptolemy’s astrological rules to practice. The original is extremely scarce; but a new English edition, by Cooper, may be had of the Publishers of this work.[7]Printed at Basle, 1541.[8]Chalmer’s Biographical Dictionary.[9]In France, about the beginning of the 16th century, Oronce Finé, the Royal Reader, attempted, under the patronage of Francis I, to produce an astronomical clock, in which everything moved according to the principles of Ptolemy. It was kept, about fifty years ago, in the monastery of St. Geneviéve, at Paris. In Lilly’s Catalogue of Astrological Authors, Orontius Finæus is mentioned as the writer of a work on the twelve houses of heaven, printed in Paris, 1553.[10]Spectacle de la Nature.[11]The objection which has been urged against astrology, that the signs are continually moving from their positions, cannot invalidate this conclusion. That objection has, in fact, no real existence; for Ptolemy seems to have been aware of this motion of the signs, and has fully provided for it in the 25th Chapter of the 1st Book of the Tetrabiblos. From that chapter it is clear that the respective influences he ascribes to the twelve signs (or divisions of the zodiac) were considered by him as appurtenant to theplacesthey occupied, and not to thestarsof which they were composed. He has expressly and repeatedly declared that the point of the vernal equinox is ever the beginning of the zodiac, and that the 30 degrees following it ever retain the same virtue as that which he has in this work attributed to Aries, although the stars forming Aries may have quitted those degrees: the next 30 degrees are still be accounted as Taurus, and so of the rest. There is abundant proof throughout the Tetrabiblos, that Ptolemy considered the virtues of theconstellationsof the zodiac distinctly from those of thespacesthey occupied.[12]The French say 813, but 827 is the date given by English chronologists.[13]This scientific man was a Mathurine Friar, and a professor in the University of Paris: he died in 1256. It is pointed out in the Edinburgh Review, No. 68, that he was a native of Yorkshire, and his real name John Holywood, euphonized, in Paris, into Sacrobosco.[14]Chalmers.—The Tetrabiblos was among these works.[15]To such readers as may be curious to know in what manner this book was promulgated in Europe, after the revival of letters, the following extract from the Bibliotheca Græca of Fabricius will furnish information:—“Lib. IV. Cap. XIV. §4. Τετραβιβλος, Συνταξις ΜαθηματικηQuadripartitum, sive quatuor libri de apotelesmatibus et judiciis astrorum, ad Syrum(h). Græce primum editi aJoachimo Camerario, cum versione suâ duorum priorum librorum, et præcipuorum e reliquis locorum. Norimb. 1535, 4to.—Hinc cum versionePhil.Melancthonis, qui in præfat, ad Erasmum Ebnerum Senatorem Norimbergensem testatur se editionem Camerarii multis mendis purgasse, tum numeros in locis apheticis tam Græci quam Latini textus emendasse. Basil, 1553; 8vo.—Latinepridem verteratÆgidius Tebaldinus, sive latino-barbaré ex Hispanica versione, Alfonsi Castellæ Regis jussu, ex Arabico (i) confectâ. Vertit etAntonius Gogava, Lovan. 1548, 4to; Patavii, 1658, 12mo; Pragæ, 1610, 12mo. Commentario illustravitHieron. Cardanusprioribus duobus libris Camerarii, posterioribus Gogavæ versione servatâ, Basil, 1554, fol.; 1579, fol.; Lugd. 1555, 8vo, et in Cardani opp.—Georgii Vallæcommentarius, anno 1502 editus, nihil aliud est, quam Latina versio scholiorum Græcorum, sive exegeseos jejunæDemophiliin tetrabiblon, quæ cumPorphyriisiveAntiochiisagoge, Græce et Latine, additaHieron Wolfiiversione, lucem vidit Basil. 1559, his scholiis Dorotheus allegatur, p. 48, 110, et 139; Cleopatra, p. 88; Porphyrius Philosophus, p. 169. Meminit et auctor Petosiridis ac Necepso, p. 112:—λεγει δε παλαιον τον Νεχεψω (ita leg, pro χεψω ut p. 112) και Πετοσιριν, ουτοι χαρ πρωτοι το δι αςρολογιας εχηπλωσαν προγνωςικον† Paraphrasin tetrabibli aProcloconcinnatam Græce edidit Melancthon, Basil. 1554, 8vo. Græce et Latine cum versione suâLeo Allatius, Lugd. Batav. 1654,†† 8vo. Locum Ptolemæi e codice Græco MS. in collegio Corporis Christi Oxon, feliciter restituit Seldenus, p. 35 ad Marmora Arundeliana. Haly Heben Rodoan Arabis commentarium laudat Cardanus, cum Demophilo Latine editum.”“(h) Schol. Græc.—Προσφωνει τω Συρω ο Πτολεμαιος το βιβλιον, προς ον και τας αλλας αντου πασας πραγματειας προσφωνησεν. Λεγουσι δε τινες ως πεπλαςαι αυτο το του Συρω ονομα. Αλλοι δε οτι ον πεπλαςαι, αλλ’ ιατρος ην ουτος αχθεις και δια τουτων των μαθηματων.”“(i) Selden. Uxor Hebr. p. 342. Cæterum de Alphonsi Regis curâ in promovenda Arabica Quadripartiti versione, vide, si placet, Nic: Antonium in Bibl. veteri Hispana, t. 2, p. 55, vel Acta Erud. A. 1697, p. 302. Latino versio ex Arabico facta lucem vidit Venet, 1493, fol. Viderit porro Gassendus qui in Philosophia Epicuri, ubi contra Astrologos disputat. t. 2, p. 501, contendit tetrabiblon indignum esse Ptolemæi genio et subdititum. Equidem Jo. Pico judice, l. 1, contra Astrologos, p. 285, Ptolemæusmalorumsive Apotelesmaticorum estoptimus.”† “Nechepsos and Petosiris are anciently spoken of, for they first explained prognostication by Astrology.”†† This was perhaps a reprint of the edition of 1635, from which the present translation has been made; unless there may have been an error of the press in stating 1654 instead of 1635, which seems probable, as the edition of 1635 is unnoticed by Fabricius.[16]It will be seen by the preceding note, that Proclus’s Paraphrase of the Tetrabiblos should properly be considered as superior to the other readings of that book; since it appears, on the authority of Fabricius, that Melancthon, after having been at the pains of correcting and republishing, in 1553 (with his own emendations), the edition of Camerarius, containing the reputed original text, still deemed it advisible, in the following year, to edit Proclus’s Paraphrase. This Paraphrase must, therefore, necessarily have had claims to his attention not found in the text he had previously edited.†† “Ptolemy addresses the book to Syrus, to whom he has also addressed all his other treatises. Some say that this name of Syrus was feigned; others, that it was not feigned, but that he was a physician, and educated in these sciences.”[17]Chalmer’s Biographical Dictionary.[18]It will, of course, be understood that this Commentary is distinct from his Paraphrase, now translated.[19]The Almagest, orMagna Constructio.[20]The following extract from an old geographical work, framed on the rules of Ptolemy, explains the system on which this action of the æther is made to depend:—“Chap. 2. The world is divided into two parts, the elemental region and the æthereal. The elemental region is constantly subject to alteration, and comprises the four elements; earth, water, air and fire. The æthereal region, which philosophers call the fifth essence, encompasses, by its concavity, the elemental; its substance remains always unvaried, and consists of ten spheres; of which the greater one always spherically environs the next smaller, and so on in consecutive order. First, therefore, around the sphere of fire,God, the creator of the world, placed the sphere of the Moon, then that of Mercury, then that of Venus, then that of the Sun, and afterwards those of Mars, of Jupiter, and of Saturn. Each of these spheres, however, contains but one star: and these stars, in passing through the zodiac, always struggle against theprimum mobile, or the motion of the tenth sphere; they are also entirely luminous. In the next place follows the firmament, which is the eighth or starry sphere, and which trembles or vibrates (trepidat) in two small circles at the beginning of Aries and Libra (as placed in the ninth sphere); this motion is called by astronomers the motion of the access and recess of the fixed stars.” (Probably in order to account for the procession of the equinoxes.) “This is surrounded by the ninth sphere, called the chrystalline or watery heaven, because no star is discovered in it. Lastly, theprimum mobile, styled also the tenth sphere, encompasses all the before-mentioned æthereal spheres, and is continually turned upon the poles of the world, by one revolution in twenty-four hours, from the east through the meridian to the west, again coming round to the east. At the same time, it rolls all the inferior spheres round with it, by its own force; and there is no star in it. Against thisprimum mobile, the motion of the other spheres, running from the west through the meridian to the east, contends. Whatever is beyond this, is fixed and immovable, and the professors of our orthodox faith affirm it to be the empyrean heaven whichGodinhabits with the elect.”—Cosmographia of Peter Apianus (named Benewitz), dedicated to the Archbishop of Salzburg, edited by Gemma Frisius, and printed at Antwerp 1574.[21]It will be recollected that the Ptolemaic astronomy attributes motion and a regular course to those stars which we now call fixed, but which the Greeks merely termed απλανεις,undeviating.[22]There seems reason to suppose that this was a favourite speculation among the ancients. In Scipio’s Dream, as related by Cicero, the phantom of his illustrious grandfather is made to speak of this entire return of all the celestial bodies to some original position which they once held, as being the completion of the revolution of one great universal year: and the phantom adds, “but I must acquaint you that not one-twentieth part of that great year has been yet accomplished.”This quotation is from memory, and perhaps may not be verbally correct.[23]In this passage the author seems to have anticipated, and exposed the absurdity of an argument now considered very forcible against astrology: viz. that “if the art were true, then any two individuals born under the same meridian, in the same latitude, and at the same moment of time, must have one and the same destiny; although one were born a prince, and the other a mendicant.” Such a monstrous conclusion is nowhere authorized by any astrological writer; it is, on the contrary, always maintained by all of them, that the worldly differences and distinctions, alluded to in the text, inevitably prevent this exact resemblance of destiny; and all that they presume to assert is, that, in their respective degrees, any two individuals, so born, will have a partial similarity in the leading features of their fate. Whether their assertion isuniformlyborne out, I will not take upon me to determine, but it would be unfair not to subjoin the following fact:—In the newspapers of the month of February, 1820, the death of a Mr. Samuel Hemmings is noticed: it was stated that he had been an ironmonger, and prosperous in trade; that he was born on the 4th of June, 1738, at nearly the same moment as his late Majesty, and in the same parish of St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields; that he went into business for himself in October, 1760; that he married on the 8th September, 1761; and finally, after other events of his life had resembled those which happened to the late King, that he died on Saturday, the 29th January, 1820.These coincidences are, at least, highly remarkable.[24]The Greek word for this, γοναι, though found in the Elzevir edition from which this translation is made, does not appear in other copies; the Basle edition of 1553 says merely, η τε τιμη και το αξιωμα, “honour and rank,” which is the sense also given in the Latin translation of Perugio, 1646, without any mention of “offspring.”[25]In allusion to the sympathetic powers anciently attributed to certain stones.[26]Whalley, in translating this chapter, makes the following remark on this mention of the magnet: “However much later it was that the loadstone became known in Europe, what is mentioned of it in this chapter makes it evident that it was known in Ægypt, where Ptolemy lived, in his time.”—That worthy translator forgot (if indeed he ever knew) that the loadstone’s property of attracting iron was known to Thales, and commented on by Plato and Aristotle, all of whom lived some centuries, more or less, before Ptolemy. It is its polarity that was not known until the 11th or 12th century; and the French say that the earliest notice of that polarity is found in a poem of Guyot of Provence, who was at the Emperor Frederick’s Court at Mentz in 1181.—See the French Encyclopædia, &c.[27]Respecting the effect here asserted to be produced on the magnet by garlick, I have found the following mention in a book called “The Gardener’s Labyrinth,” printed at London in 1586. “Here also I thought not to ouerpasse the maruellous discord of the adamant-stone and garlike, which the Greeks name to be an Antipatheia or naturall contrarietie betweene them; for such is the hatred or contrarietie between these two bodies (lacking both hearing and feeling), that the adamant rather putteth away, than draweth to it, iron, if the same afore be rubbed with garlike; as Plutarchus hath noted, and, after him, Claudius Ptolemæus. Which matter, examined by divers learned, and founde the contrarie, caused them to judge, that those skilful men (especially Ptolemie) ment the same to be done with the Egyptian Garlike; which Dioscorides wrote to be small garlike, and the same sweete in taste, possessing a bewtifull head, tending unto a purple colour. There be which attribute the same to Ophioscoridon, which Antonius Microphonius Biturix, a singular learned man, and wel practised in sundry skilles, uttered this approoued secrete to a friend whom he loued.”In the same book, the “Ophioscoridon” is thus spoken of: “There is another wild garlike which the Greeks name Ophioscoridon; in English Ramsies; growing of the owne accord in the fallow fieldes.”Cornelius Agrippa (according to the English translation) has stated that the presence of the diamond also neutralizes the attractive power of the magnet. But as that great magician was somewhat inclined to quibbling, it is not impossible that by the word he uses for “diamond” (viz.adamas) he may mean the adamant or loadstone; which would reduce his assertion merely to this, that one magnet will counteract another.[28]This seems to explain the origin of the old alliance between medicine and astrology, so universally preserved until almost within the last century.[29]It will be recollected that the Ptolemaic hypothesis considers the Sun as a planetary orb, in consequence of his apparent progress through the zodiac.[30]“Astronomers call the planets matutine, when, being oriental from the Sun, they are above the earth when he rises; and vespertine, when they set after him.” Moxon’s Mathematical Dictionary.[31]Whalley here appends the following note: “To this chapter may be properly added, that a planet is said to be diurnal, when, in a diurnal nativity, above the earth; and, in a nocturnal nativity, under the earth: but nocturnal, when, in a nocturnal nativity, above the earth; or, in a diurnal nativity, under the earth.”[32]Although all the positions mentioned in this paragraph are not applicable to Venus and Mercury, which can never rise at night, that is to say, at sunset, and although the author in the beginning of the chapter speaks only of the Moon and the three superior planets, there yet seems no reason why the orbits of Venus and Mercury should not be similarly divided by their inferior and superior conjunctions, and their greatest elongations.The following is from Whalley: “The first station, in this chapter mentioned, is when a planet begins to be retrograde; and the second station when, from retrogradation, a planet becomes direct. They” (the planets) “begin to rise at night when in opposition to the Sun.”[33]The little Torch; now known by the name of Aldebaran.[34]Castor.[35]Pollux.[36]Cor Leonis.[37]Called by the ancients χηλαι, Chelæ, or theclawsof Scorpio; which sign they made to consist of 60 degrees, omitting Libra. Thus Virgil in the first Georgic, line 33, &c.Quo locus Erigonen inter, Chelasque sequentesPanditur: ipse tibi jam brachia contrahit ardensScorpius, et cœli justâ plus parte reliquit.Ovid, likewise, takes the following notice of Scorpio:—Porrigit in spatium signorum membra duorum.Met.2, l. 198.[38]Adams’s Treatise on the Globes calls this star “Kalb al Akrab, or the Scorpion’s heart,” and adds, that “the word Antares (if it is not a corruption) has no signification.” But it should be observed that Ptolemy states that this star partakes of the nature of Mars: it seems therefore not improbable that Antares may be a regular Greek word, compounded of αντιproand αρηςMars, and signifyingMars’s deputy, orlieutenant, orone acting for Mars.[39]Salmon, in his “Horæ Mathematicæ, or Soul of Astrology” (printed by Dawks, 1679) divides each sign of the zodiac into six faces of five degrees each, “because that in every sign there are various stars of differing natures”; and he gives a particular description to each face, depending on its ascension or culmination. This seems an attempt to adapt Ptolemy’s signification of the several stars, composing the different signs, to some general rule or mode of judgment: but it does not merit the implicit assent of astrologers. It is understood that Salmon was not the inventor of this division of the signs into faces, but that it came originally from the Arabian schools.[40]Canis Minor.[41]“Of the fixed stars in general,” Whalley says, “Those of the greatest magnitude are the most efficacious; and those in, or near, the ecliptic, more powerful than those more remote from it. Those with north latitude and declination affect us most. Those in the zenith, influence more than others, more remote. Likewise such as are in partial conjunction with, or in the antiscions of any planets, or which rise and set, or culminate with any planet, or are beheld by any planet, have an increase of power: but of themselves the fixed stars emit no rays.”[42]This sentence shows the futility of the objection raised against astrology (and mentioned in the Preface to this translation) that the signs have changed and are changing places. It is clear from this sentence that Ptolemy ascribes to the 30 degrees after the vernal equinox, that influence which he has herein mentioned to belong to Aries; to the next 30 degrees, the influence herein said to belong to Taurus; and so of the rest of the zodiac. We should rather say that the stars have changed places, than that the parts of heaven, in which they were once situated, have done so. Ptolemy himself seems to have foreseen this groundless objection of the moderns, and has written, in the 25th chapter of this book, what ought completely to have prevented it. It has certainly been one of the misfortunes of astrology to be attacked by people entirely ignorant of its principles.[43]In other words, the Sun then begins to diminish his declination, which, at the first points of the said signs, is at its greatest amount.[44]Whalley, in his note upon this chapter, seems to have been surprised that no mention is made here by Ptolemy of theconjunction; but he overlooked the fact that the chapter treats only of parts of the zodiac configuratedwith each other; and that it was not possible for Ptolemy to conceive how any part could be configuratedwith itself. It is, therefore, by no means wonderful that the conjunction is not inserted here along with the rest of the aspects; although it is frequently adverted to in subsequent chapters, and its efficacy particularly described.[45]From the tenor of this chapter it was formerly doubted whether the author intended to admit in his theory only zodiacal aspects, and to reject those which are called mundane; but Placidus has referred to the 4th Chapter of the 8th Book of the Almagest (which will be found in the Appendix to this translation) to prove that Ptolemy distinctly taught two kinds of aspect; one in the zodiac and one in the world. Whalley quotes the opinion of Placidus, which he says is farther confirmed by the 12th Chapter of the 3rd Book of this very treatise, where it is stated that the ascendant and the eleventh house are in sextile to each other; the ascendant and the mid-heaven in quartile; the ascendant and the ninth house in trine; and the ascendant and the occidental angle in opposition; all which certainly seems to be applicable to mundane aspects in particular.[46]Whalley has a very lengthy note upon this and the preceding chapter, to show that Ptolemy here speaks of zodiacal parallels, or parallels of declination, and to point out the necessity of observing a planet’s latitude, in order to ascertain its true parallels. It is, however, to be recollected, that the parallels now alluded to are distinct from themundane parallels, which are equal distances from the horizon or meridian, and are considered by Ptolemy in the 14th and 15th Chapters of the 3rd Book of this work; although not under the express name of mundane parallels.[47]It has never been very clearly shown how the followers of Ptolemy have reconciled the new aspects (called the semiquadrate, quintile, sesquiquadrate, biquintile, &c.) with thevetopronounced in this chapter. Kepler is said to have invented them, and they have been universally adopted; even Placidus, who has applied Ptolemy’s doctrine to practice better than any other writer, has availed himself of them,† and, if the nativities published by him are to be credited, he has fully established their importance.Salmon, in his “Horæ Mathematicæ,” before-mentioned, gives a long dissertation (from p. 403 to p. 414) on the old Ptolemaic aspects, illustrative of their foundation in nature and in mathematics; and, although his conclusions are not quite satisfactorily drawn, some of his arguments would seem appropriate, if he had but handled them more fully and expertly; particularly where he says that the aspects are derived “from the aliquot parts of a circle, wherein observe that, although the zodiac may have many more aliquot parts than these four (the sextile, quartile, trine, and opposition), yet those other aliquot parts of the circle, or 360 degrees, will not make an aliquot division of the signs also, which in this design was sought to answer, as well in the number 12, as in the number 360.” The passage in which he endeavours to show that they are authorized by their projection, also deserves attention.All Salmon’s arguments, however, in support of the old Ptolemaic aspects, militate against the new Keplerian ones; and so does the following extract from the “Astrological Discourse” of Sir Christopher Heydon: “For thus, amongst all ordinate planes that may be inscribed, there are two whose sides, joined together, have pre-eminence to take up a semicircle, but only the hexagon, quadrate, and equilateral triangle, answering to the sextile, quartile, and trine irradiated. The subtense, therefore, of a sextile aspect consisteth of two signs, which, joined to the subtense of a trine, composed of four, being regular and equilateral, take up six signs, which is a complete semicircle. In like manner, the sides of a quadrate inscribed, subtending three signs, twice reckoned, do occupy likewise the mediety of a circle. And what those figures are before said to perform” (that is, to take up a semicircle) “either doubled or joined together, may also be truly ascribed unto the opposite aspect by itself; for that the diametral line, which passeth from the place of conjunction to the opposite point, divideth a circle into two equal parts: the like whereof cannot be found in any other inscripts; for example, theside of a regular pentagon” (the quintile) “subtendeth 72 degrees, of an octagon” (the semiquadrate) “but 45; the remainders of which arcs, viz. 108 and 135 degrees, are not subtended by the sides of any ordinate figure.”† Except the semiquadrate, which he has not at all noticed.
Footnotes:
[1]Sir Isaac Newton has the following remarks in regard to the origin of Astrology:—“After the study of Astronomy was set on foot for the use of navigation, and the Ægyptians, by the heliacal risings and settings of the stars, had determined the length of the solar year of 365 days, and by other observations had fixed the solstices, and formed the fixed stars into asterisms, all which was done in the reigns of Ammon, Sesac, Orus, and Memnon,” (about 1000 years before Christ), “it may be presumed that they continued to observe the motions of the planets, for they called them after the names of their gods; and Nechepsos, or Nicepsos, King of Sais,” (772b.c.), “by the assistance of Petosiris, a priest of Ægypt, invented astrology, grounding it upon the aspects of the planets, and the qualities of the men and women to whom they were dedicated;† and in the beginning of the reign of Nabonassar, King of Babylon, about which time the Æthiopians, under Sabacon, invaded Ægypt” (751b.c.), “those Ægyptians who fled from him to Babylon, carried thither the Ægyptian year of 365 days, and the study of astronomy and astrology, and founded the æra of Nabonassar, dating it from the first year of that king’s reign” (747b.c.), “and beginning the year on the same day with the Ægyptians for the sake of their calculations. So Diodorus: ‘they say that the Chaldæan in Babylon, being colonies of the Ægyptians, became famous for astrology, having learned it from the priests of Ægypt.’”—Newton’s Chronology, pp. 251, 252.Again, in p. 327: “The practice of observing the stars began in Ægypt in the days of Ammon, as above, and was propagated from thence, in the reign of his son Sesac, into Afric, Europe, and Asia, by conquest; and then Atlas formed the sphere of the Libyans” (956b.c.), “and Chiron that of the Greeks (939b.c.); and the Chaldæans also made a sphere of their own. But astrology was invented in Ægypt by Nichepsos, or Necepsos, one of the Kings of the Lower Ægypt, and Petosiris his priest, a little before the days of Sabacon, and propagated thence into Chaldæa, where Zoroaster, the legislator of the Magi, met with it: so Paulinus;‘Quique magos docuit mysteria vana Necepsos.’”The arcana of Astrology constituted a main feature in the doctrines of the Persian Magi; and it further appears, by Newton’s Chronology, p. 347, that Zoroaster (although the æra of his life has been erroneously assigned to various remoter periods) lived in the reign of Darius Hystaspis, about 520b.c., and assisted Hystaspes, the father of Darius, in reforming the Magi, of whom the said Hystaspes was Master. Newton adds, p. 352, that “about the same time with Hystaspes and Zoroaster, lived also Ostanes, another eminent Magus: Pliny places him under Darius Hystaspis, and Suidas makes him the follower of Zoroaster: he came into Greece with Xerxes about 480b.c., and seems to be the Otanes of Herodotus. In his book, called the Octateuchus, he taught the same doctrine of the Deity as Zoroaster.”Having quoted thus far from Newton, it seems proper to subjoin the following extract from the “Ancient Universal History:”—“In the reign of Gushtasp” (the oriental name of Darius Hystaspis), “King of Persia, flourished a celebrated astrologer, whose name was Gjamasp, surnamed Al Hakim, or the wise. The most credible writers say that he was the brother of King Gushtasp, and his confidant and chief minister. He is said to have predicted the coming of the Messiah; and some treatises under his name are yet current in the East. Dr. Thomas Hyde, in speaking of this philosopher, cites a passage from a very ancient author, having before told us that this author asserted there had been among the Persians ten doctors of such consummate wisdom as the whole world could not boast the like. He then gives the author’s words: ‘Of these, the sixth was Gjamasp, an astrologer, who was counsellor to Hystaspis. He is the author of a book intitledJudicia Gjamaspis, in which is contained his judgment on the planetary conjunctions. And therein he gave notice that Jesus should appear; that Mohammed should be born; that the Magian religion should be abolished, etc.; nor did any astrologer ever come up to him.’ (E. lib. Mucj. apud Hyde.) Of this book there is an Arabic version, the title of which runs thus: The Book of the Philosopher Gjamasp, containing Judgments on the Grand Conjunctions of the Planets, and on the Events produced by them. This version was made by Lali; the title he gave it in Arabic was Al Keranai, and he published ita.d.1280. In the preface of his version it is said that, after the times of Zoroaster, or Zerdusht, reigned Gushtasp, the son of Lohrasp,†† a very powerful prince; and that in his reign flourished in the city of Balch, on the borders of Chorassan, a most excellent philosopher, whose name was Gjamasp, author of this book; wherein is contained an account of all the great conjunctions of the planets which had happened before his time, and which were to happen in succeeding ages; and wherein the appearances of new religions and the rise of new monarchies were exactly set down. This author, throughout his whole piece, styles Zerdusht, or Zoroaster, our Prophet. (D’Herbelot, Bibl. Orient. Art. Gjamasp.) The notion of predicting the rise and progress of religions from the grand conjunctions of the planets, has been likewise propagated in our western parts: Cardan was a bold assertor of this doctrine. The modern Persians are still great votaries of astrology, and although they distinguish between it and astronomy, they have but one word to express astronomer and astrologer; viz.manegjim, which is exactly equivalent to the Greek word αςτρολογος. Of all the provinces of Persia, Chorassan is the most famous for producing great men in that art; and in Chorassan there is a little town called Genabed, and in that town a certain family which, for 6 or 700 years past, has produced the most famous astrologers in Persia; and the king’s astrologer is always either a native of Genabed, or one brought up there. Sir John Chardin affirms that the appointments in his time for these sages amounted to six millions of French livres per annum.—Albumazar of Balch scholar of Alkendi, a Jew, who was professor of judicial astrology at Bagdad, in the Caliphate of Almamoum††† became wonderfully famous. He wrote expressly from the Persian astrologers, and it may be from the works of Gjamasp, since he also reports a prediction of the coming of Christ in the following words: viz. ‘In the sphere of Persia, saith Aben Ezra, there ariseth upon the face of the sign Virgo a beautiful maiden, she holding two ears of corn in her hand, and a child in her arm: she feedeth him, and giveth him suck, &c. This maiden,’ saith Albumazar, ‘we call Adrenedefa, the pure Virgin. She bringeth up a child in a place which is called Abrie (the Hebrew land), and the child’s name is called Eisi (Jesus).’ This made Albertus Magnus believe that our Saviour, Christ, was born in Virgo; and therefore Cardinal Alliac, erecting our Lord’s nativity by his description, casteth this sign into the horoscope. But the meaning of Albumazar was, saith Friar Bacon, that the said virgin was born, the Sun being in that sign, and so it is noted in the calendar; and that she was to bring up her son in the Hebrew land. (Mr. John Gregory’s Notes on various Passages of Scripture.)”—Ancient Universal History, vol. 5, pp. 415 to 419.† It is maintained by astrologers, that the planets,having been observedto produce certain effects, wereconsequentlydedicated to the several personages whose names they respectively bear.†† This caliph reigned in the earlier part of the 9th century, and caused Ptolemy’s Great Construction to be translated into Arabic, as hereafter mentioned.††† This seems to be a mistake of the Arabian author, for Gushtasp was identical with Darius Hystaspis, and Lohrasp (otherwise Cyaxares) was father of Darius the Mede, who was overcome by Cyrus, 536b.c.—See Newton.
[1]Sir Isaac Newton has the following remarks in regard to the origin of Astrology:—“After the study of Astronomy was set on foot for the use of navigation, and the Ægyptians, by the heliacal risings and settings of the stars, had determined the length of the solar year of 365 days, and by other observations had fixed the solstices, and formed the fixed stars into asterisms, all which was done in the reigns of Ammon, Sesac, Orus, and Memnon,” (about 1000 years before Christ), “it may be presumed that they continued to observe the motions of the planets, for they called them after the names of their gods; and Nechepsos, or Nicepsos, King of Sais,” (772b.c.), “by the assistance of Petosiris, a priest of Ægypt, invented astrology, grounding it upon the aspects of the planets, and the qualities of the men and women to whom they were dedicated;† and in the beginning of the reign of Nabonassar, King of Babylon, about which time the Æthiopians, under Sabacon, invaded Ægypt” (751b.c.), “those Ægyptians who fled from him to Babylon, carried thither the Ægyptian year of 365 days, and the study of astronomy and astrology, and founded the æra of Nabonassar, dating it from the first year of that king’s reign” (747b.c.), “and beginning the year on the same day with the Ægyptians for the sake of their calculations. So Diodorus: ‘they say that the Chaldæan in Babylon, being colonies of the Ægyptians, became famous for astrology, having learned it from the priests of Ægypt.’”—Newton’s Chronology, pp. 251, 252.
Again, in p. 327: “The practice of observing the stars began in Ægypt in the days of Ammon, as above, and was propagated from thence, in the reign of his son Sesac, into Afric, Europe, and Asia, by conquest; and then Atlas formed the sphere of the Libyans” (956b.c.), “and Chiron that of the Greeks (939b.c.); and the Chaldæans also made a sphere of their own. But astrology was invented in Ægypt by Nichepsos, or Necepsos, one of the Kings of the Lower Ægypt, and Petosiris his priest, a little before the days of Sabacon, and propagated thence into Chaldæa, where Zoroaster, the legislator of the Magi, met with it: so Paulinus;
‘Quique magos docuit mysteria vana Necepsos.’”
The arcana of Astrology constituted a main feature in the doctrines of the Persian Magi; and it further appears, by Newton’s Chronology, p. 347, that Zoroaster (although the æra of his life has been erroneously assigned to various remoter periods) lived in the reign of Darius Hystaspis, about 520b.c., and assisted Hystaspes, the father of Darius, in reforming the Magi, of whom the said Hystaspes was Master. Newton adds, p. 352, that “about the same time with Hystaspes and Zoroaster, lived also Ostanes, another eminent Magus: Pliny places him under Darius Hystaspis, and Suidas makes him the follower of Zoroaster: he came into Greece with Xerxes about 480b.c., and seems to be the Otanes of Herodotus. In his book, called the Octateuchus, he taught the same doctrine of the Deity as Zoroaster.”
Having quoted thus far from Newton, it seems proper to subjoin the following extract from the “Ancient Universal History:”—“In the reign of Gushtasp” (the oriental name of Darius Hystaspis), “King of Persia, flourished a celebrated astrologer, whose name was Gjamasp, surnamed Al Hakim, or the wise. The most credible writers say that he was the brother of King Gushtasp, and his confidant and chief minister. He is said to have predicted the coming of the Messiah; and some treatises under his name are yet current in the East. Dr. Thomas Hyde, in speaking of this philosopher, cites a passage from a very ancient author, having before told us that this author asserted there had been among the Persians ten doctors of such consummate wisdom as the whole world could not boast the like. He then gives the author’s words: ‘Of these, the sixth was Gjamasp, an astrologer, who was counsellor to Hystaspis. He is the author of a book intitledJudicia Gjamaspis, in which is contained his judgment on the planetary conjunctions. And therein he gave notice that Jesus should appear; that Mohammed should be born; that the Magian religion should be abolished, etc.; nor did any astrologer ever come up to him.’ (E. lib. Mucj. apud Hyde.) Of this book there is an Arabic version, the title of which runs thus: The Book of the Philosopher Gjamasp, containing Judgments on the Grand Conjunctions of the Planets, and on the Events produced by them. This version was made by Lali; the title he gave it in Arabic was Al Keranai, and he published ita.d.1280. In the preface of his version it is said that, after the times of Zoroaster, or Zerdusht, reigned Gushtasp, the son of Lohrasp,†† a very powerful prince; and that in his reign flourished in the city of Balch, on the borders of Chorassan, a most excellent philosopher, whose name was Gjamasp, author of this book; wherein is contained an account of all the great conjunctions of the planets which had happened before his time, and which were to happen in succeeding ages; and wherein the appearances of new religions and the rise of new monarchies were exactly set down. This author, throughout his whole piece, styles Zerdusht, or Zoroaster, our Prophet. (D’Herbelot, Bibl. Orient. Art. Gjamasp.) The notion of predicting the rise and progress of religions from the grand conjunctions of the planets, has been likewise propagated in our western parts: Cardan was a bold assertor of this doctrine. The modern Persians are still great votaries of astrology, and although they distinguish between it and astronomy, they have but one word to express astronomer and astrologer; viz.manegjim, which is exactly equivalent to the Greek word αςτρολογος. Of all the provinces of Persia, Chorassan is the most famous for producing great men in that art; and in Chorassan there is a little town called Genabed, and in that town a certain family which, for 6 or 700 years past, has produced the most famous astrologers in Persia; and the king’s astrologer is always either a native of Genabed, or one brought up there. Sir John Chardin affirms that the appointments in his time for these sages amounted to six millions of French livres per annum.—Albumazar of Balch scholar of Alkendi, a Jew, who was professor of judicial astrology at Bagdad, in the Caliphate of Almamoum††† became wonderfully famous. He wrote expressly from the Persian astrologers, and it may be from the works of Gjamasp, since he also reports a prediction of the coming of Christ in the following words: viz. ‘In the sphere of Persia, saith Aben Ezra, there ariseth upon the face of the sign Virgo a beautiful maiden, she holding two ears of corn in her hand, and a child in her arm: she feedeth him, and giveth him suck, &c. This maiden,’ saith Albumazar, ‘we call Adrenedefa, the pure Virgin. She bringeth up a child in a place which is called Abrie (the Hebrew land), and the child’s name is called Eisi (Jesus).’ This made Albertus Magnus believe that our Saviour, Christ, was born in Virgo; and therefore Cardinal Alliac, erecting our Lord’s nativity by his description, casteth this sign into the horoscope. But the meaning of Albumazar was, saith Friar Bacon, that the said virgin was born, the Sun being in that sign, and so it is noted in the calendar; and that she was to bring up her son in the Hebrew land. (Mr. John Gregory’s Notes on various Passages of Scripture.)”—Ancient Universal History, vol. 5, pp. 415 to 419.
† It is maintained by astrologers, that the planets,having been observedto produce certain effects, wereconsequentlydedicated to the several personages whose names they respectively bear.
†† This caliph reigned in the earlier part of the 9th century, and caused Ptolemy’s Great Construction to be translated into Arabic, as hereafter mentioned.
††† This seems to be a mistake of the Arabian author, for Gushtasp was identical with Darius Hystaspis, and Lohrasp (otherwise Cyaxares) was father of Darius the Mede, who was overcome by Cyrus, 536b.c.—See Newton.
[2]To this view of the case, the following remarks seem not inapplicable: they are taken from a periodical work of deserved reputation:—“The study of astrology itself, as professing to discover, by celestial phenomena, future mutations in the elements and terrestrial bodies, ought, perhaps, not to be despised.† The theory of the tides, for example, is altogether an astrological doctrine, and, long before the days of Sir Isaac Newton, was as well understood as it is at this moment. The correspondence alleged by the ancient physicians to exist between the positions of the Moon and the stages of various diseases, is so far from being rejected by the modern faculty, that it has been openly maintained.”†† The writer then recounts sundry incidents, asserted by the astrologers to be dependent on the Moon, and he adds these words: “The fact of these allegations might be so easily ascertained, that it is surprising they should still be pronounced incredible, anddeniedrather thancontradicted.”† “Sir Christopher Heydon’s Defence of Astrology, p. 2, edit. 1603.”†† “Dr. Mead on the Influence of the Sun and Moon upon Human Bodies. See also Edinb. Rev. vol. 12, p. 36—Balfour on Sol-Lunar Influence.”Blackwood’s Magazine for Dec., 1821, Part 2, No. 59.
[2]To this view of the case, the following remarks seem not inapplicable: they are taken from a periodical work of deserved reputation:—
“The study of astrology itself, as professing to discover, by celestial phenomena, future mutations in the elements and terrestrial bodies, ought, perhaps, not to be despised.† The theory of the tides, for example, is altogether an astrological doctrine, and, long before the days of Sir Isaac Newton, was as well understood as it is at this moment. The correspondence alleged by the ancient physicians to exist between the positions of the Moon and the stages of various diseases, is so far from being rejected by the modern faculty, that it has been openly maintained.”†† The writer then recounts sundry incidents, asserted by the astrologers to be dependent on the Moon, and he adds these words: “The fact of these allegations might be so easily ascertained, that it is surprising they should still be pronounced incredible, anddeniedrather thancontradicted.”
† “Sir Christopher Heydon’s Defence of Astrology, p. 2, edit. 1603.”
†† “Dr. Mead on the Influence of the Sun and Moon upon Human Bodies. See also Edinb. Rev. vol. 12, p. 36—Balfour on Sol-Lunar Influence.”Blackwood’s Magazine for Dec., 1821, Part 2, No. 59.
[3]In the 51st No. of the Quarterly Review, Art. “Astrology and Alchymy,” the following observations are made:—“Certainly, if man may ever found his glory on the achievements of his wisdom, he may reasonably exult in the discoveries of astronomy; but the knowledge which avails us has been created solely by the absurdities which it has extirpated. Delusion became the basis of truth. Horoscopes and nativities have taught us to place the planet in its sure and silent path; and the acquirements which, of all others, now testify the might of the human intellect, derived their origin from weakness and credulity” (p. 181). Again; “Astrology, like alchymy, derives no protection from sober reason; yet, with all its vanity and idleness, it was not a corrupting weakness. Tokens, predictions, prognostics, possess a psychological reality. All events are but the consummation of preceding causes, clearly felt, but not distinctly apprehended. When the strain is sounded, the most untutored listener can tell that it will end with the key-note, though he cannot explain why each successive bar must at last lead to the concluding chord. The omen embodies the presentiment, and receives its consistency from our hopes or fears.” (p. 208).It may, perhaps, be difficult to assent to all of the propositions involved in these extracts; but there are among them some which are clearly unquestionable.
[3]In the 51st No. of the Quarterly Review, Art. “Astrology and Alchymy,” the following observations are made:—
“Certainly, if man may ever found his glory on the achievements of his wisdom, he may reasonably exult in the discoveries of astronomy; but the knowledge which avails us has been created solely by the absurdities which it has extirpated. Delusion became the basis of truth. Horoscopes and nativities have taught us to place the planet in its sure and silent path; and the acquirements which, of all others, now testify the might of the human intellect, derived their origin from weakness and credulity” (p. 181). Again; “Astrology, like alchymy, derives no protection from sober reason; yet, with all its vanity and idleness, it was not a corrupting weakness. Tokens, predictions, prognostics, possess a psychological reality. All events are but the consummation of preceding causes, clearly felt, but not distinctly apprehended. When the strain is sounded, the most untutored listener can tell that it will end with the key-note, though he cannot explain why each successive bar must at last lead to the concluding chord. The omen embodies the presentiment, and receives its consistency from our hopes or fears.” (p. 208).
It may, perhaps, be difficult to assent to all of the propositions involved in these extracts; but there are among them some which are clearly unquestionable.
[4]This edition was printed in double columns, one containing Proclus’s Greek Paraphrase, the other the Latin translation of Leo Allatius; and William Lilly (no light authority in these matters) thus wrote of it in the year 1647: “Indeed Ptolemy hath been printed in folio, in quarto, in octavo, in sixteens: that lately printed at Leyden” (where cthe Elzevirs were established) “I conceive to be most exact; it was performed by Allatius.” To the said edition is prefixed an anonymous address to the reader, in Latin, and to the following effect:—“I have reckoned it part of my duty to give you, benevolent reader, some short information as to the publication of this little work, which, having hitherto existed only in Greek,† is now, in its Latin dress, accessible to the curiosity of all persons. This Paraphrase of Proclus on the Tetrabiblos of Ptolemy was translated a few years ago by Leo Allatius, a Greek by birth, eminently skilled in the learning of his own nation, as well as in Latin literature, and already celebrated for other writings in both languages. He lives, I have understood, in Rome, in the family of Cardinal Biscia, and holds some office in the Vatican Library. He undertook his present work, however, for his own private gratification, and that of certain friends; but when writings compiled with this view have once quitted their author’s hands, it will often happen that they have also, at the same time, escaped his control. So this offspring of Allatius, having emerged from Rome, arrived at Venice, from whence it was forwarded to me by a certain great personage of illustrious rank, in order that I might cause it to be printed. The names of Ptolemy and Proclus, so celebrated among mathematicians and philosophers, besides the subject of the work itself, seemed to me a sufficient warrant for committing it to the press. Whereupon I delayed not to avail myself of the advantages I possessed in having access to our excellent and most accurate typographers, the Elzevirs, and I earnestly solicited them to publish it: they, in their love for the commonwealth of letters, took upon themselves the charge of printing it in the form you see. You will learn from it, inquisitive Reader, how much power the stars have over the atmosphere and all sublunary things: for the stars, and those brighter bodies of heaven, must not be imagined to be idle. The whole doctrine of the stars is not, however, here treated of, but only that distinct part of it which the Greeks call judicial and prognostic, and which, while confined within certain limits is as entertaining as it is useful, and is partly considered to be agreeable to nature. But should it pretend to subject to the skies such things as do not depend thereupon, and should it invite us to foresee by the stars such things as are above the weakness of our apprehension, it will assuredly deserve to be reprehended as a vain and empty art, which has been demonstrated in many learned books by the great Picus of Mirandola. The Chaldæans, Genethliacs, and Planetarians, have been always held in disrepute, because they professed to know not only more than they actually did know, but also more than is allowed to man to know. Even Ptolemy, while he employs himself in his present work upon the Doctrine of Nativities, is scarcely free from the charge of superstition and vanity: perhaps, in a Pagan, this may be forgiven; but it is hardly to be tolerated, that persons professing Christianity should be led away by such an empty study, in which there is no solid utility, and the whole pleasure of which is puerile. Finally, I warn you that some persons doubt whether this was really produced by Ptolemy††: nevertheless, it has certainly appeared to Porphyry and Proclus (who were doubtless great philosophers, although hostile to the Christian faith) to be worthy of receiving elucidation by their Commentaries upon it.††† Peruse it, however, friendly reader, with caution, having first shaken off the weakness of credulity, for the sinew of wisdom is not to believe rashly. Farewell.”In addition to the remarks made in the foregoing address regarding Leo Allatius, it may be observed that he was appointed Keeper of the Vatican Library by Pope Alexander VII, with whom he was in high favour. It is said of him, that he had a pen with which he had written Greek for forty years, and that he shed tears on losing it. Another story of him states, that the Pope had often urged him to take holy orders, that he might be advanced in the church, and one day asked him why he had not done so: “Because,” said Allatius, “I would be free to marry.”—“Why, then, do you not marry?”—“Because I would be free to take orders.”—Chalmer’s Biographical Dictionary.† This assertion is applicable only to Proclus’s Paraphrase. There were several prior translations of the original Tetrabiblos in Latin and Arabic; and it appears by an extract from the Bibliotheca Græca of Fabricius (which will be found in a subsequent page), that a Latin version, done from the Arabic, was printed at Venice as early as the year 1493.†† The reader is again referred to the extract from Fabricius (inserted in a subsequent page), containing that learned person’s account of this book among the other works of Ptolemy.††† Their Commentaries were printed at Basle, in 1559.
[4]This edition was printed in double columns, one containing Proclus’s Greek Paraphrase, the other the Latin translation of Leo Allatius; and William Lilly (no light authority in these matters) thus wrote of it in the year 1647: “Indeed Ptolemy hath been printed in folio, in quarto, in octavo, in sixteens: that lately printed at Leyden” (where cthe Elzevirs were established) “I conceive to be most exact; it was performed by Allatius.” To the said edition is prefixed an anonymous address to the reader, in Latin, and to the following effect:—
“I have reckoned it part of my duty to give you, benevolent reader, some short information as to the publication of this little work, which, having hitherto existed only in Greek,† is now, in its Latin dress, accessible to the curiosity of all persons. This Paraphrase of Proclus on the Tetrabiblos of Ptolemy was translated a few years ago by Leo Allatius, a Greek by birth, eminently skilled in the learning of his own nation, as well as in Latin literature, and already celebrated for other writings in both languages. He lives, I have understood, in Rome, in the family of Cardinal Biscia, and holds some office in the Vatican Library. He undertook his present work, however, for his own private gratification, and that of certain friends; but when writings compiled with this view have once quitted their author’s hands, it will often happen that they have also, at the same time, escaped his control. So this offspring of Allatius, having emerged from Rome, arrived at Venice, from whence it was forwarded to me by a certain great personage of illustrious rank, in order that I might cause it to be printed. The names of Ptolemy and Proclus, so celebrated among mathematicians and philosophers, besides the subject of the work itself, seemed to me a sufficient warrant for committing it to the press. Whereupon I delayed not to avail myself of the advantages I possessed in having access to our excellent and most accurate typographers, the Elzevirs, and I earnestly solicited them to publish it: they, in their love for the commonwealth of letters, took upon themselves the charge of printing it in the form you see. You will learn from it, inquisitive Reader, how much power the stars have over the atmosphere and all sublunary things: for the stars, and those brighter bodies of heaven, must not be imagined to be idle. The whole doctrine of the stars is not, however, here treated of, but only that distinct part of it which the Greeks call judicial and prognostic, and which, while confined within certain limits is as entertaining as it is useful, and is partly considered to be agreeable to nature. But should it pretend to subject to the skies such things as do not depend thereupon, and should it invite us to foresee by the stars such things as are above the weakness of our apprehension, it will assuredly deserve to be reprehended as a vain and empty art, which has been demonstrated in many learned books by the great Picus of Mirandola. The Chaldæans, Genethliacs, and Planetarians, have been always held in disrepute, because they professed to know not only more than they actually did know, but also more than is allowed to man to know. Even Ptolemy, while he employs himself in his present work upon the Doctrine of Nativities, is scarcely free from the charge of superstition and vanity: perhaps, in a Pagan, this may be forgiven; but it is hardly to be tolerated, that persons professing Christianity should be led away by such an empty study, in which there is no solid utility, and the whole pleasure of which is puerile. Finally, I warn you that some persons doubt whether this was really produced by Ptolemy††: nevertheless, it has certainly appeared to Porphyry and Proclus (who were doubtless great philosophers, although hostile to the Christian faith) to be worthy of receiving elucidation by their Commentaries upon it.††† Peruse it, however, friendly reader, with caution, having first shaken off the weakness of credulity, for the sinew of wisdom is not to believe rashly. Farewell.”
In addition to the remarks made in the foregoing address regarding Leo Allatius, it may be observed that he was appointed Keeper of the Vatican Library by Pope Alexander VII, with whom he was in high favour. It is said of him, that he had a pen with which he had written Greek for forty years, and that he shed tears on losing it. Another story of him states, that the Pope had often urged him to take holy orders, that he might be advanced in the church, and one day asked him why he had not done so: “Because,” said Allatius, “I would be free to marry.”—“Why, then, do you not marry?”—“Because I would be free to take orders.”—Chalmer’s Biographical Dictionary.
† This assertion is applicable only to Proclus’s Paraphrase. There were several prior translations of the original Tetrabiblos in Latin and Arabic; and it appears by an extract from the Bibliotheca Græca of Fabricius (which will be found in a subsequent page), that a Latin version, done from the Arabic, was printed at Venice as early as the year 1493.
†† The reader is again referred to the extract from Fabricius (inserted in a subsequent page), containing that learned person’s account of this book among the other works of Ptolemy.
††† Their Commentaries were printed at Basle, in 1559.
[5]This translation from the Perugio press has been serviceable in presenting certain various readings; but it does not seem to possess any other peculiar merit. It professes to be a translation from the original text of Ptolemy; and so likewise does the translation printed at Basle, as above quoted.
[5]This translation from the Perugio press has been serviceable in presenting certain various readings; but it does not seem to possess any other peculiar merit. It professes to be a translation from the original text of Ptolemy; and so likewise does the translation printed at Basle, as above quoted.
[6]It appears by the printed works of this author, that he was named Didacus Placidus de Titis. He was a native of Bologna, by profession a monk, and was styled Mathematician to the Archduke Leopold William of Austria. He wrote in the earlier part of the 17th century, and his work, now cited, is considered to contain the most successful application of Ptolemy’s astrological rules to practice. The original is extremely scarce; but a new English edition, by Cooper, may be had of the Publishers of this work.
[6]It appears by the printed works of this author, that he was named Didacus Placidus de Titis. He was a native of Bologna, by profession a monk, and was styled Mathematician to the Archduke Leopold William of Austria. He wrote in the earlier part of the 17th century, and his work, now cited, is considered to contain the most successful application of Ptolemy’s astrological rules to practice. The original is extremely scarce; but a new English edition, by Cooper, may be had of the Publishers of this work.
[7]Printed at Basle, 1541.
[7]Printed at Basle, 1541.
[8]Chalmer’s Biographical Dictionary.
[8]Chalmer’s Biographical Dictionary.
[9]In France, about the beginning of the 16th century, Oronce Finé, the Royal Reader, attempted, under the patronage of Francis I, to produce an astronomical clock, in which everything moved according to the principles of Ptolemy. It was kept, about fifty years ago, in the monastery of St. Geneviéve, at Paris. In Lilly’s Catalogue of Astrological Authors, Orontius Finæus is mentioned as the writer of a work on the twelve houses of heaven, printed in Paris, 1553.
[9]In France, about the beginning of the 16th century, Oronce Finé, the Royal Reader, attempted, under the patronage of Francis I, to produce an astronomical clock, in which everything moved according to the principles of Ptolemy. It was kept, about fifty years ago, in the monastery of St. Geneviéve, at Paris. In Lilly’s Catalogue of Astrological Authors, Orontius Finæus is mentioned as the writer of a work on the twelve houses of heaven, printed in Paris, 1553.
[10]Spectacle de la Nature.
[10]Spectacle de la Nature.
[11]The objection which has been urged against astrology, that the signs are continually moving from their positions, cannot invalidate this conclusion. That objection has, in fact, no real existence; for Ptolemy seems to have been aware of this motion of the signs, and has fully provided for it in the 25th Chapter of the 1st Book of the Tetrabiblos. From that chapter it is clear that the respective influences he ascribes to the twelve signs (or divisions of the zodiac) were considered by him as appurtenant to theplacesthey occupied, and not to thestarsof which they were composed. He has expressly and repeatedly declared that the point of the vernal equinox is ever the beginning of the zodiac, and that the 30 degrees following it ever retain the same virtue as that which he has in this work attributed to Aries, although the stars forming Aries may have quitted those degrees: the next 30 degrees are still be accounted as Taurus, and so of the rest. There is abundant proof throughout the Tetrabiblos, that Ptolemy considered the virtues of theconstellationsof the zodiac distinctly from those of thespacesthey occupied.
[11]The objection which has been urged against astrology, that the signs are continually moving from their positions, cannot invalidate this conclusion. That objection has, in fact, no real existence; for Ptolemy seems to have been aware of this motion of the signs, and has fully provided for it in the 25th Chapter of the 1st Book of the Tetrabiblos. From that chapter it is clear that the respective influences he ascribes to the twelve signs (or divisions of the zodiac) were considered by him as appurtenant to theplacesthey occupied, and not to thestarsof which they were composed. He has expressly and repeatedly declared that the point of the vernal equinox is ever the beginning of the zodiac, and that the 30 degrees following it ever retain the same virtue as that which he has in this work attributed to Aries, although the stars forming Aries may have quitted those degrees: the next 30 degrees are still be accounted as Taurus, and so of the rest. There is abundant proof throughout the Tetrabiblos, that Ptolemy considered the virtues of theconstellationsof the zodiac distinctly from those of thespacesthey occupied.
[12]The French say 813, but 827 is the date given by English chronologists.
[12]The French say 813, but 827 is the date given by English chronologists.
[13]This scientific man was a Mathurine Friar, and a professor in the University of Paris: he died in 1256. It is pointed out in the Edinburgh Review, No. 68, that he was a native of Yorkshire, and his real name John Holywood, euphonized, in Paris, into Sacrobosco.
[13]This scientific man was a Mathurine Friar, and a professor in the University of Paris: he died in 1256. It is pointed out in the Edinburgh Review, No. 68, that he was a native of Yorkshire, and his real name John Holywood, euphonized, in Paris, into Sacrobosco.
[14]Chalmers.—The Tetrabiblos was among these works.
[14]Chalmers.—The Tetrabiblos was among these works.
[15]To such readers as may be curious to know in what manner this book was promulgated in Europe, after the revival of letters, the following extract from the Bibliotheca Græca of Fabricius will furnish information:—“Lib. IV. Cap. XIV. §4. Τετραβιβλος, Συνταξις ΜαθηματικηQuadripartitum, sive quatuor libri de apotelesmatibus et judiciis astrorum, ad Syrum(h). Græce primum editi aJoachimo Camerario, cum versione suâ duorum priorum librorum, et præcipuorum e reliquis locorum. Norimb. 1535, 4to.—Hinc cum versionePhil.Melancthonis, qui in præfat, ad Erasmum Ebnerum Senatorem Norimbergensem testatur se editionem Camerarii multis mendis purgasse, tum numeros in locis apheticis tam Græci quam Latini textus emendasse. Basil, 1553; 8vo.—Latinepridem verteratÆgidius Tebaldinus, sive latino-barbaré ex Hispanica versione, Alfonsi Castellæ Regis jussu, ex Arabico (i) confectâ. Vertit etAntonius Gogava, Lovan. 1548, 4to; Patavii, 1658, 12mo; Pragæ, 1610, 12mo. Commentario illustravitHieron. Cardanusprioribus duobus libris Camerarii, posterioribus Gogavæ versione servatâ, Basil, 1554, fol.; 1579, fol.; Lugd. 1555, 8vo, et in Cardani opp.—Georgii Vallæcommentarius, anno 1502 editus, nihil aliud est, quam Latina versio scholiorum Græcorum, sive exegeseos jejunæDemophiliin tetrabiblon, quæ cumPorphyriisiveAntiochiisagoge, Græce et Latine, additaHieron Wolfiiversione, lucem vidit Basil. 1559, his scholiis Dorotheus allegatur, p. 48, 110, et 139; Cleopatra, p. 88; Porphyrius Philosophus, p. 169. Meminit et auctor Petosiridis ac Necepso, p. 112:—λεγει δε παλαιον τον Νεχεψω (ita leg, pro χεψω ut p. 112) και Πετοσιριν, ουτοι χαρ πρωτοι το δι αςρολογιας εχηπλωσαν προγνωςικον† Paraphrasin tetrabibli aProcloconcinnatam Græce edidit Melancthon, Basil. 1554, 8vo. Græce et Latine cum versione suâLeo Allatius, Lugd. Batav. 1654,†† 8vo. Locum Ptolemæi e codice Græco MS. in collegio Corporis Christi Oxon, feliciter restituit Seldenus, p. 35 ad Marmora Arundeliana. Haly Heben Rodoan Arabis commentarium laudat Cardanus, cum Demophilo Latine editum.”“(h) Schol. Græc.—Προσφωνει τω Συρω ο Πτολεμαιος το βιβλιον, προς ον και τας αλλας αντου πασας πραγματειας προσφωνησεν. Λεγουσι δε τινες ως πεπλαςαι αυτο το του Συρω ονομα. Αλλοι δε οτι ον πεπλαςαι, αλλ’ ιατρος ην ουτος αχθεις και δια τουτων των μαθηματων.”“(i) Selden. Uxor Hebr. p. 342. Cæterum de Alphonsi Regis curâ in promovenda Arabica Quadripartiti versione, vide, si placet, Nic: Antonium in Bibl. veteri Hispana, t. 2, p. 55, vel Acta Erud. A. 1697, p. 302. Latino versio ex Arabico facta lucem vidit Venet, 1493, fol. Viderit porro Gassendus qui in Philosophia Epicuri, ubi contra Astrologos disputat. t. 2, p. 501, contendit tetrabiblon indignum esse Ptolemæi genio et subdititum. Equidem Jo. Pico judice, l. 1, contra Astrologos, p. 285, Ptolemæusmalorumsive Apotelesmaticorum estoptimus.”† “Nechepsos and Petosiris are anciently spoken of, for they first explained prognostication by Astrology.”†† This was perhaps a reprint of the edition of 1635, from which the present translation has been made; unless there may have been an error of the press in stating 1654 instead of 1635, which seems probable, as the edition of 1635 is unnoticed by Fabricius.
[15]To such readers as may be curious to know in what manner this book was promulgated in Europe, after the revival of letters, the following extract from the Bibliotheca Græca of Fabricius will furnish information:—
“Lib. IV. Cap. XIV. §4. Τετραβιβλος, Συνταξις ΜαθηματικηQuadripartitum, sive quatuor libri de apotelesmatibus et judiciis astrorum, ad Syrum(h). Græce primum editi aJoachimo Camerario, cum versione suâ duorum priorum librorum, et præcipuorum e reliquis locorum. Norimb. 1535, 4to.—Hinc cum versionePhil.Melancthonis, qui in præfat, ad Erasmum Ebnerum Senatorem Norimbergensem testatur se editionem Camerarii multis mendis purgasse, tum numeros in locis apheticis tam Græci quam Latini textus emendasse. Basil, 1553; 8vo.—Latinepridem verteratÆgidius Tebaldinus, sive latino-barbaré ex Hispanica versione, Alfonsi Castellæ Regis jussu, ex Arabico (i) confectâ. Vertit etAntonius Gogava, Lovan. 1548, 4to; Patavii, 1658, 12mo; Pragæ, 1610, 12mo. Commentario illustravitHieron. Cardanusprioribus duobus libris Camerarii, posterioribus Gogavæ versione servatâ, Basil, 1554, fol.; 1579, fol.; Lugd. 1555, 8vo, et in Cardani opp.—Georgii Vallæcommentarius, anno 1502 editus, nihil aliud est, quam Latina versio scholiorum Græcorum, sive exegeseos jejunæDemophiliin tetrabiblon, quæ cumPorphyriisiveAntiochiisagoge, Græce et Latine, additaHieron Wolfiiversione, lucem vidit Basil. 1559, his scholiis Dorotheus allegatur, p. 48, 110, et 139; Cleopatra, p. 88; Porphyrius Philosophus, p. 169. Meminit et auctor Petosiridis ac Necepso, p. 112:—λεγει δε παλαιον τον Νεχεψω (ita leg, pro χεψω ut p. 112) και Πετοσιριν, ουτοι χαρ πρωτοι το δι αςρολογιας εχηπλωσαν προγνωςικον† Paraphrasin tetrabibli aProcloconcinnatam Græce edidit Melancthon, Basil. 1554, 8vo. Græce et Latine cum versione suâLeo Allatius, Lugd. Batav. 1654,†† 8vo. Locum Ptolemæi e codice Græco MS. in collegio Corporis Christi Oxon, feliciter restituit Seldenus, p. 35 ad Marmora Arundeliana. Haly Heben Rodoan Arabis commentarium laudat Cardanus, cum Demophilo Latine editum.”
“(h) Schol. Græc.—Προσφωνει τω Συρω ο Πτολεμαιος το βιβλιον, προς ον και τας αλλας αντου πασας πραγματειας προσφωνησεν. Λεγουσι δε τινες ως πεπλαςαι αυτο το του Συρω ονομα. Αλλοι δε οτι ον πεπλαςαι, αλλ’ ιατρος ην ουτος αχθεις και δια τουτων των μαθηματων.”
“(i) Selden. Uxor Hebr. p. 342. Cæterum de Alphonsi Regis curâ in promovenda Arabica Quadripartiti versione, vide, si placet, Nic: Antonium in Bibl. veteri Hispana, t. 2, p. 55, vel Acta Erud. A. 1697, p. 302. Latino versio ex Arabico facta lucem vidit Venet, 1493, fol. Viderit porro Gassendus qui in Philosophia Epicuri, ubi contra Astrologos disputat. t. 2, p. 501, contendit tetrabiblon indignum esse Ptolemæi genio et subdititum. Equidem Jo. Pico judice, l. 1, contra Astrologos, p. 285, Ptolemæusmalorumsive Apotelesmaticorum estoptimus.”
† “Nechepsos and Petosiris are anciently spoken of, for they first explained prognostication by Astrology.”
†† This was perhaps a reprint of the edition of 1635, from which the present translation has been made; unless there may have been an error of the press in stating 1654 instead of 1635, which seems probable, as the edition of 1635 is unnoticed by Fabricius.
[16]It will be seen by the preceding note, that Proclus’s Paraphrase of the Tetrabiblos should properly be considered as superior to the other readings of that book; since it appears, on the authority of Fabricius, that Melancthon, after having been at the pains of correcting and republishing, in 1553 (with his own emendations), the edition of Camerarius, containing the reputed original text, still deemed it advisible, in the following year, to edit Proclus’s Paraphrase. This Paraphrase must, therefore, necessarily have had claims to his attention not found in the text he had previously edited.†† “Ptolemy addresses the book to Syrus, to whom he has also addressed all his other treatises. Some say that this name of Syrus was feigned; others, that it was not feigned, but that he was a physician, and educated in these sciences.”
[16]It will be seen by the preceding note, that Proclus’s Paraphrase of the Tetrabiblos should properly be considered as superior to the other readings of that book; since it appears, on the authority of Fabricius, that Melancthon, after having been at the pains of correcting and republishing, in 1553 (with his own emendations), the edition of Camerarius, containing the reputed original text, still deemed it advisible, in the following year, to edit Proclus’s Paraphrase. This Paraphrase must, therefore, necessarily have had claims to his attention not found in the text he had previously edited.†
† “Ptolemy addresses the book to Syrus, to whom he has also addressed all his other treatises. Some say that this name of Syrus was feigned; others, that it was not feigned, but that he was a physician, and educated in these sciences.”
[17]Chalmer’s Biographical Dictionary.
[17]Chalmer’s Biographical Dictionary.
[18]It will, of course, be understood that this Commentary is distinct from his Paraphrase, now translated.
[18]It will, of course, be understood that this Commentary is distinct from his Paraphrase, now translated.
[19]The Almagest, orMagna Constructio.
[19]The Almagest, orMagna Constructio.
[20]The following extract from an old geographical work, framed on the rules of Ptolemy, explains the system on which this action of the æther is made to depend:—“Chap. 2. The world is divided into two parts, the elemental region and the æthereal. The elemental region is constantly subject to alteration, and comprises the four elements; earth, water, air and fire. The æthereal region, which philosophers call the fifth essence, encompasses, by its concavity, the elemental; its substance remains always unvaried, and consists of ten spheres; of which the greater one always spherically environs the next smaller, and so on in consecutive order. First, therefore, around the sphere of fire,God, the creator of the world, placed the sphere of the Moon, then that of Mercury, then that of Venus, then that of the Sun, and afterwards those of Mars, of Jupiter, and of Saturn. Each of these spheres, however, contains but one star: and these stars, in passing through the zodiac, always struggle against theprimum mobile, or the motion of the tenth sphere; they are also entirely luminous. In the next place follows the firmament, which is the eighth or starry sphere, and which trembles or vibrates (trepidat) in two small circles at the beginning of Aries and Libra (as placed in the ninth sphere); this motion is called by astronomers the motion of the access and recess of the fixed stars.” (Probably in order to account for the procession of the equinoxes.) “This is surrounded by the ninth sphere, called the chrystalline or watery heaven, because no star is discovered in it. Lastly, theprimum mobile, styled also the tenth sphere, encompasses all the before-mentioned æthereal spheres, and is continually turned upon the poles of the world, by one revolution in twenty-four hours, from the east through the meridian to the west, again coming round to the east. At the same time, it rolls all the inferior spheres round with it, by its own force; and there is no star in it. Against thisprimum mobile, the motion of the other spheres, running from the west through the meridian to the east, contends. Whatever is beyond this, is fixed and immovable, and the professors of our orthodox faith affirm it to be the empyrean heaven whichGodinhabits with the elect.”—Cosmographia of Peter Apianus (named Benewitz), dedicated to the Archbishop of Salzburg, edited by Gemma Frisius, and printed at Antwerp 1574.
[20]The following extract from an old geographical work, framed on the rules of Ptolemy, explains the system on which this action of the æther is made to depend:—
“Chap. 2. The world is divided into two parts, the elemental region and the æthereal. The elemental region is constantly subject to alteration, and comprises the four elements; earth, water, air and fire. The æthereal region, which philosophers call the fifth essence, encompasses, by its concavity, the elemental; its substance remains always unvaried, and consists of ten spheres; of which the greater one always spherically environs the next smaller, and so on in consecutive order. First, therefore, around the sphere of fire,God, the creator of the world, placed the sphere of the Moon, then that of Mercury, then that of Venus, then that of the Sun, and afterwards those of Mars, of Jupiter, and of Saturn. Each of these spheres, however, contains but one star: and these stars, in passing through the zodiac, always struggle against theprimum mobile, or the motion of the tenth sphere; they are also entirely luminous. In the next place follows the firmament, which is the eighth or starry sphere, and which trembles or vibrates (trepidat) in two small circles at the beginning of Aries and Libra (as placed in the ninth sphere); this motion is called by astronomers the motion of the access and recess of the fixed stars.” (Probably in order to account for the procession of the equinoxes.) “This is surrounded by the ninth sphere, called the chrystalline or watery heaven, because no star is discovered in it. Lastly, theprimum mobile, styled also the tenth sphere, encompasses all the before-mentioned æthereal spheres, and is continually turned upon the poles of the world, by one revolution in twenty-four hours, from the east through the meridian to the west, again coming round to the east. At the same time, it rolls all the inferior spheres round with it, by its own force; and there is no star in it. Against thisprimum mobile, the motion of the other spheres, running from the west through the meridian to the east, contends. Whatever is beyond this, is fixed and immovable, and the professors of our orthodox faith affirm it to be the empyrean heaven whichGodinhabits with the elect.”—Cosmographia of Peter Apianus (named Benewitz), dedicated to the Archbishop of Salzburg, edited by Gemma Frisius, and printed at Antwerp 1574.
[21]It will be recollected that the Ptolemaic astronomy attributes motion and a regular course to those stars which we now call fixed, but which the Greeks merely termed απλανεις,undeviating.
[21]It will be recollected that the Ptolemaic astronomy attributes motion and a regular course to those stars which we now call fixed, but which the Greeks merely termed απλανεις,undeviating.
[22]There seems reason to suppose that this was a favourite speculation among the ancients. In Scipio’s Dream, as related by Cicero, the phantom of his illustrious grandfather is made to speak of this entire return of all the celestial bodies to some original position which they once held, as being the completion of the revolution of one great universal year: and the phantom adds, “but I must acquaint you that not one-twentieth part of that great year has been yet accomplished.”This quotation is from memory, and perhaps may not be verbally correct.
[22]There seems reason to suppose that this was a favourite speculation among the ancients. In Scipio’s Dream, as related by Cicero, the phantom of his illustrious grandfather is made to speak of this entire return of all the celestial bodies to some original position which they once held, as being the completion of the revolution of one great universal year: and the phantom adds, “but I must acquaint you that not one-twentieth part of that great year has been yet accomplished.”
This quotation is from memory, and perhaps may not be verbally correct.
[23]In this passage the author seems to have anticipated, and exposed the absurdity of an argument now considered very forcible against astrology: viz. that “if the art were true, then any two individuals born under the same meridian, in the same latitude, and at the same moment of time, must have one and the same destiny; although one were born a prince, and the other a mendicant.” Such a monstrous conclusion is nowhere authorized by any astrological writer; it is, on the contrary, always maintained by all of them, that the worldly differences and distinctions, alluded to in the text, inevitably prevent this exact resemblance of destiny; and all that they presume to assert is, that, in their respective degrees, any two individuals, so born, will have a partial similarity in the leading features of their fate. Whether their assertion isuniformlyborne out, I will not take upon me to determine, but it would be unfair not to subjoin the following fact:—In the newspapers of the month of February, 1820, the death of a Mr. Samuel Hemmings is noticed: it was stated that he had been an ironmonger, and prosperous in trade; that he was born on the 4th of June, 1738, at nearly the same moment as his late Majesty, and in the same parish of St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields; that he went into business for himself in October, 1760; that he married on the 8th September, 1761; and finally, after other events of his life had resembled those which happened to the late King, that he died on Saturday, the 29th January, 1820.These coincidences are, at least, highly remarkable.
[23]In this passage the author seems to have anticipated, and exposed the absurdity of an argument now considered very forcible against astrology: viz. that “if the art were true, then any two individuals born under the same meridian, in the same latitude, and at the same moment of time, must have one and the same destiny; although one were born a prince, and the other a mendicant.” Such a monstrous conclusion is nowhere authorized by any astrological writer; it is, on the contrary, always maintained by all of them, that the worldly differences and distinctions, alluded to in the text, inevitably prevent this exact resemblance of destiny; and all that they presume to assert is, that, in their respective degrees, any two individuals, so born, will have a partial similarity in the leading features of their fate. Whether their assertion isuniformlyborne out, I will not take upon me to determine, but it would be unfair not to subjoin the following fact:—
In the newspapers of the month of February, 1820, the death of a Mr. Samuel Hemmings is noticed: it was stated that he had been an ironmonger, and prosperous in trade; that he was born on the 4th of June, 1738, at nearly the same moment as his late Majesty, and in the same parish of St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields; that he went into business for himself in October, 1760; that he married on the 8th September, 1761; and finally, after other events of his life had resembled those which happened to the late King, that he died on Saturday, the 29th January, 1820.
These coincidences are, at least, highly remarkable.
[24]The Greek word for this, γοναι, though found in the Elzevir edition from which this translation is made, does not appear in other copies; the Basle edition of 1553 says merely, η τε τιμη και το αξιωμα, “honour and rank,” which is the sense also given in the Latin translation of Perugio, 1646, without any mention of “offspring.”
[24]The Greek word for this, γοναι, though found in the Elzevir edition from which this translation is made, does not appear in other copies; the Basle edition of 1553 says merely, η τε τιμη και το αξιωμα, “honour and rank,” which is the sense also given in the Latin translation of Perugio, 1646, without any mention of “offspring.”
[25]In allusion to the sympathetic powers anciently attributed to certain stones.
[25]In allusion to the sympathetic powers anciently attributed to certain stones.
[26]Whalley, in translating this chapter, makes the following remark on this mention of the magnet: “However much later it was that the loadstone became known in Europe, what is mentioned of it in this chapter makes it evident that it was known in Ægypt, where Ptolemy lived, in his time.”—That worthy translator forgot (if indeed he ever knew) that the loadstone’s property of attracting iron was known to Thales, and commented on by Plato and Aristotle, all of whom lived some centuries, more or less, before Ptolemy. It is its polarity that was not known until the 11th or 12th century; and the French say that the earliest notice of that polarity is found in a poem of Guyot of Provence, who was at the Emperor Frederick’s Court at Mentz in 1181.—See the French Encyclopædia, &c.
[26]Whalley, in translating this chapter, makes the following remark on this mention of the magnet: “However much later it was that the loadstone became known in Europe, what is mentioned of it in this chapter makes it evident that it was known in Ægypt, where Ptolemy lived, in his time.”—That worthy translator forgot (if indeed he ever knew) that the loadstone’s property of attracting iron was known to Thales, and commented on by Plato and Aristotle, all of whom lived some centuries, more or less, before Ptolemy. It is its polarity that was not known until the 11th or 12th century; and the French say that the earliest notice of that polarity is found in a poem of Guyot of Provence, who was at the Emperor Frederick’s Court at Mentz in 1181.—See the French Encyclopædia, &c.
[27]Respecting the effect here asserted to be produced on the magnet by garlick, I have found the following mention in a book called “The Gardener’s Labyrinth,” printed at London in 1586. “Here also I thought not to ouerpasse the maruellous discord of the adamant-stone and garlike, which the Greeks name to be an Antipatheia or naturall contrarietie betweene them; for such is the hatred or contrarietie between these two bodies (lacking both hearing and feeling), that the adamant rather putteth away, than draweth to it, iron, if the same afore be rubbed with garlike; as Plutarchus hath noted, and, after him, Claudius Ptolemæus. Which matter, examined by divers learned, and founde the contrarie, caused them to judge, that those skilful men (especially Ptolemie) ment the same to be done with the Egyptian Garlike; which Dioscorides wrote to be small garlike, and the same sweete in taste, possessing a bewtifull head, tending unto a purple colour. There be which attribute the same to Ophioscoridon, which Antonius Microphonius Biturix, a singular learned man, and wel practised in sundry skilles, uttered this approoued secrete to a friend whom he loued.”In the same book, the “Ophioscoridon” is thus spoken of: “There is another wild garlike which the Greeks name Ophioscoridon; in English Ramsies; growing of the owne accord in the fallow fieldes.”Cornelius Agrippa (according to the English translation) has stated that the presence of the diamond also neutralizes the attractive power of the magnet. But as that great magician was somewhat inclined to quibbling, it is not impossible that by the word he uses for “diamond” (viz.adamas) he may mean the adamant or loadstone; which would reduce his assertion merely to this, that one magnet will counteract another.
[27]Respecting the effect here asserted to be produced on the magnet by garlick, I have found the following mention in a book called “The Gardener’s Labyrinth,” printed at London in 1586. “Here also I thought not to ouerpasse the maruellous discord of the adamant-stone and garlike, which the Greeks name to be an Antipatheia or naturall contrarietie betweene them; for such is the hatred or contrarietie between these two bodies (lacking both hearing and feeling), that the adamant rather putteth away, than draweth to it, iron, if the same afore be rubbed with garlike; as Plutarchus hath noted, and, after him, Claudius Ptolemæus. Which matter, examined by divers learned, and founde the contrarie, caused them to judge, that those skilful men (especially Ptolemie) ment the same to be done with the Egyptian Garlike; which Dioscorides wrote to be small garlike, and the same sweete in taste, possessing a bewtifull head, tending unto a purple colour. There be which attribute the same to Ophioscoridon, which Antonius Microphonius Biturix, a singular learned man, and wel practised in sundry skilles, uttered this approoued secrete to a friend whom he loued.”
In the same book, the “Ophioscoridon” is thus spoken of: “There is another wild garlike which the Greeks name Ophioscoridon; in English Ramsies; growing of the owne accord in the fallow fieldes.”
Cornelius Agrippa (according to the English translation) has stated that the presence of the diamond also neutralizes the attractive power of the magnet. But as that great magician was somewhat inclined to quibbling, it is not impossible that by the word he uses for “diamond” (viz.adamas) he may mean the adamant or loadstone; which would reduce his assertion merely to this, that one magnet will counteract another.
[28]This seems to explain the origin of the old alliance between medicine and astrology, so universally preserved until almost within the last century.
[28]This seems to explain the origin of the old alliance between medicine and astrology, so universally preserved until almost within the last century.
[29]It will be recollected that the Ptolemaic hypothesis considers the Sun as a planetary orb, in consequence of his apparent progress through the zodiac.
[29]It will be recollected that the Ptolemaic hypothesis considers the Sun as a planetary orb, in consequence of his apparent progress through the zodiac.
[30]“Astronomers call the planets matutine, when, being oriental from the Sun, they are above the earth when he rises; and vespertine, when they set after him.” Moxon’s Mathematical Dictionary.
[30]“Astronomers call the planets matutine, when, being oriental from the Sun, they are above the earth when he rises; and vespertine, when they set after him.” Moxon’s Mathematical Dictionary.
[31]Whalley here appends the following note: “To this chapter may be properly added, that a planet is said to be diurnal, when, in a diurnal nativity, above the earth; and, in a nocturnal nativity, under the earth: but nocturnal, when, in a nocturnal nativity, above the earth; or, in a diurnal nativity, under the earth.”
[31]Whalley here appends the following note: “To this chapter may be properly added, that a planet is said to be diurnal, when, in a diurnal nativity, above the earth; and, in a nocturnal nativity, under the earth: but nocturnal, when, in a nocturnal nativity, above the earth; or, in a diurnal nativity, under the earth.”
[32]Although all the positions mentioned in this paragraph are not applicable to Venus and Mercury, which can never rise at night, that is to say, at sunset, and although the author in the beginning of the chapter speaks only of the Moon and the three superior planets, there yet seems no reason why the orbits of Venus and Mercury should not be similarly divided by their inferior and superior conjunctions, and their greatest elongations.The following is from Whalley: “The first station, in this chapter mentioned, is when a planet begins to be retrograde; and the second station when, from retrogradation, a planet becomes direct. They” (the planets) “begin to rise at night when in opposition to the Sun.”
[32]Although all the positions mentioned in this paragraph are not applicable to Venus and Mercury, which can never rise at night, that is to say, at sunset, and although the author in the beginning of the chapter speaks only of the Moon and the three superior planets, there yet seems no reason why the orbits of Venus and Mercury should not be similarly divided by their inferior and superior conjunctions, and their greatest elongations.
The following is from Whalley: “The first station, in this chapter mentioned, is when a planet begins to be retrograde; and the second station when, from retrogradation, a planet becomes direct. They” (the planets) “begin to rise at night when in opposition to the Sun.”
[33]The little Torch; now known by the name of Aldebaran.
[33]The little Torch; now known by the name of Aldebaran.
[34]Castor.
[34]Castor.
[35]Pollux.
[35]Pollux.
[36]Cor Leonis.
[36]Cor Leonis.
[37]Called by the ancients χηλαι, Chelæ, or theclawsof Scorpio; which sign they made to consist of 60 degrees, omitting Libra. Thus Virgil in the first Georgic, line 33, &c.Quo locus Erigonen inter, Chelasque sequentesPanditur: ipse tibi jam brachia contrahit ardensScorpius, et cœli justâ plus parte reliquit.Ovid, likewise, takes the following notice of Scorpio:—Porrigit in spatium signorum membra duorum.Met.2, l. 198.
[37]Called by the ancients χηλαι, Chelæ, or theclawsof Scorpio; which sign they made to consist of 60 degrees, omitting Libra. Thus Virgil in the first Georgic, line 33, &c.
Quo locus Erigonen inter, Chelasque sequentesPanditur: ipse tibi jam brachia contrahit ardensScorpius, et cœli justâ plus parte reliquit.
Quo locus Erigonen inter, Chelasque sequentesPanditur: ipse tibi jam brachia contrahit ardensScorpius, et cœli justâ plus parte reliquit.
Quo locus Erigonen inter, Chelasque sequentesPanditur: ipse tibi jam brachia contrahit ardensScorpius, et cœli justâ plus parte reliquit.
Quo locus Erigonen inter, Chelasque sequentes
Panditur: ipse tibi jam brachia contrahit ardens
Scorpius, et cœli justâ plus parte reliquit.
Ovid, likewise, takes the following notice of Scorpio:—
Porrigit in spatium signorum membra duorum.Met.2, l. 198.
Porrigit in spatium signorum membra duorum.Met.2, l. 198.
Porrigit in spatium signorum membra duorum.Met.2, l. 198.
Porrigit in spatium signorum membra duorum.
Met.2, l. 198.
[38]Adams’s Treatise on the Globes calls this star “Kalb al Akrab, or the Scorpion’s heart,” and adds, that “the word Antares (if it is not a corruption) has no signification.” But it should be observed that Ptolemy states that this star partakes of the nature of Mars: it seems therefore not improbable that Antares may be a regular Greek word, compounded of αντιproand αρηςMars, and signifyingMars’s deputy, orlieutenant, orone acting for Mars.
[38]Adams’s Treatise on the Globes calls this star “Kalb al Akrab, or the Scorpion’s heart,” and adds, that “the word Antares (if it is not a corruption) has no signification.” But it should be observed that Ptolemy states that this star partakes of the nature of Mars: it seems therefore not improbable that Antares may be a regular Greek word, compounded of αντιproand αρηςMars, and signifyingMars’s deputy, orlieutenant, orone acting for Mars.
[39]Salmon, in his “Horæ Mathematicæ, or Soul of Astrology” (printed by Dawks, 1679) divides each sign of the zodiac into six faces of five degrees each, “because that in every sign there are various stars of differing natures”; and he gives a particular description to each face, depending on its ascension or culmination. This seems an attempt to adapt Ptolemy’s signification of the several stars, composing the different signs, to some general rule or mode of judgment: but it does not merit the implicit assent of astrologers. It is understood that Salmon was not the inventor of this division of the signs into faces, but that it came originally from the Arabian schools.
[39]Salmon, in his “Horæ Mathematicæ, or Soul of Astrology” (printed by Dawks, 1679) divides each sign of the zodiac into six faces of five degrees each, “because that in every sign there are various stars of differing natures”; and he gives a particular description to each face, depending on its ascension or culmination. This seems an attempt to adapt Ptolemy’s signification of the several stars, composing the different signs, to some general rule or mode of judgment: but it does not merit the implicit assent of astrologers. It is understood that Salmon was not the inventor of this division of the signs into faces, but that it came originally from the Arabian schools.
[40]Canis Minor.
[40]Canis Minor.
[41]“Of the fixed stars in general,” Whalley says, “Those of the greatest magnitude are the most efficacious; and those in, or near, the ecliptic, more powerful than those more remote from it. Those with north latitude and declination affect us most. Those in the zenith, influence more than others, more remote. Likewise such as are in partial conjunction with, or in the antiscions of any planets, or which rise and set, or culminate with any planet, or are beheld by any planet, have an increase of power: but of themselves the fixed stars emit no rays.”
[41]“Of the fixed stars in general,” Whalley says, “Those of the greatest magnitude are the most efficacious; and those in, or near, the ecliptic, more powerful than those more remote from it. Those with north latitude and declination affect us most. Those in the zenith, influence more than others, more remote. Likewise such as are in partial conjunction with, or in the antiscions of any planets, or which rise and set, or culminate with any planet, or are beheld by any planet, have an increase of power: but of themselves the fixed stars emit no rays.”
[42]This sentence shows the futility of the objection raised against astrology (and mentioned in the Preface to this translation) that the signs have changed and are changing places. It is clear from this sentence that Ptolemy ascribes to the 30 degrees after the vernal equinox, that influence which he has herein mentioned to belong to Aries; to the next 30 degrees, the influence herein said to belong to Taurus; and so of the rest of the zodiac. We should rather say that the stars have changed places, than that the parts of heaven, in which they were once situated, have done so. Ptolemy himself seems to have foreseen this groundless objection of the moderns, and has written, in the 25th chapter of this book, what ought completely to have prevented it. It has certainly been one of the misfortunes of astrology to be attacked by people entirely ignorant of its principles.
[42]This sentence shows the futility of the objection raised against astrology (and mentioned in the Preface to this translation) that the signs have changed and are changing places. It is clear from this sentence that Ptolemy ascribes to the 30 degrees after the vernal equinox, that influence which he has herein mentioned to belong to Aries; to the next 30 degrees, the influence herein said to belong to Taurus; and so of the rest of the zodiac. We should rather say that the stars have changed places, than that the parts of heaven, in which they were once situated, have done so. Ptolemy himself seems to have foreseen this groundless objection of the moderns, and has written, in the 25th chapter of this book, what ought completely to have prevented it. It has certainly been one of the misfortunes of astrology to be attacked by people entirely ignorant of its principles.
[43]In other words, the Sun then begins to diminish his declination, which, at the first points of the said signs, is at its greatest amount.
[43]In other words, the Sun then begins to diminish his declination, which, at the first points of the said signs, is at its greatest amount.
[44]Whalley, in his note upon this chapter, seems to have been surprised that no mention is made here by Ptolemy of theconjunction; but he overlooked the fact that the chapter treats only of parts of the zodiac configuratedwith each other; and that it was not possible for Ptolemy to conceive how any part could be configuratedwith itself. It is, therefore, by no means wonderful that the conjunction is not inserted here along with the rest of the aspects; although it is frequently adverted to in subsequent chapters, and its efficacy particularly described.
[44]Whalley, in his note upon this chapter, seems to have been surprised that no mention is made here by Ptolemy of theconjunction; but he overlooked the fact that the chapter treats only of parts of the zodiac configuratedwith each other; and that it was not possible for Ptolemy to conceive how any part could be configuratedwith itself. It is, therefore, by no means wonderful that the conjunction is not inserted here along with the rest of the aspects; although it is frequently adverted to in subsequent chapters, and its efficacy particularly described.
[45]From the tenor of this chapter it was formerly doubted whether the author intended to admit in his theory only zodiacal aspects, and to reject those which are called mundane; but Placidus has referred to the 4th Chapter of the 8th Book of the Almagest (which will be found in the Appendix to this translation) to prove that Ptolemy distinctly taught two kinds of aspect; one in the zodiac and one in the world. Whalley quotes the opinion of Placidus, which he says is farther confirmed by the 12th Chapter of the 3rd Book of this very treatise, where it is stated that the ascendant and the eleventh house are in sextile to each other; the ascendant and the mid-heaven in quartile; the ascendant and the ninth house in trine; and the ascendant and the occidental angle in opposition; all which certainly seems to be applicable to mundane aspects in particular.
[45]From the tenor of this chapter it was formerly doubted whether the author intended to admit in his theory only zodiacal aspects, and to reject those which are called mundane; but Placidus has referred to the 4th Chapter of the 8th Book of the Almagest (which will be found in the Appendix to this translation) to prove that Ptolemy distinctly taught two kinds of aspect; one in the zodiac and one in the world. Whalley quotes the opinion of Placidus, which he says is farther confirmed by the 12th Chapter of the 3rd Book of this very treatise, where it is stated that the ascendant and the eleventh house are in sextile to each other; the ascendant and the mid-heaven in quartile; the ascendant and the ninth house in trine; and the ascendant and the occidental angle in opposition; all which certainly seems to be applicable to mundane aspects in particular.
[46]Whalley has a very lengthy note upon this and the preceding chapter, to show that Ptolemy here speaks of zodiacal parallels, or parallels of declination, and to point out the necessity of observing a planet’s latitude, in order to ascertain its true parallels. It is, however, to be recollected, that the parallels now alluded to are distinct from themundane parallels, which are equal distances from the horizon or meridian, and are considered by Ptolemy in the 14th and 15th Chapters of the 3rd Book of this work; although not under the express name of mundane parallels.
[46]Whalley has a very lengthy note upon this and the preceding chapter, to show that Ptolemy here speaks of zodiacal parallels, or parallels of declination, and to point out the necessity of observing a planet’s latitude, in order to ascertain its true parallels. It is, however, to be recollected, that the parallels now alluded to are distinct from themundane parallels, which are equal distances from the horizon or meridian, and are considered by Ptolemy in the 14th and 15th Chapters of the 3rd Book of this work; although not under the express name of mundane parallels.
[47]It has never been very clearly shown how the followers of Ptolemy have reconciled the new aspects (called the semiquadrate, quintile, sesquiquadrate, biquintile, &c.) with thevetopronounced in this chapter. Kepler is said to have invented them, and they have been universally adopted; even Placidus, who has applied Ptolemy’s doctrine to practice better than any other writer, has availed himself of them,† and, if the nativities published by him are to be credited, he has fully established their importance.Salmon, in his “Horæ Mathematicæ,” before-mentioned, gives a long dissertation (from p. 403 to p. 414) on the old Ptolemaic aspects, illustrative of their foundation in nature and in mathematics; and, although his conclusions are not quite satisfactorily drawn, some of his arguments would seem appropriate, if he had but handled them more fully and expertly; particularly where he says that the aspects are derived “from the aliquot parts of a circle, wherein observe that, although the zodiac may have many more aliquot parts than these four (the sextile, quartile, trine, and opposition), yet those other aliquot parts of the circle, or 360 degrees, will not make an aliquot division of the signs also, which in this design was sought to answer, as well in the number 12, as in the number 360.” The passage in which he endeavours to show that they are authorized by their projection, also deserves attention.All Salmon’s arguments, however, in support of the old Ptolemaic aspects, militate against the new Keplerian ones; and so does the following extract from the “Astrological Discourse” of Sir Christopher Heydon: “For thus, amongst all ordinate planes that may be inscribed, there are two whose sides, joined together, have pre-eminence to take up a semicircle, but only the hexagon, quadrate, and equilateral triangle, answering to the sextile, quartile, and trine irradiated. The subtense, therefore, of a sextile aspect consisteth of two signs, which, joined to the subtense of a trine, composed of four, being regular and equilateral, take up six signs, which is a complete semicircle. In like manner, the sides of a quadrate inscribed, subtending three signs, twice reckoned, do occupy likewise the mediety of a circle. And what those figures are before said to perform” (that is, to take up a semicircle) “either doubled or joined together, may also be truly ascribed unto the opposite aspect by itself; for that the diametral line, which passeth from the place of conjunction to the opposite point, divideth a circle into two equal parts: the like whereof cannot be found in any other inscripts; for example, theside of a regular pentagon” (the quintile) “subtendeth 72 degrees, of an octagon” (the semiquadrate) “but 45; the remainders of which arcs, viz. 108 and 135 degrees, are not subtended by the sides of any ordinate figure.”† Except the semiquadrate, which he has not at all noticed.
[47]It has never been very clearly shown how the followers of Ptolemy have reconciled the new aspects (called the semiquadrate, quintile, sesquiquadrate, biquintile, &c.) with thevetopronounced in this chapter. Kepler is said to have invented them, and they have been universally adopted; even Placidus, who has applied Ptolemy’s doctrine to practice better than any other writer, has availed himself of them,† and, if the nativities published by him are to be credited, he has fully established their importance.
Salmon, in his “Horæ Mathematicæ,” before-mentioned, gives a long dissertation (from p. 403 to p. 414) on the old Ptolemaic aspects, illustrative of their foundation in nature and in mathematics; and, although his conclusions are not quite satisfactorily drawn, some of his arguments would seem appropriate, if he had but handled them more fully and expertly; particularly where he says that the aspects are derived “from the aliquot parts of a circle, wherein observe that, although the zodiac may have many more aliquot parts than these four (the sextile, quartile, trine, and opposition), yet those other aliquot parts of the circle, or 360 degrees, will not make an aliquot division of the signs also, which in this design was sought to answer, as well in the number 12, as in the number 360.” The passage in which he endeavours to show that they are authorized by their projection, also deserves attention.
All Salmon’s arguments, however, in support of the old Ptolemaic aspects, militate against the new Keplerian ones; and so does the following extract from the “Astrological Discourse” of Sir Christopher Heydon: “For thus, amongst all ordinate planes that may be inscribed, there are two whose sides, joined together, have pre-eminence to take up a semicircle, but only the hexagon, quadrate, and equilateral triangle, answering to the sextile, quartile, and trine irradiated. The subtense, therefore, of a sextile aspect consisteth of two signs, which, joined to the subtense of a trine, composed of four, being regular and equilateral, take up six signs, which is a complete semicircle. In like manner, the sides of a quadrate inscribed, subtending three signs, twice reckoned, do occupy likewise the mediety of a circle. And what those figures are before said to perform” (that is, to take up a semicircle) “either doubled or joined together, may also be truly ascribed unto the opposite aspect by itself; for that the diametral line, which passeth from the place of conjunction to the opposite point, divideth a circle into two equal parts: the like whereof cannot be found in any other inscripts; for example, theside of a regular pentagon” (the quintile) “subtendeth 72 degrees, of an octagon” (the semiquadrate) “but 45; the remainders of which arcs, viz. 108 and 135 degrees, are not subtended by the sides of any ordinate figure.”
† Except the semiquadrate, which he has not at all noticed.