Transcriber’s Notes:
Underscores “_” before and after a word or phrase indicate _italics_
in the original text. Small capitals have been converted to SOLID
capitals. Illustrations have been moved so they do not break up
paragraphs. Old or antiquated spellings have been preserved.
Typographical and punctuation errors have been silently corrected.
PTOLEMY’S TETRABIBLOS
OR
QUADRIPARTITE
BEING
FOUR BOOKS
OF THE
_INFLUENCE OF THE STARS_
NEWLY TRANSLATED FROM THE GREEK PARAPHRASE OF PROCLUS
WITH
A PREFACE, EXPLANATORY NOTES
AND
_AN APPENDIX_
CONTAINING
EXTRACTS FROM THE ALMAGEST OF PTOLEMY
AND THE WHOLE OF HIS
CENTILOQUY
TOGETHER WITH
_A Short Notice of Mr. Ranger’s Zodiacal Planisphere_
AND AN EXPLANATORY PLATE
By J. M. ASHMAND
NEW EDITION
“Ye stars, which are the poetry of Heaven!
If, in your bright leaves, we would read the fate
Of men and empires,—’tis to be forgiven.”
LORD BYRON.
LONDON:
_PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY W. FOULSHAM & CO., Ltd._
DEALERS IN SCIENTIFIC BOOKS
10/11 RED LION COURT, FLEET STREET, LONDON, E.C.4
_Made and Printed in Great Britain_
TO THE
_AUTHOR OF “WAVERLEY”_
THIS TRANSLATION
OF A
WORK CONTAINING THE BEST ACCREDITED PRINCIPLES
OF
_ASTROLOGY_
IS DEDICATED
_With the most profound admiration of his unrivalled Talents_
WHICH COULD ALONE HAVE RESTORED
INTEREST TO THE SPECULATIONS
OF AN
_ANTIQUATED SCIENCE_
ADVERTISEMENT
The use recently made of Astrology in the poetical machinery of certain
works of genius (which are of the highest popularity, and above all
praise), seems to have excited in the world at large a desire to learn
something of the mysteries of that science which has, in all former
ages, if not in these days, more or less engaged reverence and usurped
belief. The apparent existence of such a general desire has caused the
completion of the following Translation, and its presentation to the
public; although it was originally undertaken only in part, and merely
to satisfy two or three individuals of the grounds on which the now
neglected doctrines of Astrology had so long and so fully maintained
credit.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAP. PAGE
BOOK I
I. Proem 1
II. Knowledge may be acquired by Astronomy to a certain Extent 2
III. That Prescience is useful 8
IV. The Influences of the Planetary Orbs 13
V. Benefics and Malefics 14
VI. Masculine and Feminine 14
VII. Diurnal and Nocturnal 15
VIII. The Influence of Position with regard to the Sun 16
IX. The Influence of the fixed Stars 16
X. Constellations North of the Zodiac 19
XI. Constellations South of the Zodiac 20
XII. The Annual Seasons 21
XIII. The Influence of the Four Angles 21
XIV. Tropical, Equinoctial, Fixed, and Bicorporeal Signs 23
XV. Masculine and Feminine Signs 23
XVI. Mutual Configurations of the Signs 24
XVII. Signs commanding and obeying 26
XVIII. Signs beholding each other, and of equal Power 26
XIX. Signs Inconjunct 27
XX. Houses of the Planets 28
XXI. The Triplicities 29
XXII. Exaltations 31
XXIII. The Disposition of the Terms 32
XXIV. The Terms (according to Ptolemy) 35
XXV. The Places and Degrees of every Planet 36
XXVI. Faces, Chariots, and other similar Attributes
of the Planets 37
XXVII. Application, Separation, and other Faculties 38
BOOK II
I. General Division of the Subject 40
II. Peculiarities observable throughout every entire Climate 41
III. The Familiarity of the Regions of the Earth with the
Triplicities and the Planets 43
IV. The Familiarity of the Regions of the Earth with the
Fixed Stars 52
V. Mode of Particular Prediction in Eclipses 52
VI. The Regions or Countries to be considered as liable
to be comprehended in the Event 53
VII. The Time and Period of the Event 54
VIII. The Genus, Class, or Kind, liable to be affected 55
IX. The Quality and Nature of the Effect 58
X. Colours in Eclipses, Comets, and Similar Phenomena 62
XI. The New Moon of the Year 63
XII. The particular Natures of the Signs by which the
different Constitutions of the Atmosphere are
Produced 64
XIII. Mode of Consideration for particular Constitutions
of the Atmosphere 66
XIV. The Signification of Meteors 68
BOOK III
I. Proem 71
II. The Conception, and the Parturition, or Birth;
by which latter Event the Animal quits the Womb,
and assumes another State of Existence 72
III. The Degree Ascending 74
IV. Distribution of the Doctrine of Nativities 75
V. The Parents 77
VI. Brothers and Sisters 81
VII. Male or Female 82
VIII. Twins 83
IX. Monstrous or Defective Births 85
X. Children not Reared 86
XI. The Duration of Life 88
XII. The Prorogatory Places 88
XIII. The Number of Prorogators, and also the Part of Fortune 89
XIV. Number of the Modes of Prorogation 91
XV. Exemplification 96
XVI. The Form and Temperament of the Body 100
XVII. The Hurts, Injuries, and Diseases of the Body 106
XVIII. The Quality of the Mind 107
XIX. The Diseases of the Mind 114
BOOK IV
I. Proem 117
II. The Fortune of Wealth 117
III. The Fortune of Rank 118
IV. The Quality of Employment 120
V. Marriage 124
VI. Children 128
VII. Friends and Enemies 130
VIII. Travelling 132
IX. The Kind of Death 134
X. The Periodical Divisions of Time 137
APPENDIX
NO.
I. Almagest, Book viii, Chap. 4 144
II. Extract from the Almagest, Book II, Chap. 9 147
Table of Latitudes, from the Almagest 151
Extract from the Table of Ascensions, in the Almagest 152
III. Ptolemy’s Centiloquy 153
IV. The Zodiacal Planisphere, and plate 161
PREFACE
Of all sciences, whether true or false, which have at any time engaged
the attention of the world, there is not one of which the real or
assumed principles are less generally known, in the present age, than
those of Astrology. The whole doctrine of this science is commonly
understood to have been completely overturned; and, of late, people
seem to have satisfied themselves with merely knowing the import of its
name. Such contented ignorance, in persons, too, sufficiently informed
in other respects, is the more extraordinary, since Astrology has
sustained a most conspicuous part throughout the history of the world,
even until days comparatively recent. In the East, where it first
arose, at a period of very remote antiquity,[1] and whence it came to
subjugate the intellect of Europe, it still even now holds sway. In
Europe, and in every part of the world where learning had “impress’d
the human soil,” Astrology reigned supreme until the middle of the
17th century. It entered into the councils of princes, it guided the
policy of nations, and ruled the daily actions of individuals. All this
is attested by the records of every nation which has a history, and
by none more fully than by those of England. Yet, with these striking
facts before their eyes, the present generation seem never, until now,
to have inquired on what basis this belief of their forefathers was
established, nor by what authority the delusion (if it was one) could
have been for so many ages supported. Among a thousand persons who
now treat the mention of Astrology with supercilious ridicule, there
is scarcely one who knows distinctly what it is he laughs at, or on
what plea his ancestors should stand excused for having, in their day,
contemplated with respect the unfortunate object of modern derision.
[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,” (772 B.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”
(751 B.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” (747 B.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” (956 B.C.), “and
Chiron that of the Greeks (939 B.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 520 B.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 480 B.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 intitled _Judicia 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 it A.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
observed_ to produce certain effects, were _consequently_ dedicated 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, 536 B.C.—See
Newton.
The general want of information on these points, and the indifference
with which such want has been hitherto regarded, cannot surely be
attributed solely to the modern disrepute of the science; for mankind
have usually, in every successive age, exercised great industry in
tracing all previous customs, however trifling or obsolete, and in
examining all sorts of creeds, however unimportant or erroneous,
whenever there has appeared any striking connection between
such matters and historical facts; and, since astrology is most
unquestionably blended intimately with history, it therefore becomes
necessary to seek for some further hypothesis, by which this ignorance
and indifference may be accounted for.
Perhaps astrology has been conceived to have borne the same relation
to astronomy as alchymy did to chymistry. If such has been the notion,
it has certainly been adopted in error, for a modern chymist is still
almost an alchymist: it is true that he no longer delays his work in
deference to the planets, nor does he now try to make gold, nor to
distil elixir of earthly immortality; but nevertheless he still avails
himself, to a certain degree, of the same rules and the same means
as those of the old alchymist: he is still intent upon the subtle
processes of Nature, and still imitates her as far as he can. He
reduces the diamond to charcoal by an operation analogous to that by
which the alchymist sought to transmute lead into gold; and he mainly
differs from the alchymist only in having assured himself that there
is a point beyond which Nature forbids facsimiles. Not so slightly,
however, does the astronomer differ from the astrologer, but _toto
cœlo_: the astrologer considered the heavenly bodies and their motions
merely as the mechanism wherewith he was to weave the tissue of his
predictions; and astronomy is no more an integral part of astrology,
than the loom is of the web which has been woven by it. To have an idea
of what alchymy was, it is sufficient to have an idea of chymistry;
but astronomy, in itself, will never give a notion of astrology, which
requires additional and distinct consideration.
It may be urged, that in the present day a general idea of this
bygone and disused science is quite sufficient for everybody not
professedly antiquarian. Such an assertion would doubtless never be
controverted, provided the proposed general idea might comprehend the
truth. But the present actual general idea of astrology is by no means
so comprehensive; indeed, nothing can well be more inaccurate, or
even more false: it seems to have been adopted not from the elements
of the science itself, but from trite observations made by writers
against the science; and consequently the world now wonders at the
lamentable defect of understanding that could ever have permitted
belief in it—forgetting that astrology has been consigned to neglect,
not in consequence of any _primâ facie_ palpability in its imputed
fallacies, nor indeed of any special skill or acuteness on the part of
its professed adversaries, but rather in consequence of the sudden and
astonishing growth of other undoubted sciences, with which it has been
presumed to be incompatible, and which during the thousands of years
of the reign of astrology were either unborn, or still slumbering in
continued infancy.[2]
The words “professed adversaries,” which have just now been used, are
of course not intended to be applied to those mighty explorers of
Nature’s laws and man’s powers, who, in their lofty career, may have
made an incidental swoop at the pretensions of astrology. Directly
engaged in more exact pursuits, they stopped not to dissect this
their casual prey, which, after having been thus struck by eagles,
was left to regale crows and daws, and these, in their convivial
loquacity, accused their unfortunate victims of crimes incapable of
being committed, and of offences which had never been imagined. Of the
real faults of their victim these garrulous bipeds seem not to have
been aware, or, if aware, they seem to have considered them as not
sufficiently prominent. Nor was this want of candour or information
absolutely confined to the mere vulgar herd of vituperative scribblers,
for even the sparkling essay against astrology, written by Voltaire (in
his irrepressible desire to convince the world that he was _au fait_
in everything), proves only that the writer, though the most generally
informed man of his time, had mistaken the really assailable points of
the object of his attack.
[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, and _denied_ rather than _contradicted_.”
†“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._
The author of the present Translation has no intention now of either
advocating or impugning the doctrines of the science of which his
Translation discourses: his purpose is a different one. He has that
sort of respect for “the dead, which are really dead,” which, although
it does not incline him to “praise” them “_more_ than the living, which
are yet alive,” is still sufficient to incite him to endeavour to avert
the imputation of idiot credulity, to which their faith in astrology
seems now to subject them in the general opinion of the enlightened
“living.” And, while he disclaims all idea of presuming to offer any
argument on either side of the question, as to the validity of the
science, he must still, at the same time, confess his admiration of the
ingenuity and contrivance manifest in its construction, and avow his
readiness to believe that all its harmonized complications might have
easily held dominion over some of the strongest minds in that darker
period when it flourished.
In executing here the desire of attempting to vindicate the ancient
credence in astrology, an elaborate disquisition would surely be not
only unnecessary, but misplaced: it seems sufficient to refer the
reader to the work of which the following is a translation, and to
these undisputed facts—that the science was formerly inculcated by the
highest and most erudite authorities of the period—that it was insisted
on by votaries in all parts of the world, attesting and producing
instances of its truth;—and, moreover, that it was so finely and
beautifully put together, as to cause the only deficiency of one small,
though most important, link in its whole chain of argument, to be
undetected by dull minds, and readily supplied by enthusiastic genius.
For centuries after centuries all branches of learning were either made
subservient to astrology, or carried on in close alliance with it; and
many of the illustrious names which it recalls to our recollection
are gratefully reverenced even by modern science. The genius of Roger
Bacon, although he was the first of that school of natural philosophy
which acknowledges none but experimented truths, was nevertheless bowed
to the doctrines of judicial astrology; and his greater Namesake, who
after an interval of several centuries succeeded to him in giving
proper direction to the mental energy, was still an arguer in favour of
celestial influences: it may be, therefore, fairly inferred, that the
subtle spell which had strength to enthrall “stuff” so “stern,” could
have been of no weak or vulgar order, but that it was sufficiently
potent and refined to interest and amuse even the present age.[3]
[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.
In this little volume will be found the whole of the elements of
astrology, and the entire ground-work of those stupendous tomes in
folio and quarto on the same subject, which were produced in myriads
during the 16th and 17th centuries, for the due mystification of the
then world. The present volume is addressed equally to the general
reader, as well as to the votary of pure astrology, if any such there
be; to the one it offers amusement; for the other, it should contain
the most glowing interest. Even to the speculative metaphysician it
will furnish food for contemplation; for, in addition to its peculiar
hypothesis of cause and effect, it develops many of those apparent
incongruities of character so often united in the same individual; and
this development, even although adapted to the doctrine of the stars,
still merits attention; inasmuch as the phenomena of which it treats
(in whatever way they may be produced or regulated) will ever remain in
actual existence.
The only English translation of Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos, hitherto
published, appears to have been first set forth in 1701, under the name
of “The Quadripartite.” That publication has been long removed from
general sale; and its gross misinterpretation of the author, caused by
the carelessness or ignorance of Whalley and his assistants, by whom
it was produced, has rendered most of its pages unintelligible: its
absence is, therefore, scarcely to be regretted. The second edition
of the same translation, professing to be “revised, corrected, and
improved,” and published by Browne and Sibley, in 1786, was not, in
any one instance, purified from the blunders and obscurities which
disgraced its predecessor: it seems, in fact, less excusable than the
former edition, of which it was merely a reprint, without being at all
corrected, not even in certain typographical _errata_ which the former
printer had been zealous enough to point out in his final page. Even
this second publication, worthless as it intrinsically is, can rarely
now be met with, and, like the former, only at a very heavy price.
The present Translation has been made from Proclus’s Greek Paraphrase
of Ptolemy’s original text; the edition followed is that of the
Elzevirs, dated in 1635.[4] But, in the course of translation,
continual references have been also had to various editions of the
original text, in order to ascertain the proper acceptation of doubtful
passages. The editions thus inspected were that by Camerarius, printed
at Nuremberg in 1535; that by Melancthon, printed at Basle in 1553;
and that by Junctinus, printed, with his own enormous commentaries,
at Lyons, in 1581. Independently of these references, the present
translation has been collated with the Latin of Leo Allatius, and with
two other Latin translations: one printed at Basle, together with a
translation of the Almagest in 1541; the other by itself at Perugio, in
1646.[5] The Translator has devoted all this extreme care and attention
to his labours, in the wish to render Ptolemy’s astro-judicial
doctrine into English as purely and perfectly as possible; and, with
the same view, he has likewise added, in an Appendix, certain extracts
from such parts of the Almagest as were found to be referred to in his
present work. Further illustration is also given by notes gathered
from the “Primum Mobile” of Placidus,[6] and from a variety of other
sources whence any elucidation of the text might be derived. Even
Whalley’s “Annotations” (to use his own grandiloquent designation) have
occasionally yielded information, not altogether unimportant, although
generally incomplete.
[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.
It seems improper to close this Preface (notwithstanding the bulk it
has already attained), without annexing the following short notice
of the life and works of the great man from whom the Tetrabiblos has
emanated.
Claudius Ptolemy was born at Pelusium, in Ægypt, and became an
illustrious disciple of the school of Alexandria, in which city he
flourished during the reign of Adrian and that of Antoninus Pius. The
date of his birth has been commonly assigned to the 70th year of the
Christian æra; but the accuracy of this date seems questionable; for
he has himself noted in one part of his works, that Antoninus reigned
twenty-three years. He must have, therefore, survived that prince; and,
as it is not probable that he continued his scientific labours until
after ninety years of age, which he must have done had he been born
about the year 70, because Antoninus died in the year 161, it seems
that his birth would be more properly ascribed to some later period.
Moreover, it is asserted by the Arabians, that he died in the 78th year
of his age; and a similar statement is also made by Luca Gauricus,
in the dedication of his version of the Almagest[7] to Dominico
Palavicini: Gauricus has, however, placed his death in the year 147,
which does not accord with the fact of his having survived Antoninus.
Ptolemy has recorded that he observed, at Alexandria, an eclipse of the
Moon, in the 9th year of Adrian; and that he made many observations
upon the fixed stars in the 2nd year of Antoninus Pius: whence it may
be concluded, that his observations upon the heavens were principally
made during the period from A.D. 125 to A.D. 140, or thereabouts; and
it also follows, of course, that the supposition, entertained by some
authors, of his identity with the Ptolemy who was always in attendance
upon Galba, as his personal astrologer, and who promised Otho that
he should survive Nero and obtain the empire, is entirely without
foundation. To Gauricus’s[8] version of the Almagest there is also
another dedication, addressed to Pope Sixtus, and composed by George
Trapezuntius, describing Ptolemy as “_regiâ stirpe oriundum_,” and
explaining that he had, “with a truly regal mind,” applied himself
to the sciences, because the ancient sceptre of the Ptolemies had
previously passed into the hands of Cleopatra, and because the kingdom
of Ægypt had been since reduced to the state of a Roman province. The
authentic details of the circumstances of Ptolemy’s life are, however,
extremely few. It is said that he was distinguished among the Greeks by
the epithets “most wise,” and “most divine,” on account of his great
learning; and, according to the Preface to Whalley’s translation of the
Tetrabiblos, the Arabians report that “he was extremely abstemious,
and rode much on horseback”; adding, that although he was “spruce in
apparel,” yet his breath was not remarkable for an agreeable odour.
[7] Printed at Basle, 1541.
[8] Chalmer’s Biographical Dictionary.
The errors of the Ptolemaic theory of the universe have now been long
discarded; but there are many points in which modern sciences, and
modern astronomy in particular, have reaped incalculable benefits from
the labours and researches of its great founder. He has preserved
and transmitted to us the observations and principal discoveries of
remoter periods, and has enriched and augmented them with his own. He
corrected Hipparchus’s catalogue of the fixed stars, and formed tables
for the calculation and regulation of the motions of the Sun, Moon,
and planets. He was, in fact, the first who collected the scattered
and detached observations of Aristotle, Hipparchus, Posidonius, and
others on the economy of the world, and digested them into a system,
which he set forth in his Μεγαλη Σνταξις or Great Construction, divided
into thirteen books, and called, after him, the Ptolemaic System. This
and all his other astronomical works are founded upon the hypothesis,
that the earth is at rest in the centre of the universe, and that the
heavenly bodies, stars, and planets, all move round it in solid orbs,
whose motions are all directed by one _primum mobile_, or first mover,
of which he discourses at large in the “Great Construction.” In that
work he also treats of the figure and divisions of the earth, of the
right and oblique ascensions of the heavenly bodies, and of the motions
of the Sun, Moon, and planets; and he gives tables for finding their
situations, latitudes, longitudes, and motions: he treats also of
eclipses, and the methods of computing them; and he discourses of the
fixed stars, of which he furnishes a numerous catalogue, with their
magnitudes, latitudes, and longitudes.[9]
It has been truly said, that “Ptolemy’s order, false as it was, enabled
observers to give a plausible account of the motions of the Sun and
Moon, to foretell eclipses, and to improve geography[10];” or, in other
words, that it represented the actual phenomena of the heavens as
they really appear to a spectator on the earth. It is therefore clear
that Ptolemy’s astrology is just as applicable to modern and improved
astronomy as it was to his own.[11]
[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 the _places_ they occupied,
and not to the _stars_ of 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 the _constellations_ of the zodiac distinctly
from those of the _spaces_ they occupied.
In the year 827[12] the “Great Construction” was translated by the
Arabians into their own language, and by them communicated to Europe.
It is through them that it has been usually known by the name of the
Almagest. In the 13th century, the Emperor Frederic II caused it to
be translated from the Arabic into Latin, and Sacrobosco[13] was
consequently enabled to write his famous work upon the sphere. It
was not, however, until about the end of the 15th century that the
“Great Construction” was translated into Latin from the _original_
text; and this important service was rendered to science by Purbach,
a professor of philosophy at Vienna, who learned the Greek tongue at
the instigation of Cardinal Bessarion. By means of this translation,
the Ephemerides of George Müller, surnamed Regiomontanus, a disciple
of Purbach’s, were first composed. The Greek text of the Almagest, or
Great Construction, was first published at Basle, by Simon Grynæus, in
1538; and it was again printed at the same place in 1551, with certain
other works of Ptolemy.[14] The rest of Ptolemy’s works connected with
astronomy, and now extant, are the Tetrabiblos, or Four Books of the
Influence of the Stars[15] (now translated); the Centiloquy, or Fruit
of his Four Books, being a kind of supplement to the former; and the
Significations of the Fixed Stars. The last is merely a daily calendar,
showing the risings and settings of the stars, and the nature of the
weather thereby produced. There are likewise extant his geographical
work (which has rendered important service to modern geographers), and
also his celebrated book on Harmonics, or the Theory of Sound.
[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 Μαθηματικη
_Quadripartitum, sive quatuor libri de apotelesmatibus et judiciis
astrorum, ad Syrum_ (h). Græce primum editi a _Joachimo Camerario_,
cum versione suâ duorum priorum librorum, et præcipuorum e reliquis
locorum. Norimb. 1535, 4to.—Hinc cum versione _Phil._ 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.—_Latine_ pridem verterat _Ægidius Tebaldinus_, sive latino-barbaré
ex Hispanica versione, Alfonsi Castellæ Regis jussu, ex Arabico (i)
confectâ. Vertit et _Antonius Gogava_, Lovan. 1548, 4to; Patavii,
1658, 12mo; Pragæ, 1610, 12mo. Commentario illustravit _Hieron.
Cardanus_ prioribus duobus libris Camerarii, posterioribus Gogavæ
versione servatâ, Basil, 1554, fol.; 1579, fol.; Lugd. 1555, 8vo, et
in Cardani opp.—_Georgii Vallæ_ commentarius, anno 1502 editus, nihil
aliud est, quam Latina versio scholiorum Græcorum, sive exegeseos
jejunæ _Demophili_ in tetrabiblon, quæ cum _Porphyrii_ sive _Antiochi_
isagoge, Græce et Latine, addita _Hieron Wolfii_ versione, 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 a _Proclo_ concinnatam
Græce edidit Melancthon, Basil. 1554, 8vo. Græce et Latine cum versione
suâ _Leo 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, Ptolemæus _malorum_ sive Apotelesmaticorum est
_optimus_.”
† “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.
Proclus, to whom the world is indebted for the improved text of the
Tetrabiblos,[16] was born at Constantinople, in the year 410. He
studied at Alexandria and at Athens, and became very eminent among
the later Platonists. He succeeded Syrianus, a celebrated philosopher,
in the rectorship of the Platonic school at Athens, and died there
in 485.[17] He was a most voluminous author, in poetry as well as in
prose. Among his works there are Hymns to the Sun, to Venus, and to the
Muses; Commentaries upon several pieces of Plato, and upon Ptolemy’s
Tetrabiblos[18]; an Epitome or Commendium of all the Astronomical
Precepts demonstrated in the Almagest; and elements of Theology and
Natural Philosophy. He was in dispute with the Christians on the
question of the eternity of the world, which he undertook to prove in
eighteen elaborate arguments. A late writer in a certain periodical
work has erroneously identified him with another Proclus, who was in
favour with the Emperor Anastasius, and who destroyed the ships of
Vitalianus, when besieging Constantinople in 514, by burning them with
great brazen mirrors, or _specula_.
[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.
_Signs of the Zodiac._
♈ Aries
♉ Taurus
♊ Gemini
♋ Cancer
♌ Leo
♍ Virgo
♎ Libra
♏ Scorpio
♐ Sagittarius
♑ Capricorn
♒ Aquarius
♓ Pisces
PTOLEMY’S TETRABIBLOS OR
FOUR BOOKS OF THE
_INFLUENCE OF THE STARS_
BOOK THE FIRST
CHAPTER I
PROEM
The studies preliminary to astronomical prognostication, O Syrus! are
two: the one, first alike in order and in power, leads to the knowledge
of the figurations of the Sun, the Moon, and the stars; and of their
relative aspects to each other, and to the earth: the other takes into
consideration the changes which their aspects create, by means of their
natural properties, in objects under their influence.
The first mentioned study has been already explained in the
Syntaxis[19] to the utmost practicable extent; for it is complete
in itself, and of essential utility even without being blended with
the second; to which this treatise will be devoted, and which is not
equally self-complete. The present work shall, however, be regulated
by that due regard for truth which philosophy demands: and since the
material quality of the objects acted upon renders them weak and
variable, and difficult to be accurately apprehended, no positive or
infallible rules (as were given in detailing the first doctrine, which
is always governed by the same immutable laws) can be here set forth:
while, on the other hand, a due observation of most of those general
events, which evidently trace their causes to the Ambient, shall not be
omitted.
[19] The Almagest, or _Magna Constructio_.
It is, however, a common practice with the vulgar to slander everything
which is difficult of attainment, and surely they who condemn the
first of these two studies must be considered totally blind, whatever
arguments may be produced in support of those who impugn the second.
There are also persons who imagine that whatever they themselves have
not been able to acquire, must be utterly beyond the reach of all
understanding; while others again will consider as useless any science
of which (although they may have been often instructed in it) they
have failed to preserve the recollection, owing to its difficulty of
retention. In reference to these opinions, therefore, an endeavour
shall be made to investigate the extent to which prognostication
by astronomy is practicable, as well as serviceable, previously to
detailing the particulars of the doctrine.