Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos · Ptolemy
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.
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.
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 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]
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.
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.
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.
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.