Skyscript Astrology Forum

Unlike the Egyptian terms and terms Ptolemy found, the Chaldean terms were the only system that in fact included degrees of terms for the Luminaries. As I said before the only difference Valens version offered was just how many degrees the luminaries and other planets had. It had nothing to do with which planets and their order in each sign!

I see. As usual I have no access to my books while I am online. I was therefore relying on the table presented on the Altair blog given in the link above. I assume you regard the table displayed there, for the Chaldean terms, as incorrect? As you will see it does not list the luminaries.

Here is the link again: http://altairastrology.wordpress.com/20 ... or-bounds/

Mark

Hello Steven,

Gosh I feel guilty pestering an ill man.

It is interesting to see the diversity of approaches that were adopted to the terms in the classical period.

Deb's painstaking research into the history of the Ptolemaic terms shows just how many legitimate variations of Ptolemy's terms one can produce due to ambiguities in our sources for the Tetrabiblos. At least the Egyptian terms has the attraction that there is only one clear version of these terms that has been passed down to us. As the oldest system of terms its origins may be lost to us in the mists of time. That will no doubt continue to frustrate the rational tendency to seek a logical explanation for everything. Certainly the Greeks were noted for this approach in their astrology. However, I suspect there are too many original sources lost to us to put together this jig saw at present. We we really need is an astrological version of the Nag Hammadi scrolls to turn up for us.

However, for those willing to work from a more mystical perspective this state of unknowing is an acceptable state of affairs for a divinatory art.

Mark

Hello Mark,


The most interesting and impressive thing is that there are two other types of terms: the terms according to Erasistratos and terms according to the Indians .

Here is the opinion of Haly Abenragel regarding the different kinds of terms(Albohazen Haly filii Abenragel libri de iudiciis astrorum, Basel,1551-book 1, chapter 5, p. 15-16):

?Ancient sages had disagreements on the therms and opinions were five: the first opinion is of the Egyptians, the second is of Ptolemy, the third of the Babylonians, the fourth of the Indians, the fifth of Attarathyh.The most used and confirmed opinion on the terms by the majority is that of the Egyptians and few used Ptolemy?s terms.No one uses other opinions on the terms because they are far from the truth.?

Second opinion is that of Al-Biruni(The book of Instruction in the Elements of the Art of Astrology, R. Ramsay Wright?s translation, 1934, p. 265):

? ?a al-hudud.These are unequal divisions of the signs knowns as terms, p.marz: with each one of them a planet is associated.People however differ in this matter,some holding to the Chaldean, i.e. the ancient Babylonian method, others to that of Astaratus, while others again adopt the scheme of the Hindus.None of these are employed by professional astrologers, who are unanimous in using the Egyptian terms,because they are more correct.Those who have expounded Ptolemy?s works use the terms which he records having found in an old book, and which he has inserted in his Tetrabiblos.We have constructed a table showing both the Egyptian and the Ptolemaic terms:there is no use
discussing any others.?

According to R. Ramsay Wright (he used the opinions of two scientists - prof. D. S. Margoliouth and dr. E. T. Withington) the name Attarathyh(according Haly) and Astaratus(according Al-Biruni) is the name of a Greek astrologer Erasistratos(????????????) which was mentioned from Masha?allah as the author of many books(CCAG, book I, page 82).

Dimitar

According to R. Ramsay Wright (he used the opinions of two scientists - prof. D. S. Margoliouth and dr. E. T. Withington) the name Attarathyh(according Haly) and Astaratus(according Al-Biruni) is the name of a Greek astrologer Erasistratos(????????????) which was mentioned from Masha?allah as the author of many books(CCAG, book I, page 82).

Hi Dimitar

Interesting references.

I wasn't aware Indian astrology had yet another system of planetary terms. However, your reference to the system of terms by Erasistratus(?) is even more surprising.

Is this referring to Erasistratus of Chios ( 305-250 B.C) the famous Greek physician and anatomist?

I was under the impression he was an atomist and follower of Democritus.
Followers of this school tended to reject any astrological ideas on principle. Still it is interesting as he would have been a contemporary of Berossus.

Or is Ramsay simply describing another Erasistratos which fits this description?

The thing I find most odd is why we only have later Islamic references to a system of terms supposedly by Erasistratos. Is there nothing from the classical period?

Mark

Hi,

just an interesting point: David Pingree in his edition of Yavanaj?taka (vol. 2, pp. 427-428) hypothesises that the name of Erasistratus which appears in Vaticanus graecus 1056 (edited in CCAG 1: 82) originates from an incorrect transliteration of Aris?arkhus (Aristarchus) when kh? was misread as ??, thus producing a name similar to Erasistratus', and later it was consciously applied by Eleutherius Zebelenus as the alleged author of a chapter on inceptions regarding lost and stolen objects in "Palchus" chapter 17 (edited in CCAG 1: 94-97). This excerpt of Vaticanus graecus 1056 comes from a bibliography utilized in the introduction of a genethlialogical book by M?sh??all?h which, in turn, was translated by Hugo of Santalla as Liber Aristotilis. There, in Prologus 33-36, the related text can be read where Hugo calls this authority Alwelistus while the name of the other author, Stochus, who immediately follows in the Byzantine version is completely missing. I think it is the best idea to quote the whole argumentation of Pingree (Liber Aristotilis, p. 5; I transliterated the Arabic letters):

The next authority is called Alwelistus by Hugo (33-36), Erasistratus and Stochus by the Byzantine M?sh??all?h. The Arabic behind the Greek and the Latin forms may have been "ars?rkhs", Aristarchus, shortened in Hugo's copy to "ars?s" (which he expanded by thinking of prefixing the article al- to W?lis: Welis/Alwelis//Awestus/Alwelistus) and then lengthened by the Byzantine translator through repetition to "ars?r?s" and "s?ukhs" ("ars?r?s" perhaps in the text, "s?rkhs" as a correction in the margin, but misread and misunderstood by the translator).

I would only add that the corrupted name forms attested by al-B?r?n? and Ibn al-Rij?l (the later of which comes from an edition of the Latin translation of the Old Castilian version of the original Arabic, and thus expectedly it is quite remoted) show that there were some other distorted versions of this very same name, that is, of Aristarchus of Samos. Of course, in this case he may have been one of the numerous authors for who many works were attributed eponomously, perhaps already in the Hellenistic period.

Levente

Hi Mark,

I wasn't aware Indian astrology had yet another system of planetary terms

Here a Indian terms(trimsallavamsas) according to Yavanajataka(The Yavanajataka of Sphujidhavaja, vol. II, chapter 1):

" 42. In the odd signs, five degrees (constitute the term) of Mars, five (that) of Saturn, eight (that) of Jupiter, seven (that) of Mercury, and five (that) of Venus; in the even signs, their order is reversed"

Same is in Al-Biruni.

The source of Nifo's argument is an anonymous Greek Commentary on the Tetrabiblos which is speculatively attributed to Proclus.

Below is a link to the anonymous commentary on the Tetrabiblos, where the anonymous commentator explains the rationale behind the Ptolemy's terms-page 67 from the electronic text, at the bottom of the text-De finibus:

http://bvpb.mcu.es/es/catalogo_imagenes ... ion=pagina

In his book Porphyry talk about another kind of terms-terms according to Apollinarius(Porphyry, Introduction to the Tetrabiblos, translated from J.H.Holden. AFA. 2010, p.31):

"For Apollinarius in his disposition of the terms also disagrees with Ptolemy, and both of them disagree with Thrasyllus and Petosiris and the oher older[writers]".

Unfortunately, Porphyry, does not give these terms in his book.
The only information that we have about Apollinarius(????????????) come from Paulus Alexandrinus and his Eisagogika(Introduction).In the beginning of his book Paulus says that Apollinarius is the author of a book entitled "???? ?????? ??? ???????????? ??? ?????????"(On the apheta, oikodespotis and anaereta).

Having repeatedly bumped into Apollinarius' name, I've done a little research on this obscure figure. The most detailed account on him can be found in Alexander Jones, Ptolemy's first commentator, pp. 12-17 as his lunar theory is quoted in an anonymous early 3rd century commentary, ??64-88. The ancient references are said to have been collected by Neugebauer in HAMA, p. 601, n. 2, to which Toomer's article ("Galen on the Astronomers and Astrologers", Archive for History of Exact Sciences 32.3-4 [1985], 193-206) on the full Arabic translation of Galen's lost Commentary on Hippocrates' "Airs, Waters and Places" must be added. Since I've examined neither of these references so far, I can't tell anything about them, nevertheless I have some other references.

The lengthy quotation from the anonymous commentary shows that Apollinarius was an able astronomer. Bits of references from Valens (VI 4 and IX 11) and the "Palchus" collection of Eleutherius Zebelenus (125; also known as "Anonymous of 379" which, I believe, have been forged by him) suggest he compiled advanced astronomical tables for solar and lunar motion. Moreover, Paul of Alexandria (1) groups Apollinarius, Ptolemy, and an obscure "Apollonius of Laodicea" together as astronomers advocating a geometrical construction for the rising times of images, opposed to ancient Babylonian arithmetical solutions. (This "Apollonius" raises a problem of identification but it needn't be addressed right now.) This puts him together with Ptolemy in the group called "moderns" (ne?teroi) by Porphyry (41).

Also, Paul provides a reference that he dealt with astrological problems such as procedures for ascertaining the length of life. The On the Releaser, Domicile Master and Destroyer devoted to this topic may be the work which is three times referenced in Hephaestio's discussion (II 10) on unnourished natives. Here there are two passages where he is said to be in agreement with Ptolemy (and Antiochus of Athens) which suggest Ptolemy may have drawn on him at least in matters concerning life expectations. The appearence of the word "Destroyer" (anairet?s) which is, as far as I know, is Ptolemy's feature further indicates Ptolemy's reliance on him. Finally, he is said to have followed the "Egyptians" (that is, the tradition of Nechepso and Petosiris) in considering the second and twelfth place in life expectations.

All these references show an educated astronomer and astrologer who can be compared to Ptolemy but must have lived earlier, somewhere between Menelaus' inventions in trigonometry and the time of Valens at the latest. This points to early-middle 2nd century but if I'm right, before Ptolemy.

It's curious then that Porphyry (in the section quoted by Dimityr which is chapter 41) asserts Apollinarius is in disagreement concerning the disposition of confines both with Ptolemy and with the ancients like Petosiris and Thrasyllus. Probably as an astronomer equipped with advanced techniques he tried to make astrology more elaborate not only in life expentancy processes but in other details like the unreasonable disposition of confines, exactly as Ptolemy did. But perhaps we will never know what table of confines he devised unless it's Apollinarius' very system that Ptolemy introduces.

Let me add a concluding remark on a peculiar system of confines which comes from a 2nd century papyrus now kept at University of Michigan (Pap. Mich. 149). Its Column VII and VIII discusses a system of confines which is based on planetary epicycles. One can expect it was developed by a capable astronomer like Apollinarius but there is nothing that relates it to him. The peculiarity that it includes lights as well is remarkable but to grope for connection with "Erasistratus/Aristarchus/Aristoteles/Alwelistus" seem to be beyond reason.

All these references show an educated astronomer and astrologer who can be compared to Ptolemy but must have lived earlier, somewhere between Menelaus' inventions in trigonometry and the time of Valens at the latest. This points to early-middle 2nd century but if I'm right, before Ptolemy.

Perhaps I'm mistaken Levente but I had assumed this was Apollonius of Perga, who Ptolemy names as one of his sources in the Almagest XII.I. I have him reported as having lived in the 3rd century BC. I have also seen his name given as Apollinarius of Perga, but it sounds like you think this is a different astronomer ?

Deb wrote:Perhaps I'm mistaken Levente but I had assumed this was Apollonius of Perga, who Ptolemy names as one of his sources in the Almagest XII.I. I have him reported as having lived in the 3rd century BC. I have also seen his name given as Apollinarius of Perga, but it sounds like you think this is a different astronomer ?

I do and so did many scholars like Neugebauer, Toomer or Jones. It's true indeed that names like Apollinarios (????????????) and Apoll?nios (??????????) are easy to be confused but it's not the case here. This Apollinarius can't be earlier than 1st century CE because he allegedly uses trigonometrical solutions developed not before that time. Another thing is that he seems to be also an astrologer and I can't imagine astrologers dealing with terms in 3rd century BCE. But I do suspect some references to Apollonii may be mistakes for Apollinarius (this latter is an infrequent name and ready to corrupt to the much more common Apollonius), even if I have to do some further research to prove it. Now I now only one case, the reference in Valens IX 11 whose sole manuscript, Oxoniensis Seldeianus 22 brings the corrupt "Apollonius" which is to be corrected with a superior text in Vaticanus graecus 381 based upon the same original.

This Apollinarius can't be earlier than 1st century CE because he allegedly uses trigonometrical solutions developed not before that time.

I'm not sure why you say that because that kind of mathematical approach appears to be much older - this is why Babylonian mathematical expertise was so highly regarded.

Another thing is that he seems to be also an astrologer and I can't imagine astrologers dealing with terms in 3rd century BCE.

Why not? The oldest surviving reference dates to the 1st century BC, but it is clear that the astronomer/astrologers of that time were using the techniques of older sources.

Anyway, it was just something for you to consider, or not.

Regards
Deb