Aristotle's Elements and the Zodiac: Astrologers' Error?
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:38 am
Anyone who is fortunate enough to own a copy of Robert Schmidt's translations of Valens and Ptolemy can't help considering Rob Hand's notes on the assignment of the elements to zodiac triplicities.
We know that the first mention of the elements in connection with the sign triplicities is in Valens. But Valens was a Stoic, and the Stoics gave only one quality to each element: Fire: hot; Earth; dry; Air: cold and Water: wet. There are indications in Valens that he was referring to the Stoic elements rather than those of Aristotle, particularly in Book IV where zodiacal releasing is discussed. In reference to Valens' statement that fire (signs) turn to a mild mixture of the opposing air mass which is "ice-cold and opaque," Rob Hand adds these notes:
This seemingly offhand reference may in fact be most important! In the standard astrological doctrine the element Air is always described after Aristotle as hot and wet. However, the Stoic teachings on the elements would have Air as merely cold. Valens is the earliest source we have who attributes elements to the triplicities. Ptolemy does not. [....Rob here outlines the Stoic and Aristotelian sequence of elements and continues:]...Notice that the Stoic sequence agrees with the order of the elements in the signs and the Aristotelian order does not! Could it be that the later use of Aristotelian elements with the triplicities was an error? Much research will be required to answer this question. (The Anthology, Book IV, Golden Hind Press, pp. 7-8...)
Others must have realized that the distribution of triplicity elements as they are currently used by astrologers don't agree with Aristotle's arrangement where Fire is opposite Water and Air is opposite Earth. (Fire-dry-Earth-cold-Water-wet-Air-hot-Fire arranged clockwise.) How do astrologers deal with this dilemma?
Rob Hand also comments in Schmidt's translation of the Tetrabiblos:
Unfortunately, later astrologers consistently converted Ptolemy's wet to water, cold to earth, hot to fire and dry to air. The problem is that according to Aristotelian philosophy Water = Cold and Wet, Earth = Cold and Dry, Fire = Hot and Dry and Air = Hot and Wet. Or if one uses the Stoic system of elements, one gets Water = Wet, Earth = Dry, Fire = Hot and Air=Cold. What astrologers did was correct according to neither system of elements. (Tetrabiblos, Book 1, "5. Concerning Benefic and Malefic Planets," Golden Hind Press, p. 16)
A little consideration shows that the Stoic element-triplicity correlations make more sense in relation to the planetary lords of the signs. Two examples:
Saturn is said to be cold and dry. Saturn is lord of one air sign (Aquarius) and is exalted in another (Libra). But in the Aristotelian system the air signs are hot and wet. In the Stoic system air is cold.
Jupiter was a bringer of rain. In the Aristotelian system Jupiter's primary sign of Sagittarius is hot and dry. In the Stoic system fire is simply hot.
I've come to the conclusion that Aristotle's elements don't seem to correlate well with the triplicities, and that they may in fact be wrong. In my opinion Rob Hand's suggestions seem to be more correct. Somewhere between the late Hellenistic astrologers and the Arabic era the Stoic elements were apparently changed to Aristotle's elements in relation to zodiac triplicities.
Rhetorius, whom Robert Schmidt describes as "the last Hellenistic astrologer of consequence," mentions elements in relations to signs, but does not give them descriptions or qualities. They are simply fiery, earthy, airy or watery. Paulus Alexandrinus (c. 378 CE) doesn't mention the elements at all in his descriptions of signs.
Then it might be a good idea to explore the characteristics said to describe each element and consider how they might correlate with the triplicities. I align the Stoic elements with the sidereal signs, and I don't know how they would work in the tropical zodiac. This post is already too long; maybe I'll try to write another post on element characteristics.
Therese
We know that the first mention of the elements in connection with the sign triplicities is in Valens. But Valens was a Stoic, and the Stoics gave only one quality to each element: Fire: hot; Earth; dry; Air: cold and Water: wet. There are indications in Valens that he was referring to the Stoic elements rather than those of Aristotle, particularly in Book IV where zodiacal releasing is discussed. In reference to Valens' statement that fire (signs) turn to a mild mixture of the opposing air mass which is "ice-cold and opaque," Rob Hand adds these notes:
This seemingly offhand reference may in fact be most important! In the standard astrological doctrine the element Air is always described after Aristotle as hot and wet. However, the Stoic teachings on the elements would have Air as merely cold. Valens is the earliest source we have who attributes elements to the triplicities. Ptolemy does not. [....Rob here outlines the Stoic and Aristotelian sequence of elements and continues:]...Notice that the Stoic sequence agrees with the order of the elements in the signs and the Aristotelian order does not! Could it be that the later use of Aristotelian elements with the triplicities was an error? Much research will be required to answer this question. (The Anthology, Book IV, Golden Hind Press, pp. 7-8...)
Others must have realized that the distribution of triplicity elements as they are currently used by astrologers don't agree with Aristotle's arrangement where Fire is opposite Water and Air is opposite Earth. (Fire-dry-Earth-cold-Water-wet-Air-hot-Fire arranged clockwise.) How do astrologers deal with this dilemma?
Rob Hand also comments in Schmidt's translation of the Tetrabiblos:
Unfortunately, later astrologers consistently converted Ptolemy's wet to water, cold to earth, hot to fire and dry to air. The problem is that according to Aristotelian philosophy Water = Cold and Wet, Earth = Cold and Dry, Fire = Hot and Dry and Air = Hot and Wet. Or if one uses the Stoic system of elements, one gets Water = Wet, Earth = Dry, Fire = Hot and Air=Cold. What astrologers did was correct according to neither system of elements. (Tetrabiblos, Book 1, "5. Concerning Benefic and Malefic Planets," Golden Hind Press, p. 16)
A little consideration shows that the Stoic element-triplicity correlations make more sense in relation to the planetary lords of the signs. Two examples:
Saturn is said to be cold and dry. Saturn is lord of one air sign (Aquarius) and is exalted in another (Libra). But in the Aristotelian system the air signs are hot and wet. In the Stoic system air is cold.
Jupiter was a bringer of rain. In the Aristotelian system Jupiter's primary sign of Sagittarius is hot and dry. In the Stoic system fire is simply hot.
I've come to the conclusion that Aristotle's elements don't seem to correlate well with the triplicities, and that they may in fact be wrong. In my opinion Rob Hand's suggestions seem to be more correct. Somewhere between the late Hellenistic astrologers and the Arabic era the Stoic elements were apparently changed to Aristotle's elements in relation to zodiac triplicities.
Rhetorius, whom Robert Schmidt describes as "the last Hellenistic astrologer of consequence," mentions elements in relations to signs, but does not give them descriptions or qualities. They are simply fiery, earthy, airy or watery. Paulus Alexandrinus (c. 378 CE) doesn't mention the elements at all in his descriptions of signs.
Then it might be a good idea to explore the characteristics said to describe each element and consider how they might correlate with the triplicities. I align the Stoic elements with the sidereal signs, and I don't know how they would work in the tropical zodiac. This post is already too long; maybe I'll try to write another post on element characteristics.
Therese