Eventual anachronism in Ptolemy's planetary domiciles?

1
Good morning,

Reference is made to Mr Vanuna II's mention of the captioned subject in a parallel thread in the Indian astrology section of this forum. Since planetary domiciles are usually considered to form a part of Genenal Astrology, hopefully this thread is in its most suitable place. On line access to a commented, public version of the English translation by Prof. Frank Robbins of Klaudios Ptolomaios' Tetrabiblos may be accessed HERE, the original ancient Greek text HERE.

Now follows the text on planetary domiciles we are examining:
"17. Of the Houses of the Several planets.

The planets also have familiarity with the parts of the zodiac, through what are called their houses, triangles, exaltations, terms, 85 the like. The system of houses is of the following nature. Since of the twelve signs the most northern, which are closer than the others to our zenith and therefore most productive of heat and of warmth are Cancer and Leo, they assigned these to the greatest and most powerful heavenly bodies, that is, to the luminaries, as houses, Leo, which is masculine, to the sun and Cancer, feminine, to the moon. In keeping with this they assumed the semicircle from Leo to Capricorn to be solar and that from Aquarius to Cancer to be lunar, so that in each of the semicircles one sign might be assigned to each of the five planets as its own, one bearing aspect to the sun and the other to the moon, consistently with the spheres of their motion 86 and the peculiarities of their natures. 87" [bold emphasis added]
An eventual anachronism might be the reference to the tropical signs (Northern hemisphere) of Cancer and Leo as "...the most northern, closer than the others to our zenith...". The northernmost point in the tropical zodiac is 0 Cancer, so the tropical sign of Gemini is more northerly than Leo in this zodiac. Note 56 on page 64 of the French translation by Pascal Charvet mentions this possible anachronism and explains it as possibly Ptolomaios' wish to include ancient sothiacal Egyptian tradition that began the year with the entrance of the Sun into the constellation of the Lion about 20th July with the heliacal rising of the fixed star Sirius.

Here are two charts of the Summer Solstice 1500 BCE at Alexandria, Egypt, made with Aur?as astrology software, one using a northern hemisphere tropical, equal-sign zodiac, the other the unequal astronomical constellations:
Image
Image
They show the situation that appears to match Ptolomaios' domicile assignments, that perhaps were not based on the tropical zodiac current in his time and in ours and therefore might constitute an inconsistency in his astrological system. 'Zenith' normally refers to the overhead position in the horizon coordinate system. Perhaps something got obscured in the translation or in different Hellenistic usage of 'zenith' from ours.

Best regards,

lihin
Non esse nihil non est.

2
Hello Lithin,

I see your point. You do have a valid astronomical objection. I assume Ptolemy chooses this approach because the luminaries are pivotal to his philosophy of sign rulership. For that he needs to put the domiciles of the luminaries in the centre of his zodiacal scheme. Pivotal to Ptolemy's thinking here is the aspectual relationship between the domiciles of the two luminaries and the other signs. Hence the key point is the whole sign boundary between Leo and Cancer not the Solstice point at 0 Cancer. This symbolic analogy would be totally ruined with a Cancer-Gemini focus.
Image
Take a look at this article by Deborah Houlding. I think its explains Ptolemy's logic here:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/rulership.html

I can see how you might also have a problem with the following statement in Tetrabiblos too:
Since the most productive of heat and warmth are Cancer and Leo, they assigned these to the greatest and most powerful heavenly bodies, the luminaries, as houses. Leo, which is masculine, to the Sun and Cancer, which is feminine, to the Moon. Tetrabiblos, 1.17 Translated FE Robbins. '; (Loeb p.79)
If Ptolemy is using a strictly seasonal comparison it does fall down a bit with Leo as opposed to Gemini. It clearly doesn't suit his purpose here. Here we can see a few problems in applying the relatively new system of domicile rulerships to the zodiac. Lets recall the zodiac and the exaltations existed long before the domicile rulerships were developed.

Apart from domicile rulerships the other idea clearly coming out of this focus by Ptolemy on Cancer and Leo is planetary sect with the emphasis on both luminaries.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

3
Mark wrote:Here we can see a few problems in applying the relatively new system of domicile rulerships to the zodiac. Lets recall the zodiac and the exaltations existed long before the domicile rulerships were developed.
This is true (at least as far as we know at present -- surprising discoveries have been made before!), but Ptolemy didn't invent domicile rulerships. He was probably the first to give the naturalistic explanation based on the seasons, though, so I would say that the problem lies in connecting the rulership scheme to the seasonal framework. (Not trying to create another tropical/sidereal debate here, honestly! -- I don't think I could stand it. Just making a comment on the relative chronology of the ideas involved.)
Last edited by Martin Gansten on Tue Nov 13, 2012 4:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

Elements as foundation

4
Good morning,

Before one attempts to 'solve' the eventual anachronism in Klaudios Ptolomaios' quoted texts, it might be helpful to recall the essential base of his entire astrological system, the elemental attributions of the planets. Here is again Prof. Robbin's English translation of Tetrabiblos, Book I, Section 4, the very first section following the introductory ones:
"4. Of the Power of the Planets.

The active power of the sun's essential nature is found to be heating and, to a certain degree, drying. 27 This is made more easily perceptible in the case of the sun than any other heavenly body by its size and by the obviousness of its seasonal changes, for the closer it approaches to the zenith the more it affects us in this way. Most of the moon's power consists of humidifying, clearly because it is close to the earth and because of the moist exhalations 28 therefrom. Its action therefore is precisely this, to soften and cause putrefaction in bodies for the most part, but it shares moderately also in heating power because of the light which it receives from the sun.

It is Saturn's 29 quality chiefly to cool and, moderately, to dry, probably because he is furthest removed 30 both from the sun's heat and the moist exhalations about the earth. Both in Saturn's case and in that of the other planets there are powers, too, which arise through the observation of their aspects to the sun and moon, for some of them appear to modify conditions in the ambient in one way, some in another, by increase or by decrease.

The nature of Mars is chiefly to dry and to burn, in conformity with his fiery colour and by reason of his nearness to the sun, for the sun's sphere lies just below him.

Jupiter has a temperate active force because his movement takes place between the cooling influence of Saturn and the burning power of Mars. He both heats and humidifies; and because his heating power is the greater by reason of the underlying spheres, he produces fertilizing winds.

Venus has the same powers and tempered nature as Jupiter, but acts in the opposite way; for she warms moderately because of her nearness to the sun, but chiefly humidifies, like the moon, because of the amount of her own light and because she appropriates the exhalations from the moist atmosphere surrounding the earth.

Mercury in general is found at certain times alike to be drying and absorptive of moisture, because he never is far removed in longitude from the heat of the sun; and again humidifying, because he is next above the sphere of the moon, which is closest to the earth; and to change quickly from one to the other, inspired as it were by the speed of his motion in the neighbourhood of the sun itself."
We might notice, compared to some other authors, little or no mythology, no odes to Goddesses and Gods, no poetry. This section in my humble opinion constitutes the corner stone of Ptolemy's entire astrological edifice. In Section 9, he defined the individual fixed stars, once again without mythological attributes, as blends of the planetary qualities stated above.

We might also observe the distinctly Aristotelian flavour of Ptolemy's approach compared to the Stoic and / or Platonic orientations often found amongst astrological authors even today. Many if not most current proponents of others streams of ancient astrology consider Ptolemy as an 'innovator', pejoratively a 'revisionist', who was 'outside the mainstream' (who defines this based on which criteria?) of Hellenistic astrology. Perhaps, but does this necessarily imply that Ptolemy's system was mistaken?

It seems to me that, entirely within the framework of his own system established in the Section quoted in this message, Ptolemy might have explained the bases of the planetary domiciles, particularly the Cancer-Leo axis, more optimally, and thus avoided suppositions of a possible anachronism.

More about this later.

Best regards,

lihin
Non esse nihil non est.

5
Martin Gansten
This is true (at least as far as we know at present -- surprising discoveries have been made before!), but Ptolemy didn't invent domicile rulerships. He was probably the first to give the naturalistic explanation based on the seasons, though, so I would say that the problems lies in connecting the rulership scheme to the seasonal framework.
I am not aware of multiple 'problems' (unless we are getting into the southern hemisphere seasons issue again). However, it could be argued that Ptolemy is here putting more emphasis on the symbolic role of tropical Leo as the domicile of the Sun. I cannot believe an astronomer of Ptolemy's stature was not aware of this problem. Still, his wording is pushing the naturalistic approach further than the astronomy allows. This has implications for how Ptolemy interprets the nature of the signs since to some extent these are determined both by their planetary rulers and aspectual relationship to the luminaries. The other issue being their placement in the order of the celestial spheres.

Off the top of my head I haven't seen any references to the Thema Mundi in the Tetrabiblos. However, if this was influencing Ptolemy it would provide yet another reason for rejecting Gemini as it is the 12th whole sign house in that scheme.

So in summary Ptolemy seems to be avoiding the 'inconvenient truth' of Gemini being a warmer season than Leo for the following reasons:

1 The luminaries are pivotal to his approach to sign rulership
2 The relationship to the luminaries modify the nature of the signs
3 He is relying on the symbolic role of tropical Leo as the domicile of the Sun
4 He is (possibly) thinking of the Thema Mundi which makes Gemini the 12th whole sign house from Cancer. Indeed even without the Thema Mundi this might be a consideration. For example, astrologers like Morin and Culpeper considered the Moon in Gemini as weak due to its placement from the domicile of the Moon.

I suppose its possible Ptolemy might have been still influenced by sidereal considerations with the Leo emphasis harking back to when the Solstice was there. However, he clearly had lots of logical reasons for focusing exclusively on Cancer and Leo based on the tropical zodiac.

Clearly on astronomical grounds Gemini is a more 'northern' sign in terms of the declination of the Sun. Hence Cancer has its antiscion points in Gemini. Ptolemy himself tells us this elsewhere in the Tetrabiblos!

Going out more on a limb another issue might have been local climatic considerations in Alexandria which might have made it difficult to accurately measure summer temperatures in the way we can today. Moreover, average temperatures in August might have been actually warmer due to local factors such as coastal winds etc. I am obviously just speculating on that last point!

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

Production and manifestation

6
Good afternoon,

Here are for example the relevant mean daily temperatures by calendar month (source: Wikipedia) in degrees Celsius of the large Northern Italian city of Milan, situated just north of the 45th parallel of geographic latitude:

May 16.6
June 20.6
July 23.1
August 22.2
September 18.9


Transposed into the dates of the tropical signs for the northern hemisphere, we have:

Gemini 19.6
Cancer 21.9
Leo 21.7
Virgo 20.2


Had Klaudios Ptolomaios written something like 'Since of the twelve signs, those that exhibit the most heat and warmth are Cancer and Leo ...', his text would scarcely give rise to equivocation. No-one has ever been, is or will be perfect. Nevertheless, it seems to me that misunderstanding and / or ill will would be required to opine that the passage marked in bold typeface of Tetrabiblos, Book I, Section 17 at the beginning of this thread invalidates Ptolemy's system or is in contradiction to it.

Not only in the yearly revolution but also in the daily rotation we see that the production (generation) of heat (or cold) precedes the culmination of its manifestation by about one sign or two hours. A bit more of Aristotle might not have harmed Ptolemy's text in this instance.

Best regards,

lihin

PS calculation for Cancer corrected
Last edited by lihin on Tue Nov 13, 2012 5:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Non esse nihil non est.

Mean temperatures in Alexandria, Egypt

7
Good afternoon,

Here are comparable modern data for Alexandria, Egypt, at or near Klaudios Ptolomaios' residence in the 2nd century CE:

May 21.2
June 24.3
July 25.9
August 26.3
September 25.1


By tropical, northern hemisphere sign:

Gemini 23.1
Cancer 24.7
Leo 25.3
Virgo 21.1


Best regards,

lihin
Non esse nihil non est.

8
Mark wrote:I am not aware of multiple 'problems' (unless we are getting into the southern hemisphere seasons issue again).
No, it was a typo (which is why the following verb is in the singular). Corrected now.
Still, his wording is pushing the naturalistic approach further than the astronomy allows.
Yes.
Off the top of my head I haven't seen any references to the Thema Mundi in the Tetrabiblos.
No, to my knowledge there is none.
Indeed even without the Thema Mundi this might be a consideration. For example, astrologers like Morin and Culpeper considered the Moon in Gemini as weak due to its placement from the domicile of the Moon.
They were following an old tradition here, but one seemingly based on a misunderstanding. If I may quote a footnote from one of my own articles:
Carole Mary Crofts, in her doctoral thesis ?Kit?b al-I?tiy?r?t ?al? l-buy?tal-i?nai ?a?ar, by Sahl ibn Bi?r al-Isr???l?, with its Latin Translation De Electionibus? (Glasgow University, 1985), argues that this condition is a misunderstanding on Sahl?s part of a doctrine derived from Dorotheus of Sidon and concerning the placement of the moon in a malefic twelfth part (??????????????) rather than in the twelfth sign from its domicile.
Ben Dykes discusses this in his Works of Sahl & M?sh??all?h, pp. lxii?lxvi.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

9
I am still scratching my head over the astronomy and astrology here, but the months of Cancer and Leo are climatically warmer than the month of Gemini in the Mediterranean region. This has to do with the fact that once you get reasonably far north of the equator, the land mass and ocean temperatures are cool or cold in the winter, and it takes a while for the sun appearing farther north for them to heat up sufficiently to produce summer-like temperatures.

Keeping in mind precession, here is what Mr. Pt says about climate in Tetrabiblos 2:11, presumably regarding the regions known around Alexandria. Also keeping in mind that in a Mediterannean climate, the winters are cool and rainy, and the summers are hot and dry; indeed, rainless.


Gemini "equable temperature"
leading portion "wet and destructive"
middle portion "temperate"
following portion ""mixed and irregular"
northern parts "windy"
southern parts "dry and parching"

Cancer: "fair, warm weather"
leading portion "stifling.. misty"
middle portion "temperate"
northern & southern parts "fiery and parching"

Leo: "hot and stifling"
leading portion: "stifling and pestilential"
middle part "temperate"
following portion "wet and destructive
northern parts: unstable and firey"
southern parts "moist"

By Virgo ca. 150 AD, one is into the leading edge of the rainy season. But Virgo is warmer than Pisces ("cold and windy") because Virgo is on the trailing edge of summer, while Pisces is the trailing edge of the winter.

But this sure looks like Cancer and Leo are the warmest and driest months to Mr. Pt, based upon his climatology.

10
Waybread wrote:
But this sure looks like Cancer and Leo are the warmest and driest months to Mr. Pt, based upon his climatology.
I hope there are no Australians reading this thread .... :wink:

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

11
Agreed, Mark, but Mr. Pt's universe didn't include them.

Ptolemy wrote about and mapped the known world of his day. It's not clear how much of it he considered when he assigned the luminaries to Cancer and Leo on the grounds of their warm temperatures. He would have known about the difference in climate between Egypt and the rest of the Roman empire.

Here is a climograph (temperature) for his home town of Alexandria, Egypt today:
http://www.weather-and-climate.com/uplo ... andria.png

Precession of the equinoxes over the past two millenia would suggest that we mentally knock our modern months and signs back into the previous one. Their 0 degrees Aries is now close to our 0 degrees Pisces.

Applicable to the southern hemisphere?

12
Good morning,

The matter of astrological applicability of the tropical zodiac of the northern hemisphere, where about 90 % of humans reside, to the southern hemisphere is in my opinion entirely a valid one. It has been discussed controversially for centuries.

May i suggest to open a new thread if anyone wishes to take this up?

Best regards,

lihin
Non esse nihil non est.