How are Ptolemy?s terms determined?

1
Can anyone explain to me, in clearer language than Ptolemy does, the reason for the order of the term rulerships through the signs? That is, what we call Ptolemy?s terms, not the Egyptian ones (from what I understand no one claims to offer any logic for their arrangement).

I understand the reason why the first ruler of each sign is what it is, but after that it?s not obvious to me why the rulership passes from one planet to another in the order that it does. I?ve tried a variety of different approaches, based on how I thought the text was explaining it, but all of them only work for some of the signs and not all of them.

I?ve referred to the Ashmand, Robbins and Schmidt edition of Tetrabiblos. Schmidt seems to imply that only his version has a sharp enough translation to allow the procedure to be followed, but he doesn?t demonstrate it, so I?m not sure if he has actually verified that the results follow the instruction precisely or whether I?ve missed something essential with regard to how we upgrade or downgrade the term rulers.

I?m not holding my breath on this but if someone else has worked through the compilation of the table according to that instruction, I?d be happy enough just to know whether it is reliable or not. Of if there ar any good sources to point me to ....

Deb

2
Hi Deborah,
I worked through the rules for the terms step by step as set out by Ptolemy in my book, The Sun & The Aspects. You will find tables for each sign in the Appendix. It was quite tricky juggling everything together. Let me know if this helps.

Maurice.

3
Deborah,
I finally concluded that there was no astrological sense to the terms and their arrangement. They were not visible in the night sky and were the figment of someone's imagination, therefore they were of no use and should be discarded.

Maurice.

4
I worked through the rules for the terms step by step as set out by Ptolemy in my book, The Sun & The Aspects. You will find tables for each sign in the Appendix. It was quite tricky juggling everything together. Let me know if this helps.
It will, I?m sure. Let me see what you have there and stand by for questions :)
I finally concluded that there was no astrological sense to the terms and their arrangement. They were not visible in the night sky and were the figment of someone's imagination, therefore they were of no use and should be discarded.
It is demoralising isn?t it? Even if the instruction gives a way to derive the rulerships, the logic behind the arrangement seems so contrived and lacking in philosophical design as to make you wonder how ?essential? these dignities can really be. I?ve come close to wanting to throw them out a few times ? I don?t like the idea of using something that has such a weak basis. Even Ptolemy says that the Egyptian terms ought to have the most credit on the basis of being more proven and more widely accepted in his day, but then he offers these because the Egyptian terms have no rationale whereas these are supposed to have some sort of rationale. But it's hardly a satisfactory one.

I think I would always keep the terms for my horary work simply because they add another dimension to the language (useful for descriptions, etc), and also because if I did start messing with the essential dignity arrangement I wouldn?t know where to stop. The zodiac signs aren't visible either, but at least we can understand that the rulerships there have a sense of logic behind them. But when it comes to things like researching astrological influences on say, earthquakes, or doing statistical studies like Gauquelin did, I?d start to wonder whether including things like terms would make the results less reliable than they could be ? although Lee Lehman claimed that they show the promise of being statistically significant in her book Essential Dignities.

Thanks for the reply.
Deb

6
Hi Astrojin

It doesn?t do much for me I?m afraid because it?s the sense of order behind the rulerships I?m looking for. For example, the more you explore the decans, the more powerful the philosophy behind them seems to be; but with the terms the opposite seems to be the case. If the article pointed out why the Egyptian terms were organised in the way that they are, I would find it more interesting.

7
Deb wrote:
It is demoralising isn?t it? Even if the instruction gives a way to derive the rulerships, the logic behind the arrangement seems so contrived and lacking in philosophical design as to make you wonder how ?essential? these dignities can really be.
I thought you might be interested in this:
"In judging the effects of the celestial bodies on the sublunary world, the astrologers of antiquity relied upon principles that were either invented and therefore unfounded in nature, or that were to a certain extent founded in nature but badly understood and put to even worse application. In the former group are the terms, decans, faces, the various parts, and the annual, monthly, and diurnal progressions, as well as other worthless items introduced by the Chaldeans, Arabs, and Egyptians."

Jean Baptise Morin From the Peface of volume XXI of Astrologia Gallica published 1661

Tom

Re: How are Ptolemy?s terms determined?

8
Can anyone explain to me, in clearer language than Ptolemy does, the reason for the order of the term rulerships through the signs? That is, what we call Ptolemy?s terms, not the Egyptian ones (from what I understand no one claims to offer any logic for their arrangement).
Deb
Deb,

Here are some thoughts, though not a complete explanation. Ptolemy seemed displeased with the Egyptian terms because they did not have a logical or symmetrical arrangement that was so important to the Greek philosophical worldview. Hence, he decided to rearrange the Egyptian terms and came up with his own "more logical" order. The Egyptian terms appear to be empirically derived, probably from observations that have been lost to time. There may be a pattern to the Egyptian terms but Ptolemy did not see one.

My understanding of Ptolemy's take on the terms is as follows. The five planets rule the terms in order, in each sign, of their helpfulness or potential for harm. First place is generally the best, firth or last place is generally the worst but this sequence can be modified by the signs and dignities or debilities of the planets in each sign.

The archetypal pattern should be: Jupiter - Venus - Mercury - Mars - Saturn, that is, Greater Benefic - Lesser Benefic - Neutral - Lesser Malefic - Greater Malefic. This is the pattern found in Aries, the first sign. The subsequent signs vary the sequence of this pattern based on the dignities of the planets in each sign. Interestingly, this pattern repeats for the first term of the first 5 signs, that is the first term of Aries of Jupiter; of Taurus, is Venus; of Gemini, Mercury; of Cancer, Mars; of Leo, Saturn. I don't know whether this is a coincidence or was deliberate on Ptolemy' part.

It also appears that Ptolemy placed malefics as first term rulers of those signs that have no exaltations (Leo, Scorpio, Aquarius) as if he thought that a sign without exaltation starts off on a bad foot.

Signs where the Sun is in detriment or fall have Saturn ruling the first term. If the solar influx is diminished, Saturn seems to take over. It's bad to step into a world without sunlight.

I realize that this is not a full explanation but there does appear to be a logic to Ptolemy's attributions of the terms that is not apparent in the Egyptian terms.

I'll be interested in your thoughts.

Tony

10
there is an excellent survey on this issue by Giuseppe Bezza and Marco Fumagalli (in Italian)
I read the article written by G. Bezza, and I also think it's a good one, but I think it demonstrates the order of terms according to an Anonymous (the order is different from the one used by Ptolemy in his Terabiblos)

11
Hi Osthanes,

Unfortunately I don?t read Italian so I can?t get the benefit of the article you linked to, but thanks for placing it here for those that can.

Hi Tony,

Thanks for your thoughts. I understand what you are saying about some of those general principles (such as the natural order, etc), but that doesn?t seem to completely match with the way that Ptolemy explains this. To pick up on your initial point first though, it is often said that Ptolemy rearranged the Egyptian terms to derive a system with a more logical basis but he never claims to have done this himself. He says ?we have come across an ancient manuscript, much damaged, which contains a natural and consistent explanation of their order and number?, and then he gives a summary of the explanation contained within that manuscript, ending with the table that results from it, which henceforth were known as ?Ptolemy?s terms?, although he never claimed to have had any input in their arrangement.

After reading the relevant passages several times it doesn?t seem to me that Ptolemy strongly endorses these terms over the Egyptian ones, but merely presents what he has found in this ancient and badly damaged document. He starts by saying that there are two systems in common use at his time: the Egyptian and the Babylonian, and it is clear that he is much more in favour of the Egyptian terms than the Babylonian ones. But he offers up this newly discovered information as well, and he seems to split his opinion here by saying that the Egyptian terms are more credible and accepted by authority, but no one has been able to offer an explanation of the logic behind them, whereas the ones contained in the document are different from any he has encountered before, so they lack authority but they do have an explanation behind their design. I should think that it bothered Ptolemy to be unable to present a reason for the Egyptian terms, since he was the great philosopher who above all things wanted to give a rational account for astrology in his book.

Here?s what I understand of that rationale so far. I?m not claiming to understand this fully at this point, so if you think I am in need a correction, please let me know.

Ptolemy says that terms in the ancient manuscript consider the rulers by exaltation, triplicity and sign, so if any planet rules two of these dignities they automatically take rulership of the first set of terms in each sign. Because we have to discount the Sun and Moon, the signs which begin with a planet that has two rulerships are:

Taurus with Venus: rules sign and triplicity (day)
Gemini with Mercury: rules sign and triplicity (night)
Virgo with Mercury: rules exaltation and sign
Libra with Saturn: rules exaltation and triplicity (day)
Scorpio with Mars: rules sign and triplicity (night)
Sagittarius with Jupiter: rules sign and triplicity (night)
Aquarius with Saturn: rules sign and triplicity (day)
Pisces with Venus: rules exaltation and triplicity (day)

That leaves Aries, Cancer, Leo and Capricorn as the only signs that don?t start with a term ruler which rules two of the dignities considered. So at that point we then discount a malefic as having the potential to govern the first term and make sure that malefics are put last. However, (we fit an exception here for the signs of the luminaries) - because Cancer and Leo are considered blighted in this scheme on account of being ruled by the Sun and Moon that take no part in it, malefics are given rulership of the first terms in those two signs, with Saturn and Mars attributed by sect so that Saturn (diurnal) leads the term rulerships in Leo and Mars (nocturnal) leads the terms in Cancer. This is where I don?t see the explanation as being ?natural? or ?consistent? as Ptolemy claims it is.

Anyway, that leaves Aries and Capricorn. Ptolemy says that where there is no planet holding rulership of more than one dignity, malefics should be placed last and priority should be given to the ruler of the exaltation (if there is one), then to the triplicity, and lastly to the ruler of the sign. So in Aries, although the sign is ruled by Mars, the first term rulership is given to Jupiter because triplicity rulership dominates over sign rulership. Mars would be shunted towards the back anyway because it is a malefic, and a malefic can only take first place if it holds two rulerships (except for Cancer and Leo). The same reason discounts Mars - exaltation ruler ? for Capricorn, and the first terms are given to Venus, the strongest remaining ruler of a dignity because Venus rules the triplicity by day.

Although I don?t see this logic as neat, it does work as a way to explain why each set of terms is led by the first planet in the scheme. The result is:

Aries: Jupiter
Taurus: Venus
Gemini: Mercury
Cancer: Mars
Leo: Saturn
Virgo: Mercury
Libra: Saturn
Scorpio: Mars
Sagittarius: Jupiter
Capricorn: Venus
Aquarius: Saturn
Pisces: Venus

It is from this point on that I struggle to see the consistency for the order of the remaining term rulers for each sign. I may not be interpreting Ptolemy?s instruction correctly but I?ve tried a few examples of what I thought it might mean, but nothing gives me a clear result for all the signs ? for example why Mars sometimes take the last place, rather than Saturn. I do believe that it is only a matter of understanding Ptolemy?s meaning correctly, and that the answer is in his text, because he states that the explanation is consistent throughout the table and demonstrates both the order of the terms and reason for the number of degrees that each planet has.

I?d like to go a bit further into that in another post, and give you or anyone else a chance to contradict me on what I?ve written so far, in case there is any doubt about the derivation of the first term rulers.

Thanks for the interest, and any feedback so far.
Deb
Last edited by Deb on Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

12
Hi Sasha,

You may be right, as the main problem is that noone knows what is the true Ptolemaic system. In fact, there are numerous differences between the manuscripts, and the text explaining the background philosophy is as obscure in Greek as in the translations. It was an obvious problem for the editors too, and they employed various reasons in publishing their own version. As I saw, Huebner's edition and the reconstruction of this anonymous commentator does not differ so much, thus we can use it with the necessary precautions.

Osthanes