†† This caliph reigned in the earlier part of the 9th century, and caused Ptolemy’s Great Construction to be translated into Arabic, as hereafter mentioned.
††† This seems to be a mistake of the Arabian author, for Gushtasp was identical with Darius Hystaspis, and Lohrasp (otherwise Cyaxares) was father of Darius the Mede, who was overcome by Cyrus, 536 b.c.—See Newton.
[2] To this view of the case, the following remarks seem not inapplicable: they are taken from a periodical work of deserved reputation:—
“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.
[3] In the 51st No. of the Quarterly Review, Art. “Astrology and Alchymy,” the following observations are made:—
“Certainly, if man may ever found his glory on the achievements of his wisdom, he may reasonably exult in the discoveries of astronomy; but the knowledge which avails us has been created solely by the absurdities which it has extirpated. Delusion became the basis of truth. Horoscopes and nativities have taught us to place the planet in its sure and silent path; and the acquirements which, of all others, now testify the might of the human intellect, derived their origin from weakness and credulity” (p. 181). Again; “Astrology, like alchymy, derives no protection from sober reason; yet, with all its vanity and idleness, it was not a corrupting weakness. Tokens, predictions, prognostics, possess a psychological reality. All events are but the consummation of preceding causes, clearly felt, but not distinctly apprehended. When the strain is sounded, the most untutored listener can tell that it will end with the key-note, though he cannot explain why each successive bar must at last lead to the concluding chord. The omen embodies the presentiment, and receives its consistency from our hopes or fears.” (p. 208).
It may, perhaps, be difficult to assent to all of the propositions involved in these extracts; but there are among them some which are clearly unquestionable.
[4] This edition was printed in double columns, one containing Proclus’s Greek Paraphrase, the other the Latin translation of Leo Allatius; and William Lilly (no light authority in these matters) thus wrote of it in the year 1647: “Indeed Ptolemy hath been printed in folio, in quarto, in octavo, in sixteens: that lately printed at Leyden” (where cthe Elzevirs were established) “I conceive to be most exact; it was performed by Allatius.” To the said edition is prefixed an anonymous address to the reader, in Latin, and to the following effect:—