[10] Spectacle de la Nature.
[11] The objection which has been urged against astrology, that the signs are continually moving from their positions, cannot invalidate this conclusion. That objection has, in fact, no real existence; for Ptolemy seems to have been aware of this motion of the signs, and has fully provided for it in the 25th Chapter of the 1st Book of the Tetrabiblos. From that chapter it is clear that the respective influences he ascribes to the twelve signs (or divisions of the zodiac) were considered by him as appurtenant to the places they occupied, and not to the stars of which they were composed. He has expressly and repeatedly declared that the point of the vernal equinox is ever the beginning of the zodiac, and that the 30 degrees following it ever retain the same virtue as that which he has in this work attributed to Aries, although the stars forming Aries may have quitted those degrees: the next 30 degrees are still be accounted as Taurus, and so of the rest. There is abundant proof throughout the Tetrabiblos, that Ptolemy considered the virtues of the constellations of the zodiac distinctly from those of the spaces they occupied.
[12] The French say 813, but 827 is the date given by English chronologists.
[13] This scientific man was a Mathurine Friar, and a professor in the University of Paris: he died in 1256. It is pointed out in the Edinburgh Review, No. 68, that he was a native of Yorkshire, and his real name John Holywood, euphonized, in Paris, into Sacrobosco.
[14] Chalmers.—The Tetrabiblos was among these works.
[15] To such readers as may be curious to know in what manner this book was promulgated in Europe, after the revival of letters, the following extract from the Bibliotheca Græca of Fabricius will furnish information:—
“Lib. IV. Cap. XIV. §4. Τετραβιβλος, Συνταξις Μαθηματικη Quadripartitum, sive quatuor libri de apotelesmatibus et judiciis astrorum, ad Syrum (h). Græce primum editi a Joachimo Camerario, cum versione suâ duorum priorum librorum, et præcipuorum e reliquis locorum. Norimb. 1535, 4to.—Hinc cum versione Phil. Melancthonis, qui in præfat, ad Erasmum Ebnerum Senatorem Norimbergensem testatur se editionem Camerarii multis mendis purgasse, tum numeros in locis apheticis tam Græci quam Latini textus emendasse. Basil, 1553; 8vo.—Latine pridem verterat Ægidius Tebaldinus, sive latino-barbaré ex Hispanica versione, Alfonsi Castellæ Regis jussu, ex Arabico (i) confectâ. Vertit et Antonius Gogava, Lovan. 1548, 4to; Patavii, 1658, 12mo; Pragæ, 1610, 12mo. Commentario illustravit Hieron. Cardanus prioribus duobus libris Camerarii, posterioribus Gogavæ versione servatâ, Basil, 1554, fol.; 1579, fol.; Lugd. 1555, 8vo, et in Cardani opp.—Georgii Vallæ commentarius, anno 1502 editus, nihil aliud est, quam Latina versio scholiorum Græcorum, sive exegeseos jejunæ Demophili in tetrabiblon, quæ cum Porphyrii sive Antiochi isagoge, Græce et Latine, addita Hieron Wolfii versione, lucem vidit Basil. 1559, his scholiis Dorotheus allegatur, p. 48, 110, et 139; Cleopatra, p. 88; Porphyrius Philosophus, p. 169. Meminit et auctor Petosiridis ac Necepso, p. 112:—λεγει δε παλαιον τον Νεχεψω (ita leg, pro χεψω ut p. 112) και Πετοσιριν, ουτοι χαρ πρωτοι το δι αςρολογιας εχηπλωσαν προγνωςικον† Paraphrasin tetrabibli a Proclo concinnatam Græce edidit Melancthon, Basil. 1554, 8vo. Græce et Latine cum versione suâ Leo Allatius, Lugd. Batav. 1654,†† 8vo. Locum Ptolemæi e codice Græco MS. in collegio Corporis Christi Oxon, feliciter restituit Seldenus, p. 35 ad Marmora Arundeliana. Haly Heben Rodoan Arabis commentarium laudat Cardanus, cum Demophilo Latine editum.”
“(h) Schol. Græc.—Προσφωνει τω Συρω ο Πτολεμαιος το βιβλιον, προς ον και τας αλλας αντου πασας πραγματειας προσφωνησεν. Λεγουσι δε τινες ως πεπλαςαι αυτο το του Συρω ονομα. Αλλοι δε οτι ον πεπλαςαι, αλλ’ ιατρος ην ουτος αχθεις και δια τουτων των μαθηματων.”
“(i) Selden. Uxor Hebr. p. 342. Cæterum de Alphonsi Regis curâ in promovenda Arabica Quadripartiti versione, vide, si placet, Nic: Antonium in Bibl. veteri Hispana, t. 2, p. 55, vel Acta Erud. A. 1697, p. 302. Latino versio ex Arabico facta lucem vidit Venet, 1493, fol. Viderit porro Gassendus qui in Philosophia Epicuri, ubi contra Astrologos disputat. t. 2, p. 501, contendit tetrabiblon indignum esse Ptolemæi genio et subdititum. Equidem Jo. Pico judice, l. 1, contra Astrologos, p. 285, Ptolemæus malorum sive Apotelesmaticorum est optimus.”
† “Nechepsos and Petosiris are anciently spoken of, for they first explained prognostication by Astrology.”