[139] The Greek says “enigmatical.”
[140] One Latin translation has rendered this word “stammerers”; and, as Harpocrates was the god of silence, Ptolemy has probably used the epithet to signify defect of speech.
[141] “Dumb.” The Greek is οδοντων εςερημενον, “deprived of teeth,” and Allatius has so translated it: but other translations render these words by dumb, which, considering the nature of Mercury, seems their preferable signification.
[142] A prorogator is either a luminary, planet, or a certain degree of the zodiac, which determines the duration of life, or the time of the accomplishment of any event: it is hereafter fully treated of in the 13th Chapter of this Book; which shows that, in the instance now mentioned, it would be a luminary, either in the ascendant, or in the mid-heaven.
[143] The epithet anæretic is a term of art, adopted from the Greek, signifying fatal, or destructive.
[144] The Latin translation, printed at Perugio in 1646, has here the following passage in addition: “But it must be seen which luminary may follow the other in the succession of the signs; for if the Moon should so follow the Sun, the part of Fortune is also to be numbered from the horoscope or ascendant, according to the succession of the signs. But if the Moon precede the Sun, the part of Fortune must be numbered from the ascendant, contrary to the succession of the signs.”
There is a long dissertation on the part of Fortune, in Cooper’s Placidus, from pp. 308 to 318; and, among the directions there given for computing its situation, the following seem the most accurate and simple: viz. “In the diurnal geniture, the Sun’s true distance from the east is to be added to the Moon’s right ascension, and in the nocturnal, subtracted; for the number thence arising will be the place and right ascension of the part of Fortune: and it always has the same declination with the Moon, both in number and name, wherever it is found. Again, let the Sun’s oblique ascension, taken in the ascendant, be subtracted always from the oblique ascendant of the ascendant, as well in the day as in the night, and the remaining difference be added to the Moon’s right ascension; the sum will be the right ascension of the part of Fortune, which will have the Moon’s declination.” It is shown also by this dissertation, that the situation of the part of Fortune must be necessarily confined to the lunar parallels; that it can but rarely be in the ecliptic; and that its latitude is ever varying. Cooper also adds, from Cardan’s Commentaries on the Tetrabiblos, that “if the Moon is going from the conjunction to the opposition of the Sun, then the Moon follows the Sun, and the part of Fortune is always under the Earth, from the ascendant; but if the Moon has passed the opposition, she goes before the Sun, and the part of Fortune is before the ascendant, and always above the earth.” This remark of Cardan’s is, in effect, exactly equivalent to what is stated in the additional passage inserted in the Perugio Latin translation, and given above.
In the Primum Mobile of Placidus (Cooper’s translation, p. 45), the following remark and example are given: “The part of Fortune is placed according to the Moon’s distance from the Sun; and you must observe what rays the Moon has to the Sun, for the latter ought to have the same, and with the same excess or deficiency, as the part of Fortune to the horoscope. As the Moon is to the Sun, so is the part of Fortune to the horoscope; and as the Sun is to the horoscope, so is the Moon to the part of Fortune. So, in the nativity of Charles V, the Moon applies to the ultimate sextile of the Sun, but with a deficiency of 7° 45′: I subtract the 7° 45′ from 5° 34′ of Scorpio, the ultimate sextile to the horoscope, and the part of Fortune is placed in 28° 9′ of Libra.” N.B.—In this nativity, according to Placidus, the Sun is in the second house, in 14° 30′ of Pisces: the Moon in the ascendant, in 6° 45′ of Capricorn; the ascendant is 5° 34′ of Capricorn; and the part Fortune is in the ninth house, in 28° 9′ of Libra.
[145] According to her position in the scheme of the nativity.
[146] Placidus, in remarking on the nativity of John di Colonna, after stating his opinion that it is an error to suppose that a malign influence to the horoscope, when the horoscope has not the primary signification of life is anæretic, says, that “the order and method which Ptolemy lays down for the election of a prorogator are quite absurd, unless life be at the disposal of a sole prime significator only.” He proves by other arguments also, and by instances of the fact, that “one only signifies life, elected according to Ptolemy’s method.” (Cooper’s translation, p. 184.)