Balbillus and the Method of aphesis

Martin Gansten

M ORE THAN half a century ago, an annotated col-

lection of early Greek horoscopes was published by
O. Neugebauer and H. B. Van Hoesen, containing
much valuable material for the study of ancient astrology.1
Perhaps inevitably, however, certain aspects of astrological pro-
cedure were imperfectly understood by the two pioneers. I
propose in this article to examine one such misconstrued topic,
namely, the determination of a subject’s length of life by the
method known as ἄφεσις, particularly as evinced in the two
earliest literary horoscopes discussed by Neugebauer and Van
Hoesen, both excerpted from the works of Balbillus (d. ca. 79
CE).
The two systems of direction
ἄφεσις, “sending out, release,” was one of the most promi-
nent prognostic methods of classical Greek astrology, subse-
quently known to medieval Perso-Arabic astrologers as at-tasyīr
and to their Latin translators as athazir or directio.2 As the
method had its foundation in the apparent diurnal rotation of
the celestial sphere, sometimes known as the “primary motion”
of the heavenly bodies (as opposed to their proper or “sec-
ondary” motion along the ecliptic), it has been known since
early modern times as primary direction.3 In what follows, I shall

1 O. Neugebauer and H. B. Van Hoesen, Greek Horoscopes (Philadelphia

1959).
2 The first scholarly treatment of the subject of ἄφεσις, unfortunately

more notable for its sarcasm than for its illuminating properties, is found in
A. Bouché-Leclercq, L’astrologie grecque (Paris 1899) 411–421.
3 This terminology derives from Placido de Titi (Placidus), who wanted to

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 587–602
2012 Martin Gansten
588 BALBILLUS AND THE METHOD OF APHESIS

prefer “direction” over other translations in current academic

use, such as “prorogation” or “progression.”
Historically, direction based on diurnal motion has taken two
main forms. The simpler of these, calculated entirely by
oblique ascension, almost certainly began as a reckoning of
ecliptical degrees rising over the eastern horizon. Such figures
were easily, if not always very correctly, approximated using
tables of the times required for each of the twelve zodiacal signs
to rise at a given clime. Rising times were expressed in equa-
torial degrees, each degree symbolically corresponding to one
year in the life of the subject of the nativity. These calculations
assumed each sign to rise at a uniform speed, which would then
increase or decrease abruptly as the next sign began to rise. In
reality, of course, such is not the case; but despite the crudeness
of the calculations, the continuous passing of the degrees of the
ecliptic over the horizon constitutes an actual astronomical
phenomenon.
Soon, however, astrologers—on average perhaps no more
astronomically astute in the early centuries of the Common Era
than at present—began using rising times to convert the
distance between any two points in a nativity into time. The
approximate number of equatorial degrees rising with each
zodiacal sign was treated as a symbolic number of years asso-
ciated with that sign, irrespective of whether or not it was rising
in the horoscope under consideration. As any given part of the
ecliptic will rise, set, culminate, or cross some intermediate
point in different amounts of time, such a procedure no longer
corresponded to astronomical reality. Instances of this sim-
plistic procedure are found in several authors of the late clas-
sical period, such as Vettius Valens (120–ca. 175) and Paul of
Alexandria (fl. 378).4
___
distinguish the traditional directiones primariae from his newly invented direc-
tiones secundariae: Placidus de Titis, Physiomathematica, sive Coelestis Philosophia
(Milan 1675) 239 ff.
4 For examples see Vett. Val. 3.3 (128–132 Pingree; transl. E. Knobloch

and O. Schönberger, Vettius Valens: Blütensträusse [St. Katharinen 2004] 128–

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 587–602
MARTIN GANSTEN 589

Against this method stands the second, more sophisticated

directional system described by Claudius Ptolemy (ca. 100–ca.
178) in his Apotelesmatics, better known as Tetrabiblos. The time
of a direction, Ptolemy wrote, should not “be taken simply or
off-hand, in accordance with the usual traditions”—that is, by
oblique ascension, or the rising times of the signs—unless the
direction is actually made to the eastern horizon, or to a planet
situated on it.5 If a direction is made to the meridian or to a
planet on it, the time should be found by degrees of right
ascension; and if to some place between the horizon and
meridian, an intermediate method should be used: “For a place
is similar and the same if it has the same position in the same
direction with reference both to the horizon and to the
meridian.”6 In this latter method, directions were performed by
proportional distances, one planet or ecliptical degree being
carried forward by the apparent motion of the celestial sphere
until it reached a point between horizon and meridian cor-
responding to the position held at birth by another planet or
ecliptical degree. While Ptolemy is our earliest source for this
procedure, he does not claim to have invented it.
Both methods of direction survived well into the Middle
Ages, the more complex system gradually gaining ground with
the increasing mathematical proficiency of Arabic authors. Al-
Qabīṣī ῾Abd al-῾Azīz (better known as Alcabitius or Abdilaziz,
with variants; d. 967) gives a detailed description of the
Ptolemaic method in his Kitāb al-mudkhal ilā ṣinā῾at aḥkām an-
nujūm (“Introduction to the art of judgements of the stars”),
which was to become a standard work of reference for many
___
132) and Paul. Alex. 34 (90–91 Boer; transl. D. G. Greenbaum, Late Classical
Astrology [Reston 2001] 70–72). Paul’s text begins with the assertion that he
has revised an earlier work to include the “more useful” directional method
of Ptolemy discussed below; but the method he actually puts forth is the
common one rejected by Ptolemy.
5 Ptol. Tetr. 3.11.15 (213 Hübner; transl. F. E. Robbins, Ptolemy: Tetrabiblos

[Cambridge (Mass.) 1940] 287).

6 Tetr. 3.11.18 (214 Hübner, 291 Robbins).

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 587–602
590 BALBILLUS AND THE METHOD OF APHESIS

centuries.7 He makes no mention of directions by mere rising

times, nor does the Persian polymath al-Bīrūnī (973–1048),
who calls the calculation of directions to places not on the
horizon or meridian “a long and difficult business.”8 The
simpler method was, however, still sufficiently well-remem-
bered to be an embarrassment to Guido Bonatti (ca. 1207–ca.
1296), who in his voluminous Liber Astronomiae makes a half-
hearted attempt to reconcile the two:9
Indeed ῾Umar said that Ptolemy worked by another method
[than the one based on rising times], but, however, it was not
contrary to this, even though it seemed different from it. Perhaps
it seemed more difficult to some.
The two methods are in fact irreconcilable; and as we have
seen, Ptolemy had rejected the method of rising times outright.
It is true, however, that Ptolemy’s method was more math-
ematically involved; and Bonatti, after a brief and not very
clear account of it, refers his readers to Al-Qabīṣī for details.10
The starter and the length of life
Like most astrological authors both of his own era and later,
Ptolemy viewed directions first and foremost as a means of
determining the length of a subject’s life. This procedure
formed the basis of all other predictions. In a phrase perhaps
originating with Nechepso-Petosiris, and echoed by astrologers
throughout the centuries, Ptolemy writes:11

7 Al-Qabīṣī’s work was translated into Latin in the twelfth century. For

his teaching on directions see C. Burnett et al., Al-Qabīṣī (Alcabitius): The

Introduction to Astrology (London 2004) 121 ff.
8 Transl. R. R. Wright, The Book of Instruction in the Elements of the Art of

Astrology (London 1934) 382–383.

9 G. Bonatus, Tractatus astronomie (Augsburg 1491) 328r, transl. B. Dykes,

The Book of Astronomy by Guido Bonatti (Golden Valley 2007) 1145; additions in
square brackets are mine.
10 Bonatus, Tractatus 397v (1415 Dykes).

11 Tetr. 3.11.1 (202 Hübner, 271 Robbins).

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 587–602
MARTIN GANSTEN 591

The consideration of the length of life takes the leading place

among inquiries about events following birth, for, as the ancient
says, it is ridiculous to attach particular predictions to one who,
by the constitution of the years of his life, will never attain at all
to the time of the predicted events.
The “constitution of the years of life” is found by the directions
involving the main significator of life. This significator, iden-
tified according to particular rules, is known as the ἀφέτης or
“starter,” as in a race. Once the starter has been found, the
next task is to identify the “destroyer” or ἀναιρέτης, the planet
or point—such as an aspect—which will put an end to life.
When the starter is directed to the destroyer, the subject of the
nativity dies. Some authors, though not Ptolemy, add the
concept of a “ruler” or οἰκοδεσπότης—a third planet which, by
arithmetical methods, will determine the maximum longevity
of the person born. This concept was further developed in
Perso-Arabic astrology, where it was known as al-kadkhudāh,
eventually Latinized as alcochoden, with many variants.12
Not only the time, but even the quality and circumstances of
death were thought to correspond to the destroyer and the
astrological factors influencing it: Ptolemy gives a detailed list
of the illnesses by which each of the five planets may kill the
subject, from rheumatism and pneumonia to madness and mel-
ancholy. In cases of extreme astrological affliction, the person
dies a violent and remarkable death such as from fighting wild
animals on festival days, being shipwrecked or killed by pirates,
crushed by a collapsing building, burnt alive, or crucified.13
The rules for identifying the starter vary slightly from one
classical author to another, but all agree on the importance of
sect or αἵρεσις, dividing planets and other points into a solar or
diurnal camp and a lunar or nocturnal one. The sun and moon

12 Pace Bouché-Leclercq (L’astrologie 411), who believed alcochoden to be a

direct corruption of the Greek οἰκοδεσπότης, kadkhudāh is a Persian trans-

lation of the same, borrowed into Arabic.
13 Tetr. 4.9 (334–344 Hübner, 427–437 Robbins).

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 587–602
592 BALBILLUS AND THE METHOD OF APHESIS

are given precedence for the office of starter by day and night,
respectively, if occupying good places (τόποι)—generally under-
stood as angular and succedent places aspecting the ascendant.
Ptolemy accepts only places above the horizon in addition to
the ascendant itself; Dorotheus is reported by Hephaestio to
have preferred only the first, tenth, and eleventh places.14
When neither luminary is acceptably placed, most authors
assign the office of starter to the ascending degree, or else to a
secondary point derived from these three elements: the degree
of the syzygy preceding birth or that of the so-called Lot of
Fortune (κλῆρος τῆς τύχης), computed by projecting the eclip-
tical distance between the sun and moon from the rising
degree. Here, too, Ptolemy differs from common practice by
preferring one of the five planets as starter, provided that the
planet in question is suitably placed and bears at least three
relations of dominion (οἰκοδεσποτεία) to one of the major sect
points.15
The primary destroyers are Saturn and Mars, the naturally
malefic planets; but under certain circumstances, the lum-
inaries may perform the same office. Vettius Valens states:
“The destroyers are Saturn, Mars, the sun, and the moon when
brought towards heliacal rising”;16 and according to Ptolemy,
“the places of the maleficent planets, Saturn and Mars, destroy
… when the moon is starter, the place of the sun also de-

14 For Ptolemy’s views see Tetr. 3.11.3–4 (203–205 Hübner, 273–275

Robbins). For Hephaestio’s report on Dorotheus see Heph. Astr. 2.26.25–
34, quoted in D. Pingree, Dorothei Sidonii Carmen astrologicum (Leipzig 1976)
369–370.
15 The sect points by day are the sun, the prenatal conjunction of the

luminaries, and the rising degree; by night they are the moon, the prenatal
opposition, and the Lot of Fortune. The relations of dominion are domicile,
exaltation, triplicity, terms, and aspect.
16 Vett. Val. 3.3.42 (131 Pingree): ἀναιρέται δέ εἰσι Κρόνος Ἄρης Ἥλιος

Σελήνη ἐπὶ φάσιν φεροµένη. The last phrase, referring to the invisible new
moon, is misunderstood by Knobloch/Schönberger (131), who translate:
“der Mond, wenn er in Erscheinung tritt” (emphasis mine).

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 587–602
MARTIN GANSTEN 593

stroys.”17 Another factor to be considered is the quadrant or

quarter-circle, which seems to have been fundamental to some
early theories on length of life. Dividing the 360° of the zodiac
by four, with some variation to either side depending on the
different rising times of the zodiacal signs, gives a reasonable
approximation of the years of a full human life-span. If no de-
stroyer intervenes, the starter reaching the end of its quadrant
could indicate the end of life. Valens argues that ascensional
quadrants, rather than ecliptical, should be used for this pur-
pose.18 Ptolemy expresses two similar but not identical ideas,
stating that the square aspect ahead of the starter in the zodiac
may destroy, as well as the western horizon when the starter is
descending towards it, “because it causes the lord of life to
vanish.”19
The Balbillus horoscopes
The earliest preserved examples of the determination of life-
span based on starter and destroyer originate with Balbillus,
who, like his father Thrasyllus (d. 36 CE) before him, served as
a Roman imperial astrologer. Two nativities discussed by Bal-
billus in connection with the length of life were preserved in a
late Byzantine text20 and are discussed by Neugebauer and
Van Hoesen, who date them to 21 January 72 BCE and 27
December 43 BCE, respectively.21 More recently, in an intro-
duction to ancient astrology, Roger Beck has attempted to out-
line the procedure employed by Greek astrologers to establish a
subject’s length of life using these two somewhat fragmentary
horoscopes. Regrettably, Beck seems more concerned with

17 Tetr. 3.11.12 (210–211 Hübner, 283 Robbins). I have substituted

“starter” for Robbins’s “prorogator” for the sake of clarity. A more literal
translation would be “with the moon sending forth” (σελήνης δὲ ἀφιείσης).
18 Vett. Val. 3.3 (128–132 Pingree, 128–132 Knobloch/Schönberger).

19 Tetr. 3,11.10 (209 Hübner, 281 Robbins).

20 CCAG VIII.4 (Brussels 1921) 236–237.

21 Neugebauer and Van Hoesen, Greek Horoscopes 76 ff. In accordance

with astronomical convention, the authors refer to the years as –71 and –42.

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 587–602
594 BALBILLUS AND THE METHOD OF APHESIS

distancing himself from his “wretched subject” (to use Neu-

gebauer’s phrase)22 than with improving our understanding of
it, and uncritically reproduces the mistakes of Neugebauer and
Van Hoesen.23

Mercury 17° Sag

Moon 19° Sag
Saturn 5° Cap
Asc 9° Cap
Sun 9° Cap
Venus 11° Cap
Mars 12° Cap
Jupiter 20° Pis

Figure 1: Nativity L-42

In the first nativity discussed (chronologically the later one),
Balbillus takes the rising sun to be the starter (see fig. 1). Mars,
rising after the sun, would be the first choice for destroyer, but
is too close to the benign rays of Venus to perform this office.
Neugebauer and Van Hoesen translate as follows (additions in
square brackets mine):24

22 “The Study of Wretched Subjects,” Isis 42 (1951) 111.

23 The cursory treatment of the ἀφέτης theory and of the Balbillus horo-
scopes is found in R. Beck, A Brief History of Ancient Astrology (Oxford 2007)
120 ff.; instances of the author’s gratuitous protestations of disbelief and
ridicule here and passim. The erroneous interpretations of Neugebauer and
Van Hoesen have also found their way into a relatively recent sourcebook
of Greek science: G. L. Irby-Massie and P. Keyser, Greek Science of the Hel-
lenistic Era (London/New York 2002) 98 ff.
24 The Greek text of this passage, discussed in some detail below, runs:

φησὶ δὲ καὶ δ΄ εἶναι ἀναιρέτας Ἥλιον, Σελήνην, Κρόνον, Ἄρεα … καὶ

φησὶν Ἥλιον ἀφέτην εἶναι τῆς γενέσεως, µὴ γενέσθαι δὲ ἀναιρέτην Ἄρεα,
διὰ τὸ τὴν Ἀφροδίτην αὐτῷ ἐπαναφέρεσθαι εἴσω τῶν η΄ µοιρῶν καὶ εἶναι
αὐτὸν ἐν ὑψώµατι ἰδίῳ.

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 587–602
MARTIN GANSTEN 595

He [Balbillus] also says that there are four destroyers: sun,

moon, Saturn, Mars … And he says that the sun is the starter of
the theme [γένεσις, nativity], whereas Mars could not become
destroyer, because Venus is rising after it (the sun) within 8°,
although he (Mars) is in his own exaltation ().
This translation has multiple problems: first, the concessive
sense of the final clause is not warranted by the original;
second, the construction as a whole is syntactically unlikely;
and third, it is contradicted by the astrological reasoning of the
passage. It is the proximity of Mars itself (not the sun) to the
naturally beneficent Venus, as well as Mars’ ennobling position
of exaltation (ὕψωµα), that will prevent it from working its evil
purpose as a potential destroyer. This principle is clear from
another passage paraphrasing Balbillus: “Then he says that if
indeed the destroyer should encounter the starter and be
aspected by the ray of a benefic, the destroyer does not de-
stroy.”25 A similar exception is found in Ptolemy: “For they are
prevented … if one of the beneficent planets project its ray
from quartile, trine, or opposition either upon the destructive
degree itself or upon the parts that follow it, in the case of
Jupiter not more than 12°, and in that of Venus not over 8°.”26
The proximity of Venus to the sun would, of itself, have no
bearing on the destructive propensities of Mars.
The unlikely reference to the sun made by the translators is
based on their understanding of the verb ἐπαναφέρεσθαι,
which they render as “rising after”—and Venus does not rise
after Mars, but after the sun. No doubt this rendering was
based on the technical term ἐπαναφορά, signifying a “suc-
cedent” place, that is, one following an angle or κέντρον.
However, as the internal coherence of the argument presented
requires that the pronoun αὐτῷ refer to Mars, we must either
accept the alternative reading προαναφέρεσθαι “rising before”

25 CCAG VIII.3 103–104: εἶτα φησὶν ὅτιπερ ἐὰν ἀπαντήσῃ τῷ ἀφέτῃ

ἀναιρέτης, σκέπτηται δὲ ὑπὸ ἀκτῖνος ἀγαθοποιοῦ, οὐκ ἀναιρεῖ ὁ ἀναιρέτης.

26 Tetr. 3.11.13 (211–212 Hübner, 285 Robbins).

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 587–602
596 BALBILLUS AND THE METHOD OF APHESIS

found in one manuscript, or else broaden our interpretation of

ἐπαναφέρεσθαι. Generally speaking, the meaning of the verbal
prefix ἐπί is not confined to the sequential “after”: in a spatial
sense—as indicated here by the phrase “within 8°”—it may
also signify “with” or “near.” Nevertheless, the meaning “rising
with” for ἐπαναφέρεσθαι must remain conjectural until sup-
portive passages from other astrological texts have been iden-
tified.
Adopting either the alternative reading or the alternative
understanding of ἐπί will also remove the need for Neugebauer
and Van Hoesen’s awkward and implausible interpretation of
αὐτῷ and αὐτόν, occurring in close proximity in the same sen-
tence, as referring to two different bodies (the sun and Mars). A
more meaningful translation, then, would be:
Mars could not become destroyer, due to his rising with/before Venus
within 8° and [due to] his being in his own exaltation.
The next potentially destructive point to reach the sun as
starter would be the square or quartile aspect of the moon,
located 90° ahead of the moon along the ecliptic. The trans-
lation of L –42 continues:
And so one comes to the destructive sign, which is the one rising
before the starter, i.e., Sagittarius. And finding there the moon
(in  19), he says that it becomes the destroyer. Taking the orbit
of the sun up to the quartile of the degree of the moon ( [sic]
19), i.e. Pisces 19, then, he says, comes the destruction.
The sun as giver of life is located exactly on the eastern
horizon, while the square of the moon as destroyer is some
distance below it. The motion of the celestial sphere, bringing
this destructive point to the horizon—the natal place of the sun
—would be symbolically converted into years, indicating the
life-span of the person born. In the present nativity, this cal-
culation has been omitted, and no allotted number of years is
actually given by Balbillus. The translators claim that “analogy
to the procedure in [horoscope] No. L-71 [discussed below]
leads us to restore the conclusion that the span of life allotted
was 70 years, corresponding to the arc from  9 to  19.”
The latter figure is a misprint for  19 (the place of the moon’s
—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 587–602
MARTIN GANSTEN 597

square); but in either case the simplistic procedure referred to

has no foundation in the text and is, in fact, based on a mis-
understanding. The arc or distance of a direction to the
horizon was normally measured, as we have seen, by rising
times (in an approximation of oblique ascension); and there is
nothing in the preserved horoscopes to suggest that Balbillus
would have measured his arcs by degrees of ecliptical longi-
tude.27 Assuming the nativity to have been cast for Alexandria,
the 70° of longitude would in this case correspond to some 58°
of oblique ascension—a difference of twelve years in life ex-
pectancy for Balbillus’ client!

Mars 14° Aqu

Mercury 12° Aqu
Sun 22° Cap
Venus 25° Pis Saturn 4° Cap
Asc Gem Moon 4° Sco
Jupiter 14° Vir

Figure 2: Nativity L-71

The second nativity given by Balbillus (see fig. 2) is more in-
triguing for several reasons, the first of which is the selection of
the starter. Again, Neugebauer and Van Hoesen translate:
And, since the luminaries (sun and moon) did not fall in a center
[κέντρον, that is, an angular place], he went to the epanaphorai
[succedent places], and he did not take the Horoscopos [the
ascending degree] as starter, nor the sun, which was in [the]

27 Neugebauer and Van Hoesen speak of “many similar discussions of the

duration of life in the work of Vettius Valens” (78); but to my knowledge

there is not, among the many and varied procedures employed by that
author, a single instance of measuring the arc of life by ecliptical longitude.

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 587–602
598 BALBILLUS AND THE METHOD OF APHESIS

epanaphora of the setting point, but he took Saturn in Capri-

corn as starter. And this, I think, because it (Saturn) had the
greater claim in the theme [that is, nativity] and was in his
[Saturn’s] own house ().
As we have seen, assigning the office of starter to one of the five
planets was not a universal practice: authors of the classical era
generally reserved this dignity for the two luminaries and the
ascending degree, or for secondary points derived from these.
The notable exception is Ptolemy; and it is therefore suggestive
to see this practice in an author preceding Ptolemy by approx-
imately a century.
It is pertinent to note here that a surviving synopsis of Bal-
billus’ lost Astrologoumena ascribes a wholly unique doctrine of
the starter to him: “And he names four starters: Saturn, Mars,
sun, moon.”28 There are, however, several reasons to doubt the
accuracy of this report. First, as we have already seen, the same
four heavenly bodies are the potential life-destroyers of Balbil-
lus; and the word “starters” (ἀφέτας) could very easily be a
copyist’s error for the similar “destroyers” (ἀναιρέτας). Second,
it seems highly unlikely that Balbillus should have regarded the
two naturally maleficent planets as givers of life while excluding
the beneficent Jupiter and Venus. Third, the very uniqueness
of such a doctrine, attested nowhere but in this single sentence,
makes it doubtful: the precepts employed by Balbillus are gen-
erally corroborated by other early astrological authors.
Nevertheless, Balbillus did select Saturn as the starter of the
nativity under discussion; and the excerptor gives as his opinion
that this was because Saturn “had the greater claim in the
theme and was in its own house.” In the context of classical
Greek astrology, “having a claim in the theme” (λόγον ἔχειν ἐν
τῷ θέµατι) means holding a position of dominion relative to the
most important points in a nativity, as discussed above. In the
present nativity—a diurnal one, as the sun is seen above the
line of the horizon—Saturn holds dominion over the ascending

28 CCAG VIII.3 103: ἀφέτας δὲ δʹ λέγει, Κρόνον, Ἄρεα, Ἥλιον, Σελήνην.

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 587–602
MARTIN GANSTEN 599

degree by triplicity and over the sun (luminary of the day) by

terms, domicile, and conjunction. The translation continues:
And he says that Mars in Aquarius is the destroyer and he com-
puted the distance from Aries to Mars, and so long, he said,
would be the length of life.
Here a major problem ensues: as Aries is not a point but a 30°
section of the ecliptic, the phrase “he computed the distance
from Aries to Mars” carries no obvious meaning. For this
reason, Neugebauer and Van Hoesen consider themselves
“probably entitled to interpret this procedure more accurately
as measuring the arc between Mars ( 14) and the quartile of
the starter, i.e. 4 … The result would be an arc of 50°, in-
dicating a lifetime of 50 years.” As above, the supposition that
the arc of direction should be measured in degrees of ecliptical
longitude is unfounded and highly improbable; but the sug-
gested interpretation presents an additional difficulty.
In the scenario envisioned by the translators, it is the square
or quartile of the starter (Saturn) which would be brought by
the celestial motion towards the destroyer (Mars), rather than
vice versa. This would make the starter the active element of
the direction, transmitting its influence to the destroying planet
by, as the technical term would be, “casting its ray” towards it
(ἀκτινοβολία). By contrast, all available sources—including the
preceding Balbillus horoscope, which is invoked by the trans-
lators in support of their interpretation—agree that it is the de-
stroyer which should cast its ray towards the starter. Normally,
the ray or aspect of the destroyer is ahead of the starter in the
zodiac; this is what Ptolemy calls a direction “into the following
signs,” considered the more effective variant. Occasionally the
positions are reversed, making a direction “into the preceding
signs”; but in either case, the destroying planet is the one cast-
ing its ray, which the starter receives.29 The aspect of the starter

29 The former kind was known from medieval times as direct motion, the

latter as converse motion. Astronomically, the motion involved in both

variants is identical: the apparent daily rotation of the celestial sphere from

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 587–602
600 BALBILLUS AND THE METHOD OF APHESIS

is never moved towards the destroyer as suggested by Neu-

gebauer and Van Hoesen.
What are we then to make of the statement that Balbillus
“computed the distance from Aries to Mars”? Almost four
decades before the Neugebauer and Van Hoesen translation,
the critical editor Franz Cumont had in fact solved the prob-
lem by suggesting, very reasonably, “Aries” (Κριοῦ) to be a
copyist’s error for “Saturn” (Κρόνου). The sentence in question
should therefore read:
And he says that Mars in Aquarius is the destroyer and he com-
puted the distance from Saturn to Mars, and so long, he said,
would be the length of life.
Saturn, the starter, is thus directed into the following signs to-
wards the bodily conjunction of the other malefic, Mars, whose
destructive qualities are increased by its being of contrary sect
both to Saturn and to the horoscope as a whole. The precise
method employed by Balbillus for computing this arc of di-
rection is unknown to us. It was perhaps most likely a simple
calculation of rising times, although it is not inconceivable that
Balbillus’ mathematical procedures, like his method of selecting
the starter, were akin to those employed by Ptolemy. Again as-
suming Alexandria to have been the place of birth, the distance
between Mars and Saturn calculated by oblique ascension
would be some 37°; by the proportional method of Ptolemy, it
would be around 45°–47° depending on the rising degree.
That at least the excerptor had equatorial degrees in mind is
strongly suggested by the phrase τοὺς τῆς ζωῆς χρόνους, which
Neugebauer and Van Hoesen translate as “the length of life”
but which literally means “the times of life.” The plural “times”
is used in Greek astrological texts to signify degrees of the
equator passing over the horizon or meridian, each degree
being equated to a year of life (another meaning of χρόνος).30
___
east to west.
30 See, for instance, the example calculation in Ptol. Tetr. 3.11.23–34

(217–223 Hübner, 295–307 Robbins).

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 587–602
MARTIN GANSTEN 601

This usage in fact recurs in the very next paragraph, which

touches on the themes of the quarter-circle and of the destroyer
being held back by the aspects of the benefic planets:31
But he says that when a destroyer is not found powerfully ap-
proaching the starter, we take the times (τοὺς χρόνους) [from the
starter] up to [the end of] the quadrant. For if somehow en-
countering [the starter] by square or opposition, [the destroyer]
is beheld (ἐπιθεωρεῖται) by Jupiter or Venus within 12 degrees
or 8, [respectively], then it is necessary to measure the times up
to [the end of] the quadrant.
As this passage makes it clear that the progress of the starter is
measured in χρόνοι (“times” or equatorial degrees) rather than
µοῖραι (zodiacal degrees), it is unfortunate that it was over-
looked by Neugebauer and Van Hoesen, whose translation
ends with the sentence immediately preceding.
In conclusion, we see that Neugebauer and Van Hoesen, as
well as more recent authors building on their work, failed to
grasp three major points of Balbillus’ astrological method in
determining the length of life from starter and destroyer. First,
that Balbillus, like other astrologers of the classical era,
measures the arc of life not in degrees of ecliptical longitude
but in equatorial degrees—most probably in an approximation
of oblique ascension, although more sophisticated procedures
cannot be ruled out. Second, that this arc is measured from the
degree of the starter itself to the degree of the destroyer or the
destroyer’s point of aspect, as the destroyer is necessarily the
active element of the direction. Third, that the benevolent
planets Jupiter and Venus must influence the destroyer, not the
starter, in order to prevent the destroyer from causing death.
This misunderstanding has led to several errors of translation

31 CCAG VIII.4 237: φησὶ δὲ ὅτι ἐὰν µὴ εὑρεθῇ ἀναιρέτης ἰσχυρῶς

ἀπαντῶν τῷ ἀφέτῃ, ἕως κέντρου λαµβάνοµεν τοὺς χρόνους· † πὴ γὰρ ὅτι

ὑπάντησεν µὲν κατὰ τετράγωνον ἢ διάµετρον, ὑπὸ δὲ Δ∆ιὸς ἢ Ἀφροδίτης
ἐπιθεωρεῖται εἴσω ιβ΄ µοιρῶν ἢ η΄· ἀνάγκη οὖν τότε τοὺς χρόνους ἕως
κέντρου µετρεῖν.

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 587–602
602 BALBILLUS AND THE METHOD OF APHESIS

and interpretation. Finally, we may note that Balbillus, al-

though preceding Ptolemy by approximately a century, ap-
pears to employ a method of selecting the starter reminiscent of
Ptolemy’s but differing from that of other classical Greek
authors.
July, 2012 Lund University
[email protected]

—————
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 52 (2012) 587–602