New Ideas in Psychol. Vo|. 6, No. 3, pp. 267-272, 1988 0732-118X/88 $3.00+0.

00
Printed in Great Britain ~) 1988 Pergamon Press plc

P E R S O N A L I T Y IN A N C I E N T A S T R O L O G Y
SIMON KEMP*
Department of Psychology, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Abstract - - The writings of the Roman astrologers Claudius Ptolemy and

Firmicus Maternus contain accounts not only of the astrological origins of
personality but also of the perceived structure of personality. These accounts
bear a strong resemblance to some of the results emerging from the empirical
study of person perception. Two possible reasons for the similarity are put
forward: that the astrologers incorporated "naive perception" into their
accounts and that astrology has influenced the way people perceive one
another.

PERSONALITY IN ANCIENT ASTROLOGICAL MANUALS

While astrology had its origins in Babylon and acquired mathematics and other
intellectual accretions from the Greeks and Egyptians, it reached the peak of its
influence and popularity in the period of the Roman Empire (Lindsay, 1971). A
number of astrologers of the time wrote books that were designed to be used as
astrological manuals. Two of these books were the Tetrabiblos of Claudius
Ptolemy (Ptolemy, 1938), probably written about 150-170 A.D., and the Mathesis
of Julius Firmicus Maternus (Firmicus, 1975), written about 330 A.D. Although
astrologers were much more likely to be asked for advice on what their clients
should do rather than what their clients were like, both manuals discuss the issue
of how the planets and their positions at the time of birth affect subsequent
personality development.
For both writers each planet produced different personality traits. This is most
clearly seen in the traits associated with the ruling planet, which was ascertained
by a variety of astronomical formulae. Thus, Ptolemy (1938) described Jupiter as
making people "magnanimous, generous, god-fearing, honourable, pleasure-
loving, kind . . . . with qualities of leadership" (p. 347), while Mercury produces
people who are "wise, shrewd, thoughtful, learned, i n v e n t i v e . . , inquirers into
nature, speculative, gifted, e m u l o u s . . , successful in attaining their ends" (pp.
359-361). Firmicus's (1975) descriptions are quite similar: "Those who have
Jupiter as ruler of the chart are always trustworthy, of high spirits, and are
impelled toward great deeds . . . commanding in all their acts, noble, famous,
honorable, lovers of luxury, cheerful, desiring to please in every way" (p. 139).
"Those who have Mercury as ruler of the chart are clever, talented, students of
all things, modest; they desire to learn the secret of all skills" (p. 141).

*I am grateful to Garth Fletcher for several useful discussions and his critical reading of
an earlier draft of this paper.
267
 268 Simon Kemp
The similarity of Ptolemy's and Firmicus's accounts underlines the fact that
the qualities associated with particular planets were determined early in the
history of astrology and have remained comparatively stable ever since. Very
similar qualities are reported in modern astrological manuals (e.g., Pelletier &
Cataldo, 1984). The qualities themselves seem to have been attributed to
particular planets in two ways (Lindsay, 1971). Some qualities were assigned on
the basis of the real or presumed astronomical qualities of the planet. The
astronomical fact that Mercury moves relatively quickly through the signs of the
Zodiac seems to have been responsible for its association with quick-wittedness,
evident in the passages cited above. The planets' physical distance from Earth
was supposed to be in the order: Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter and
Saturn (Aristotle, 1953). The warmth of the planet was determined by its
distance from the Sun and its dryness by increasing distance from the earth.
Thus Mars was hot and dry and produced fiery personalities. Ancient medieval
theories of personality and medicine frequently used these dimensions of h o t -
cold and wet-dry in a variety of ways (e.g., Galen, 1916; Klibansky, Saxl, &
Panofsky, 1964; Ptolemy, 1938). Some planetary characteristics, on the other
hand, were mythologically determined: for example, Jupiter was chief god of
Olympus and hence associated with lordly or noble behavior.

GENERAL FEATURES OF THE ASTROLOGICAL ACCOUNT OF PERSONALITY

T h e fact that the ancient astrological account of personality derived from
astrological theory had implications for the ideas about personality produced in
it. First, the astrological theory of personality had to be a trait theory; this
followed naturally because there were only seven planets known, and hence
seven dimensions of personality. Depending on the writer this trait theory could
b e more or less sophisticated. Ptolemy (1938), for example, proposed positive
and negative aspects of each trait and clearly thought of most people as having
personalities that reflected the combination of a number of planets" and their
associated traits. On the other hand, some later writers, for example, the
medieval author of The Book of Secrets of Albertus Magnus (Best & Brightman,
1973), seem to have been more concerned with classifying everyone into one of
seven planetary stereotypes (see also Thomas, 1971, pp. 324-325).
Second, since the mixture of traits possessed by an individual was determined
by the planetary positions at birth, the traits and hence the personality of the
individual remained largely unchanged throughout life. Although some astrol-
ogers, for example the fifteenth century Florentine Ficino, produced systems for
counteracting undesirable aspects of personality (Moore, 1982), the underlying
personality was not believed to be affected.
Third, because the planets were believed to control not only personality but
also, for example, one's lifespan, occupation, and physical characteristics,
astrological accounts of personality predicted correlations between personality
and these other variables, particularly physical characteristics. A striking
example of this is found in Firmicus (1975, p. 140) where the effects of Mars are
discussed: People ruled by Mars "have red hair . . . [and] . . . are monstrously
 Personality in ancient astrology 269
bad-tempered." Both Ptolemy and Firmicus also discuss the effect of the planets
on body build; the resultant correlation between body type and personality is an
interesting f o r e r u n n e r of Sheldon's (1954) constitutional psychology. Such
predicted correlations also tended to enhance the stereotyping that resulted
from classifying people into planetary types.
Both Ptolemy's and Firmicus's manuals were available in manuscript in
medieval Europe and appear to have influenced medieval and Renaissance
writing about astrology. For example, Firmicus's connection of red hair with
Mars surfaces in The Book of Secrets of Albertus Magnus (Best & Brightman, 1973,
p. 68). Medieval and renaissance astrologers also developed a connection
between planetary influences and the ancient medical theory of humours (Best &
Brightman, 1973; Klibansky et al., 1964). The combination of the astrological
account of personality and the medical humours theory had, in turn, a
considerable impact on Renaissance literature. References to astrology and the
humours are extremely widespread in English Elizabethan and Jacobean drama
(Allen, 1966; Parr, 1971). Thus, the impact of astrology on thinking about
personality was considerable.

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PERSON PERCEPTION AND ASTROLOGY

The study of person perception (e.g., Schneider, Hastorf, & Ellsworth, 1979) is
concerned with the way in which people perceive and make judgements of one
another. An important aspect of this study is the way in which people assess one
another's personality, sometimes referred to as "implicit personality theory." We
have seen that the astrological account of personality predicted differences
in a small number of very stable traits which were linked to physical
characteristics. As it happens, people assess one another's personality in a very
similar way.
A n u m b e r of experiments have shown that people make personality
judgements on the basis of physical appearance (e.g., Roll & Verenis, 1971;
Wells & Siegel, 1961), and that such judgements tend to be based on stereotypes.
Perhaps more surprising is the fact that some of the stereotypes are the same as
those found in ancient astrology. Apart from the red-haired and fiery temper
connection noted above, Wells and Siegel (1961) found, for example, that thin
people are judged more suspicious and ambitious by present-day observers, a
correlation predicted astrologically by the influence of Saturn (Best & Bright-
man, 1973; Klibansky et al., 1964).
Moreover, while people make personality judgements using a vast variety of
trait terms, the judgements appear to be based on a stable structure or implicit
theory that is organised a r o u n d a few basic traits (Digman & Inouye, 1986;
Rosenberg, Nelson, & Vivekanathan, 1968; Wishner, 1960). Again, there are
parallels between these basic traits and those used in ancient astrology.
Particularly striking is the centrality of the warm--cold dimension in naive
personality theories (Asch, 1946; Rosenberg et al., 1968), in view of the apparent
importance of this dimension in ancient astrology.
270 Simon Kemp

POSSIBLE CAUSES OF THE CORRESPONDENCES

So far we have obtained evidence of marked similarities between the account
of personality given in ancient astrology and the personality theories implicit in
the way present-day naive perceivers assess other people. The next question
concerns the origin of these similarities. There seem to be a number of different
possibilities that are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
One possibility is that the correspondences arise because both the early
astrologers and present-day "naive perceivers" base their judgements on
personality traits or regularities in behaviour that are real as well as perceived.
Relevant to this possibility is the question of how good naive perceivers are at
observing regularities in behaviour or real personality traits. This question is not
definitely answerable in the absence o f an agreed upon theory as to what the
"real" structure of pers,onality is, but it does appear that in many situations naive
perceivers are quite accurate, although there are also systematic inaccuracies
(e.g., Zanna, Higgins, & Herman, 1983). Furthermore, it does not seem at all
unlikely that real personality varied along the same dimensions at the time of the
Roman Empire as it does today.
However, there are several reasons for doubting that common incorporation
of real personality structure is the only factor responsible for the correspond-
ences observed. In the first place, stability of real personality structures over the
past two thousand years does not necessarily mean that the same implicit
personality theories should be applied. This is important because many
attributed trait descriptions have a loose relationship to behaviour - - what
behaviours, for example, constitute a "cold" or a "warm" personality? Second, it
seems unlikely, although, to the author's knowledge, the question has not been
empirically resolved, that stereotypes of the "red hair is a sign of fiery temper"
kind do have some basis in fact. Finally, but perhaps most important, is the fact
that one of the systematic inaccuracies made by naive perceivers has a curious
parallel in the history of astrology. T h e systematic inaccuracy is the fundamental
attribution error: people tend to attribute more behaviour to perceived internal,
personality traits and less to external, environmental influences than they
should over a range of different circumstances and experiments (e.g., Ross,
1977; Ross & Fletcher, 1985). A similar "error" appears in astrological writings in
that the answers to questions regarding the fate or behavior of individuals are
almost invariably given in terms of planetary rather than chance or environ-
mental influences. For example, "Those who are born with this star (Belva)
rising will be fishermen, but of large fish. They will catch sea-dogs, sword-fish,
tunnies, and crocodiles" (Firmicus, 1975, p. 280). The more compelling
environmental explanation that fishermen tended to be born into fishing
families in fishing villages is ignored by Firmicus. Indeed, the tendency to
ignore environmental influence on behaviour was a frequent criticism of Roman
astrology (Cramer, 1954). Thus, both astrology and the naive perceiver tend to
ignore chance or environmental factors and overemphasise the importance of
relatively fixed individual differences although, of course, the two accounts
differ in that astrology offers an explanation of the individual differences.
 Personality in ancient astrology 271
The above reasoning indicates that similarities between astrology and implicit
personality theory cannot be explained entirely by reference to real personality
structures. Two other possibilities remain. The first is simply that people
generally perceive the personality of others in much the same way, regardless of
the era they live in. Clearly this possibility could account for the existence of
correspondences of the kind we have noted, since ancient writers on astrology
may be presumed to have been similar to naive perceivers in their perception of
personality.
The other possibility is more radical but by no means implausible. Perhaps the
way in which we assess people's personality today has been conditioned, at least
in part, by the long history of belief in astrology in European culture. Belief in
astrology was general in Europe for about two thousand years, up to the end of
the seventeenth century (Allen, 1966; Thomas, 1971; Wedel, 1968). Although,
since then, belief has not been so general, it is still widespread. More
importantly, the assimilation of astrological concepts related to fate and
personality by Elizabethan and later writers ensure another mode of trans-
mission of the concepts to the present day. This model implies that the way we
perceive personality is in part determined by what we read but, again, unless we
totally discount the effect of education, this seems quite plausible. It seems likely,
for example, that a stereotype linking red hair with an explosive temper could
have been transmitted in this way.
CONCLUSIONS
While there is a marked similarity between the accounts of personality given
by ancient astrology and that implicit in the judgements of naive perceivers today,
it seems difficult to decide on a single reason for the similarity. It was argued
above that the similarity is unlikely to arise completely from the real structure of
personality, but two other possibilities remain: that the modern naive perceiver
has somehow absorbed the implications of the astrological theory or that the
ancient astrologers simply incorporated the implicit theory of the naive
perceiver. Perhaps the most plausible explanation is that all of these mechanisms
may operate to some degree: ancient astrologers may have incorporated naive
perceptions as well as observations of behavioural regularities, modified them
somewhat, and then acted as a vehicle for their coherent transmission.
Even if the personality accounts of the ancient astrologers turn out not to have
influenced modern perception, study of them is not without interest. The fact
that they thought it necessary to discuss personality at all indicates that
individual differences in personality and their origins were as interesting to the
Romans as they are today. Further, astrological accounts reveal that the
dimensions of individual difference believed important at the time were broadly
similar to those used today.

REFERENCES
Allen, D. C. (1966). The star-crossed Renaissance. London: Frank Cass.
Aristotle, (1953). On the heavens. London: Heinemann.
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 41,258-290.
272 Simon Kemp
Best, M. R., & Brightman, F. H. (Eds.) (1973). The book of secrets of Albertus Magnus.
Oxford: Clarendon.
Cramer, F. H. (1954). Astrology in Roman law and politics. Philadelphia: American
Philosophical Society.
Digman, J. M., & lnouye, J. (1986). Further specification of the five robust factors of
personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 116-123.
Firmicus Maternus, J. (1975). Ancient astrology: Theory and practice. Park Ridge, N.J.:
Noyes.
Galen (I 916). Galen on the natural faculties. London: Heinemann.
Klibansky, R., Saxl, F., & Panofsky, E. (1964). Saturn and melancholy. London: Nelson.
Lindsay, J. (1971). Or/gins of astrology. London: Muller.
Moore, T. (1982). The planets within: Marsilio Ficino's astrological psychology. London &
Toronto: Associated University Presses.
Parr, J. (1971). Tamburlaine's malady and other essays on astrology in Elizabethan drama.
Westport, CT.: Greenwood.
Pelletier, R., & Cataldo, L. (1984). Be your own astrologer: All you need to know to draw up your
own birth chart. London: Pan.
Ptolemy, C. (1938). Tetrabiblos. London: Heinemann.
Roll, S., & Verenis, J. S. (1971). Stereotypes of scalp and facial hair as measured by the
semantic differential. Psychological Reports, 28, 975-980.
Rosenberg, S., Nelson, C., & Vivekanathan, P. S. (1968). A multi-dimensional approach to
the structure of personality impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9,
283-294.
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the
attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol.
10. New York: Academic Press.
Ross, M., & Fletcher, G . J . O . (1985). Attribution and social perception. In G. Lindzey &
E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook ofsocialpsychology, Vol. 2 (3rd ed.). New York: Random
House.
Schneider, D. J., Hastorf, A. H., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1979). Person perception (2nd ed.).
Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Sheldon, W. H. (1954). Atlas of men: A guide for somatotyping the adult man at all ages. New
York: Harper and Row.
Thomas, K. (1971). Religion and the decline of magic. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Wedel, T. O. (1968). The mediaeval attitude toward astrology, particularly in ETgland.
Hamden, CT.: Archon.
Wells, W. D., & Siegel, B. (196 I). Stereotyped somatotypes. Psychological Reports, 8, 77-78.
Wishner, J. (1960). Reanalysis of impressions of personality. Psychological Review, 67,
96-112.
Zanna, M. P., Higgins, E. T., & Herman, C. P. (Eds.) (1983). Consistency in social behavior:
The Ontario symposium. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.