卷一·第二十章　论界的排布

With regard to the terms two systems are most in circulation; the first is the Egyptian, which is chiefly based on the government of the houses, and the second the Chaldaean, resting upon the government of the triplicities. Now the Egyptian system of the commonly accepted terms does not at all preserve the consistency either of order or of individual quantity. For in the first place, in the matter of order, they have sometimes assigned the first place to the lords of the houses and again to those of the triplicities, and sometimes also to the lords of the exaltations.

关于界，流传最广的有两种体系：其一是埃及的，主要依据庙的主管；其二是迦勒底的，立足于三方的主管。通行的埃及界，无论在次序上还是在各自的数量上，都全然不能前后一贯。首先就次序而言，他们有时把第一位给庙主，有时又给三方主，有时还给旺主。

For example, if it is true that they have followed the houses, why have they assigned precedence to Saturn, say, in Libra, and not to Venus, and why to Jupiter in Aries and not to Mars? And if they follow the triplicities, why have they given Mercury, and not Venus, first place in Capricorn?

例如，如果他们真是依照庙，为什么比方说在天秤把首位给土星而不给金星，在白羊给木星而不给火星？如果依照三方，为什么在摩羯把首位给水星而不给金星？

Or if it be exaltations, why give Mars, and not Jupiter, precedence in Cancer; and if they have regard for the planets that have the greatest number of these qualifications, why have they given first place in Aquarius to Mercury, who has only his triplicity there, and not to Saturn, for it is both the house and the triplicity of Saturn? Or why have they given Mercury first place in Capricorn at all, since he has no relation of government to the sign? One would find the same kind of thing in the rest of the system.

如果依照旺，为什么在巨蟹把首位给火星而不给木星？如果他们看重的是兼有这些资格最多的行星，为什么在水瓶把首位给只有三方在那里的水星，而不给土星——那里既是土星的庙，又是土星的三方？又或者，水星与摩羯毫无主管关系，为什么竟在摩羯给他首位？在这一体系的其余部分，也会发现同样的情形。

Secondly, the number of the terms manifestly has no consistency; for the number derived for each planet from the addition of its terms in all the signs, in accordance with which they say the planets assign years of life, furnishes no suitable or acceptable argument. But even if we rely upon the number derived from this summation, in accordance with the downright claim of the Egyptians, the sum would be found the same, even though the amounts, sign by sign, be frequently changed in various ways.

其次，界的数量显然毫无一贯性；因为把每颗行星在所有星座里的界加起来所得的数——他们说行星就按这个数分配寿数——提供不了任何恰当或可接受的论据。即使依照埃及人那斩钉截铁的说法，信赖这一加总所得之数，各座的数量哪怕以种种方式屡屡改动，总数也会照旧相同。

And as for the specious and sophistic assertion about them that some attempt to make, namely that the times assigned to each single planet by the schedule of ascensions in all the climes add up to this sum, it is false. For, in the first place, they follow the common method, based upon evenly progressing increases in the ascensions, which is not even close to the truth.

至于有些人试图提出的那种似是而非、强词夺理的说法，即依照各气候带的上升时间表分给每颗行星的时度，加起来恰好是这个总数，那是错的。因为首先，他们依循的是通行的方法，即上升时间按均匀等差递增，这离真实甚至都不接近。

By this scheme they would have each of the signs Virgo and Libra, on the parallel which passes through lower Egypt, ascend in 38⅓ times, and Leo and Scorpio each in 35, although it is shown by the tables that these latter ascend in more than 35 times and Virgo and Libra in less.

照这一方案，在经过下埃及的纬圈上，处女与天秤各需三十八又三分之一时度升起，狮子与天蝎各需三十五时度；然而表上表明，后两者升起所需多于三十五时度，处女与天秤则少于此数。

Furthermore, those who have endeavoured to establish this theory even so do not seem to follow the usually accepted number of terms, and are compelled to make many false statements, and they have even made use of fractional parts of fractions in the effort to save their hypothesis, which, as we said, is itself not a true one.

再者，那些努力建立这一理论的人，即便如此似乎也没有依循通常公认的界数，不得不说出许多错话，为了保全他们的假设，甚至动用了分数的分数——而这个假设，如我们所说，本身就不正确。

However, the terms most generally accepted on the authority of ancient tradition are given in the following fashion:— Terms according to the Egyptians.

不过，凭古代传统的权威而最被普遍接受的界，列举如下：埃及人的界。