The invention of "nativity". On the systemising of birth astrology in late Ptolemaic Egypt

这个项目的工作假设是，所谓的系谱(即占星术或出生占星学)是历史上创造出反思的和个性化的身份的重要基石。但占星术是否可以被称为身份客观化的工具，从而被认为是古代人们反思自己身份的证据？问这个问题意味着一种有意识的身份认同的前现代文化，特别是作为一个个体的身份认同。这种假设有一些困难。首先：“身份”和“个性”是有争议的概念；我必须定义我对它们的意思。-第二，更严重的反对意见：个性是每一种现代化理论的中心话题。个性化是现代性的一个标志，更是“西方”现代性的标志。声称古代，至少从后来的托勒密埃及时代开始，已经发展出一种相当奇特的关于个人身份的系统‘心理学’，意味着挑战与现代的时代性有关的集体自我断言，特别是对排他性的主张，这种主张对当前的现代性概念是如此重要。因此，我需要定义--现在哲学家埃诺·鲁道夫在一篇仍未发表的文章中(和他以前一样)认为，术语“个体性”和“主观性”大多被使用，就好像它们的意思是一样的(“bedeutungsäequalal”)。-但这些概念实际上是对立的。如果你把对主体性的强调和主体性心理学(就像弗洛伊德的精神分析那样)视为现代的，那么这种区别就允许暗示出一种前现代的个人心理。作为一个工作假设，我认为星座占星术实际上是为了将个性合理化，将其作为身份的重要组成部分。在重读这一前提下的占星学资料时，我现在使用的是“目的论”或“决定论”心理学的概念。这部著作的最后一部分将致力于这个同一性概念的历史化“发明”的“环境”。有没有可能解释，在晚期希腊化的埃及的某些圈子里，显然新出现了对相对绝对身份的需求？在哪个圈子里？这种新的理论化(显然很快就在全球取得了成功)会不会是一种症状，或者本身就是对个体分化的身份认同危机的一种解决方案？有没有看似合理的新需求，需要一种表面上致命的身份本质论？我需要大量额外的时间，才能在这场影响深远的辩论中获得自己的理论地位。这场辩论涉及“主体”，即主体的身份和个性，以及主体在现代性中的核心作用。提出不同的问题的必要性也是如此。这很容易证明将项目期限再延长一年是合理的。

The working hypothesis of this project has been that so-called genethlialogy (that is, horoscope or birth astrology) was an important cornerstone in the historical creation of a reflective and individualized identity.But can horoscopic astrology be called an instrument of objectifying identity and thus be considered as evidence of people’s reflecting their own identity in antiquity? Asking this question implies a premodern culture of conscious identity, especially of an identity as an individual being.There are some difficulties with this kind of assumption.First: “identity” and also “individuality” are controversial concepts; I have to define what I mean with them. – Second, and more serious as an objection: individuality is a central topic in every theory of modernization. Individualization is a hallmark of modernity, and more so: of “western” modernity. To claim that antiquity, at least since the times of later Ptolemaic Egypt, has developed a rather exotic kind of systematic ‘psychology’ of individual identities, means to challenge the collective self-assertion connected with the epochality of being modern, and especially the claim to exclusiveness so essential for the current conceptions of modernity.Therefore, I needed definitions – now Philosopher Enno Rudolph argues in a still unpublished article (as he has before) that the terms “individuality” and “subjectivity” are mostly used as if they meant the same thing (“bedeutungsäquivalent”). – But these concepts are actually antagonistic. And this discrimination allows for suggesting a premodern ‘psychology’ of the individual, if you take as modern the emphasis on subjectivity and a psychology of subjectivity (as Freudian psychoanalysis seems to be). As a working hypothesis I suppose that horoscope astrology was indeed meant to rationalize individuality as an essential part of identity. In re-reading the astrological sources under that premise I am now working with concepts as “teleological” or “eventualist” psychology.The last part of the work will have to be devoted to the “milieu” of the historicized “invention” of this conception of identity. Is it possible to explain the apparently new need for a comparatively absolute identity in certain circles of late Hellenistic Egypt? And in which circles? Could the new theorization (which apparently soon became a global success) be a symptom of, or itself an answer to, a crisis of identity as of individual differentiation? Was there a plausible new need for an apparently fatal essentialism of identity?The extra time needed for getting a theoretical position of my own in the far reaching debate on the “subject”, its identity and individuality and its central role in modernity, was substantial. And so was the need of asking questions differently. This can easily justify an extension of the projects duration of one more year.