Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From Alexandria to Baghdād to Byzantium. The transmission of astrology

  • Published:
International Journal of the Classical Tradition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is argued in this article that a series of texts preserved in various Greek manuscripts are epitomes of an astrological compendium assembled by Rhetorius at Alexandria in about 620 AD. It is also demonstrated that this compendium was utilized and frequently refashioned by Theophilus of Edessa between 765 and 775 and was made available by Theophilus to his colleague at thecAbbāsid court at Baghdād, Māshā' allāh. Māshā' allāh's works in turn strongly influenced the early development of Arabic astrology, and many of them were translated into Latin and Greek, thereby spreading Rhetorius' influence. A manuscript of Rhetorius' compendium was apparently brought to Byzantium by Theophilus' student, Stephanus, in about 790; from this archetype are descended the several Byzantine epitōmes and reworkings of portions of this text; some of these—pseudo-Porphyry, Ep(itome) III, Ep. IIIb, and Ep. IV—passed through the hands of Demophilus in about 1000, while two of the remainder—Ep. IIb andBer.—were the only ones to preserve the name of Rhetorius as their author.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

|o

  1. A number of examples of such transformations are discussed in D. Pingree,From Astral Omens to Astrology, from Babylon to Bīkāner, Serie Orientale Rome LXXVIII, Rome 1997.

  2. One example consists of the disparate collections of omens found on the scattered tablets containing fragments of the ‘Ishtar’ section ofEnūma Anu Enlil, some of which have been published in E. Reiner and D. Pingree,Babylonian Planetary Omens, part 1, Malibu 1975; part 2, Malibu 1981; and part 3, Groningen 1998. An example in Greek is Hephaestio's Αποτελεσματικά, which survives in an “original” form (Hephaestionis Thebani Apotelesmaticorum libri tres, ed. D Pingree, Leipzig 1973), and in four epitomes (Hephaestionis Thebani Apotelesmaticorum epitomae quattuor, ed. D. Pingree, Leipzig 1974).

  3. The Babylonian nativity omens, published by F. Rochberg under the titleBabylonian Horoscopes (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society LXXXVIII, 1, Philadelphia 1998), do not belong to the science of genethlialogy. For the relationship of the Babylonian omens to genethlialogy see Pingree,Astral Omens (as in n. 1)to Astrology, from Babylon to Bīkāner, Serie Orientale Roma LXXVIII, Rome 1997, pp. 21–29.

  4. The earliest extant full discussion of catarchic astrology is to be found in the fifth book of Dorotheus' astrological poem, written in about 75 A.D. (Dorothei Sidonii Carmen astrologicum, ed. D. Pingree, Leipzig 1976), but the method undoubtedly is at least a century older.

  5. ManuscriptR (for the manuscripts see section IV below, pp. 20–21) VI 60, edited by F. Cumont inCatalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum (henceforthCCAG) VIII 3, Bruxelles 1912, pp. 103–104; and chapter 231 on fol. 80 of manuscriptB, edited by F. Cumont inCCAG VIII 4, Bruxelles 1921, pp. 235–238.

  6. The fully developed form is found in books III and IV of Dorotheus.

  7. The oldest surviving iatromathematical text is probably the Ιατρομαθηματικά attributed to Hermes, edited by J. L. Ideler inPhysici et medici graeci minores, vol. I, Berlin 1841, pp. 387–396, repeated on pp. 430–440. There is a copy of this text on fols. 1–5 of manuscriptL.

  8. The oldest catarchic chapters on marriage are Dorotheus V 16 and 17.

  9. There is a fragment of Dorotheus on a “Lot of Soldiering” (fr. II D on p. 432 [ed. Pingree, as in n. 4]) (Dorothei Sidonii Carmen astrologicum, Leipzig 1976) preserved in Hephaestio II 19, 22–26, but this is not catarchic. The chapters by Julian are preserved in VI 46–48 in manuscriptR.

  10. D. Pingree,The Yavanajātaka of Sphujidhvaja, Harvard Oriental Series XLVIII, 2 vols., Cambridge MA 1978, chapters 52–72.

  11. Ibid. D. Pingree,The Yavanajātaka of Sphujidhvaja, Harvard Oriental Series XL VIII, Cambridge MA 1978, chapters 52–72, vol. 2, pp. 370–388.

  12. Ibid. D. Pingree,The Yavanajātaka of Sphujidhvaja, Harvard Oriental Series XL VIII, Cambridge MA 1978, chapters 73–76 and vol. 2, pp. 388–402.

  13. These are theBrhadyātrā, theYogayātrā, and theTikanikayātrā. Manuscripts and editions are listed in D. Pingree,Census of the Exact Sciences in Sanskrit, series A, vol. 5, Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society CCXIII, Philadelphia 1994, pp. 571a–572b.

  14. Pingree,Astral Omens (as in n. 1)to Astrology, from Babylon to Bīkāner, Serie Orientale Roma LXXVIII, Rome 1997, pp. 46–50.

  15. Ibid.Pingree, Astral Omens to Astrology, from Babylon to Bīkāner, Serie Orientale Roma LXXVIII, Rome 1997, pp. 44–46.

  16. C. A. Nalino, “Tracce di opere greche giunte agli arabi per trafila pehlevica,” inA Volume of Oriental Studies Presented to Edward G. Browne, ed. T. W. Arnold and R.A. Nicholson, Cambridge 1922, repr. Amsterdam 1973, pp. 345–363 (pp. 352–356); and C. Burnett and D. Pingree,The Liber Aristotilis of Hugo of Santala Warburg Institute Surveys and Texts XXVI, London 1997, pp. 8 and 140.

  17. D. Pingree,The Thousands of Abū Ma c shar, Studies of the Warburg Institute XXX, London 1968, pp. 59–60 and 65.

  18. Ibid. D. Pingree, pp. 70–121, and K. Yamamoto and C. Burnett,Abū Ma c šar On Historical Astrology, Islamic Philosophy Theology and Science XXXIII–XXXIV, 2 vols., Leiden 2000.

  19. D. Pingree, “Historical Horoscopes,”Journal of the American Oriental Society LXXXII, 1962, pp. 487–502, and Pingree,Astral Omens (as in n. 1)to Astrology, from Babylon to Bīkāner, Serie Orientale Roma LXXVIII, Rome 1997, pp. 57–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. D. Pingree, “Classical and Byzantine Astrology in Sassanian Persia,”Dumbarton Oaks Papers XLIII, 1989, pp. 217–239 (234–235).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Much Greek material is embedded in the Arabic treatises of Māshā'allāh andcUmar ibn al-Farrukhān.

  22. Epitome IIb of Rhetorius. The Epitomes are described in D. Pingree “Antiochus and Rhetorius,”Classical Philology LXXII, 1977, pp. 203–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. The excerpt in manuscriptBer.; see n. 31 belowCCAG VII, Bruxelles 1908.

  24. VI 17 in manuscriptR.

  25. VI 18 in manuscriptR.

  26. Epitome IV 23.

  27. Chapter 221 in manuscriptB, which corresponds to V 100, 6–9 in manuscriptR.

  28. VI 23, 18–29 in manuscriptR.

  29. Lines 92–96 in L. Weigl,Johannes Kamateros Εἰσαγωγὴ ἀστρονομίας, Würzburg 1907, p. 7.

  30. F. Boll,Sphaera, Leipzig 1903, pp. 21–30.

  31. InCCAG VII, Bruxelles 1908; pp. 194–213, where Boll mistakenly combines Rhetorius' chapter with expanded versions in two other manuscripts, one of which falsely attributes its conflated version to Teucer of Babylon.

  32. D. Pingree, review of W. Hübner,Grade und Gradbezirke der Tierkreiszeichen (Leipzig 1995), in this journal (IJCT) VI, 1999/2000, 473–476 (476).

  33. D. Pingree, “Antiochus and Rhetorius” (as in n. 22), pp. 203–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ibid., pp. 205–206.

    Google Scholar 

  35. This guess depends on the statement by Hephaestio (II 10, 9 and 29) that Antiochus and Apollinarius agree with certain things stated by Ptolemy—certainly not definitive proof of their relative chronologies.

  36. E. Boer and S. Weinstock, “Porphyrii Philosophi Introductio in Tetrabiblum Ptolemaei,” inCCAG V 4, Bruxelles 1940, pp. 185–228 (210).

  37. In what seem to be the genuine chapters of Porphyry, numbers 1 to 45, he refers to the ancients, the moderns, the Chaldaeans, Apollinarius, Petosiris, Ptolemy, and Thrasyllus as well as to Antiochus

  38. D. Pingree, “Antiochus and Rhetorius” (as in n. 22), 206–208.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Compare Porphyry 31 and 33 with Epitome II 19, 34 with Epitome II 16, and 40 with Epitome II 1. Note also that Hephaestio I 13,1 is taken from Porphyry 7; I 14, 1 from Porphyry 11; I 14, 2 from Porphyry 13; I 15, 1–2 from Porphyry 14; I 15, 3 from Porphyry 15; I 16, 1–2 from Porphyry 24; I 16,3 from Porphyry 20; and I 17, 1–6 from Porphyry 29, but Hephaestio cites Porphyry from his commentary on Ptolemy's' Αποτελεσματικά only in II 10, 23–27 and II 18, 15. Since these passages do not occur in Porphyry's Εἰσαγωγή, that work, as its contents also show, is not a commentary on Ptolemy despite its title and preface.

  40. See his scholium or scholia on Porphyry 30 and D. Pingree, “The Horoscope of Constantinople”, in Πρίσματα.Naturwissenschaftsgeschichtliche Studien. Festschrift für W. Hartner, ed. Y. Maeyama and W. G. Saltzer, Wiesbaden 1977, pp. 305–315 (306–308).

  41. E. Boer,Pauli Alexandrini Elementa apotelesmatica, Leipzig 1958, in which edition the unusual readings ofR are cited under the siglumY.

  42. VI 40, 9–15 inR, though ascribed to Heliodorus, are found in Olympiodorus' commentary (ed. E. Boer,Heliodori, ut dicitur, in Paulum Alexandrinum commentarium, Leipzig 1962), on pp. 138–142. VI 5 is entitled: Σχόλια εἰς τὸν περὶ χρόνου διαιρέσως ἐκ\(\tau \overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\frown}$}}{\omega } \nu \tau o\overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\frown}$}}{\upsilon } \) Ηλιοδώρου\(\Sigma \upsilon \nu o\upsilon \sigma \iota \overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\frown}$}}{\omega } \nu \), but sentences 1–3 and 5–7 are also found in Olympiodorus' commentary (pp. 127–128). But in the primary manuscript of the uncontaminated form of the commentary, our manuscriptW (Boer'sA), no author was named by the original scribe, though a later reader has written in the name Heliodorus. This attribution, however, is impossible since it was pointed out by Pingree (pp. 149–150a of Boer's edition) that the examples in the commentary can be dated between May and August of 564. The authorship of Olympiodorus was suggested by J. Warnon, “Le commentaire attribué à Héliodore sur les Εἰσαγωγικά de Paul d'Alexandrie”,Travaux de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l'Université Catholique de Louvain II, 1967, pp. 197–217, and by L.G. Westerink, “Ein astrologisches Kolleg aus dem Jahre 564”,Byzantinische Zeitschrift LXIV, 1971, pp. 6–21.

  43. D. Pingree, “Antiochus and Rhetorius” (as in n. 22), pp. 208–209.

    Google Scholar 

  44. D. Pingree, “The Astrological School of John Abramius,”Dumbarton Oaks Papers XXV, 1971, pp. 189–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. D. Pingree, “Antiochus and Rhetorius” (as in n. 22),, pp. 209–210.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ibid., pp. 211–212.

    Google Scholar 

  47. D. Pingree, “Political Horoscopes from the Reign of Zeno”,Dumbarton Oaks Papers XXX, 1976, pp. 135–150 (144–146). References to Pamprepius and the fragmentary remains of his poetry are assembled in H. Livrea,Pamprepii Panopolitani Carmina Leipzig 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  48. D. Pingree, “Antiochus and Rhetorius” (as in n. 22), pp. 212–213.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Ibid., pp. 213–215.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Στίχοι Σἰς δώδεκα\(\mu \overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\frown}$}}{\eta } \nu \alpha \varsigma \) (Lines On the Twelve Months) edited by B. Keil,Wiener Studien XI, 1889, pp. 94–115.

  51. This is derived from Dorotheus I 6, 2 and II 14, 4; see Dorotheus, ed. Pingree (as in n. 4) (Dorothei Sidonii Carmen astrologicum, Leipzig 1976), 325–326. Quoted on the same folio are several verses of Dorotheus: from II 18, 2–3 (pp 368–369) and from IV 1, 213 (p. 383).

  52. D. Pingree,Albumasaris De revolutionibus nativitatum, Leipzig 1968, pp. VII–IX, and Idem, D. PingreeHephaestionis … epitomae quattuor (as in n. 2), Leipzig 1974). pp. V–VIII.

  53. D. Pingree, “Antiochus and Rhetorius” (as in n. 22),, pp. 216–219.

    Google Scholar 

  54. See n. 40 above. See his scholium or scholia on Porphyry 30 and D. Pingree, “The Horoscope of Constantinople”, in Πρίσματα.Naturwissenschaftsgeschichtliche Studien. Festschrift für W. Hartner, ed. Y. Maeyama and W. G. Saltzer, Wiesbaden 1977, pp. 305–315 (306–308).

  55. Pingree, “Horoscope” (as in n. 40), See his scholium or scholia on Porphyry 30 and D. Pingree, “The Horoscope of Constantinople,” in ΠρίσματαNaturwissenschaftsgeschichtiliche Studien. Festschrift für W. Hartner, ed. Y. Maeyama and W. G. Saltzer, Wiesbaden 1977, pp. 306–314.

  56. For the falsity of the attribution see Pingree,Yavanajātaka (as in n. 10), D. Pingree,The Yavanajātaka of Sphujidhvaja, Harvard Oriental Series XLVIII, Cambridge MA 1978, p. 437. Note that Eleutherius was a member of the school of John Abramius in which Epitome IIa of Rhetorius and the revised text of Olympiodorus (ascribed to Heliodorus) originated.

  57. S. Feraboli,Hermetis Trismegisti De triginta sex decanis, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaeualis CXLIV, Turnhout 1994. These chapters constitute Epitome V; see Pingree, “Antiochus and Rhetorius” (as in n. 22) Classical Philology LXXII 1977, pp. 219–220.

  58. Pingree, “Classical and Byzantine Astrology” (as in n. 20), pp. 238–239.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Edited by F. Cumont in CCAG II, Bruxelle 1900, pp. 181–186 (182). The same text is found in manuscriptV.

  60. J. M. Millas Vallicrosa,Estudios sobre Azarquiel, Madrid-Granada 1943–1950, pp. 72–237.

  61. D. Pingree, “The Sābians of Harrān, “forthcoming in this journal.

  62. Edited by F. Cumont inCCAG V1, Bruxelles 1904, pp. 234–238.

  63. CCAG V1, pp. 234–235.

  64. CCAG VI, p. 238.

  65. A. Souter,Novum Testamentum Graece, Oxford 1962: ἄλλη δόξα ‘Ηλίου καὶ ἄλλη δόξα Σελήνης καὶ ἄλλη δόξα’ ἀστέρων ἀστὴρ σάρ διαφέρει ἐν δόξη (“The glory of the Sun is one thing, the glory of the Moon another, and the glory of the stars [yet] another; for one star differs from [another] star in glory”).

  66. Ta'ŕikh mukhtasar al-duwal, Bayrūt 1958, p. 24, and E. A. Wallis Budge,The Chronography of Gregory Abū'l Faraj, 2 vols., Oxford 1932, vol. 1, pp. 116–117.

  67. Katāb al-Fihrist li-'l-Nadim, ed. al-Hā'irī, Tehrān 1971 p. 310.

  68. G. Bergträsser,Hunain ibn Ishāq. Über die syrischen und arabischen Galen-Übersetzungen, Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes XVII 2, Leipzig 1925, p. 39 of the Arabic text. Concerning Hunayn see M. Ullmann,Die Medizin im Islam, Handbuch der Ortientalistik 1. Abt., 6,1, Leiden 1970, pp. 115–119.

    Google Scholar 

  69. D. Pingree, “The Indian and Pseudo-Indian Passages in Greek and Latin Astronomical and Astrological Texts,”Viator VII, 1976, 141–195 (148).

    Google Scholar 

  70. Πόνοτ 31; edited by J. Bidez and F. Cumont,Les mages hellénisés, 2 vols., Paris 1938 (repr. New York 1975), vol. 2, pp. 225–226.

  71. Πόνοτ 39; ed. eidem, pp. 209–219.

  72. D. Gutas,Greek Thought, Arabic Culture, London 1998, pp. 47–49 and the liteature there cited.

  73. Pingree,Astral Omens (as in n. 1)to Astrology, from Babylon to Bīkāner, Serie Orientale Roma LXXVIII, Rome 1997, pp, 44–46.

  74. D Pingree, “Māshā'allāh: Greek, Pahlavī, Arabic, and Latin Astrology,” inPerspectives arabes et médiévales sur la tradition scientifique et philosophique grecque, ed. A. Hasnawi et al., Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta LXXIX, Paris 1997, pp. 123–136.

  75. F. Rosenthal, “From Arabic Books and Manuscripts X,”Journal of the American Oriental Society LXXXIII, 1963, pp. 454–456 (455).

    Google Scholar 

  76. L. Cheikho,Agapius Episcopus Mabbugensis. Historia universalis, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium LXV, Louvain 1954, p. 369.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Edited by F. Cumont inCCAG V 1, Bruxelles 1904, pp. 233–234 (234).

  78. Pingree,Yavanajātaka (as in n. 10),. 2 vols., pp. 443–444.

    Google Scholar 

  79. D. Pingree, “Māsha'āllāh's (?) Arabic Translation of Dorotheus,”Res Orientales XII, 1999, pp. 191–209.

    Google Scholar 

  80. D. Pingree, “The Indian Iconography of the Decans and Horās,”Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes XXVI, 1963, pp. 223–254 (252–254).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. D. Pingree, “The Frangments of the Works of al-Fazārī,”Journal of Near Eastern Studies XXIX, 1970, 103–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Edited by W. Kroll inCCAG I, Bruxelles 1898, pp. 129–131 (130).

  83. D. Pingree,Vettii Valentis Antiocheni Anthologiarum libri novem, Leipzig 1986, pp. 135 (III 5 and 6); 142 (III 9); 193 (IV 26); 221 (V 7); 223 (V 8); 288 (VIII 5); 316–317 (IX 1); and 334 and 336 (IX 9). For the Pahlavī version see Pingree,Astral Omens (as in n. 1), pp. 46–50.

  84. J. L. Heiberg,Claudii Ptolemaei Syntaxis mathematica, 2 vols., Leizpig 1898–1903, vol. 2, pp. 3 (VII 1); 12 (VII 2); 17, 25, 28, and 29 (VIII 3); and 310–311 (X 4). For the Pahlavī translation see D. Pingree, “The Greek Influence on Early Islamic Mathematical Astronomy,”Journal of the American Oriental Society 93, 1973, 32–43 (35–36).

  85. Ed. Cumont (as in n. 61),“The Sābians of Harrān,” forthcoming in this journal. p. 235.

  86. OncAbbāsid history see H. Kennedy,The Early Abbasid Caliphate, London 1981.

  87. This lost manuscript ended its main body of excerpts from Theophilus' Περὶ\(\kappa \alpha \tau \alpha \rho \chi \overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\frown}$}}{\omega } \nu \) διαφόρων at VII. 1. Both manuscripts contain a statement:\(\tau o\overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\frown}$}}{\upsilon } \tau o\) τὸ κεφάλαιον\(\varepsilon \mathop \upsilon \limits^\prime \rho \varepsilon \overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\frown}$}}{\iota } \varsigma \) καὶ εἰς τὸ βιβλίον τὸ μαυρὸν εἰς φύλλον κ’ ἀπὸ\(\tau \overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\frown}$}}{\eta } \varsigma \) (“You will find this chapter in the black book on folio 20 from the beginning.”) (f. 82v L, f. 117 W).

  88. Chapters 4–7.

  89. Chapters 35–37.

  90. VI 1–3. Numerous other chapters in the Περὶ\(\kappa \alpha \tau \alpha \rho \chi \overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\frown}$}}{\omega } \nu \) are influenced by Hephaestio.

  91. Chapter 29.

  92. Chapters 17–23.

  93. Pingree,Māshā'allāh (as in n. 74) Greek, Pahlavī, Arabic, and Latin Astrology,” inPerspectives arabes et médiévales sur la tradition scientifique et philosophique grecque, ed. A. Hasnawi et al., Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta LXXIX, Paris 1997, pp. 123–136.

  94. Pingree, “Classical and Byzantine Astrology,” (as in n. 20), pp. 227–239, and Burnett and Pingree,Liber Aristotilis (as in n. 16) of Hugo of Santala, Warburg Institute Surveys and Texts XXVI, London 1997, pp. 3–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Edited by D. Pingree in E.S. Kennedy and D. Pingree,The Astrological History of Māshā'allāh, Cambridge, MA. 1971, pp. 145–165.

  96. Ibid. Edited by D. Pingree in E.S. Kennedy and D. Pingree,The Astrological History of Māshā'allāh, Cambridge, MA. 1971, pp. 166–174.

  97. F. Sezgin,Geschichte des Arabischen Schrifftums, vol. 7, Leiden 1979, p. 121.

  98. VI 40, 6; and VI 52.

  99. 99.Sezgin (as in n. 97)Geschichte des Arabischen Schrifftums, vol. 7, Leiden 1979, p. 48.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of the History of Mathematics, Brown University, Box 1900, 02912, Providence, RI, USA

    David Pingree

Authors
  1. David Pingree
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pingree, D. From Alexandria to Baghdād to Byzantium. The transmission of astrology. Int class trad 8, 3–37 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02700227

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02700227

Keywords

Search

Navigation